BBC Focus Magazine

[Jamie]

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... stpop_read

[Flakkarin]

Against that, I strongly suggest reading this:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

Serious doubt has been cast on the actual expertise on climate science of the signers and on the accuracy of the content, here and elsewhere, and the strawman arguments and technical flaws of their opinion piece are evident to anyone actually versed in the scientific debate. For example, their op-ed has fundamental errors about recent actual temperatures, they use false/strawman arguments that climate scientists are saying climate change “will destroy civilization,” they launch ad hominem attack on particular climate scientists using out-of-context quotes, and so on. Formal responses are in the works, and will be available from a variety of groups in the next day or so. [Just as an example, as pointed out here previously, and at the Union of Concerned Scientists: the authors claim there has been a “lack of warming” for 10 years. The reality? 2011 was the 35th year in a row in which global temperatures were above the historical average and 2010 and 2005 were the warmest years on record.]

(Where it says "here", links are embedded in the article)

[Jamie]

Yeah, I was going to say there is probably a slight bit of vested interest there. Being a paper dedicated to big business!

[Shadowwolf]

I like this line where they rebuke the suggestion that many scientists find the AGW case overwhelmingly compelling, "Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."

Yet from the very beginning of their article they tell us that they only have sixteen signatories. I think, "nearly all scientists" is quite an accurate description, nearly all do whilst a few like their sixteen do not. But that's just the first piece of misdirection in an politically motivated article which goes to such hyperbole as likening the robust refutation of scientists against against AGW as somehow akin to being sent to a gulag or condemned to death in Soviet Russia.

We have the shock revelation that C02 is not a pollutant, holy stunning reveal Batman! Yeah, I uhh think we know that, you see the problem is not that gas per se, it's the volume and it becomes a pollutant when unnecessarily and excessively produced. I mean faeces is perfectly natural too but would rightly be considered a pollutant if in our drinking water.

Or that phrase the right is so fond of, "follow the money." Because we all know that climate scientists are just in it for the money whatever that takes which is why anyone goes into science, for the readies. Which is probably why detractors spend most their time doing real science by signing op eds, in courts and lobbying politicians. Besides, just where do they expect a great many scientists to get funding from in many if not all disciplines than government funding? Does that mean all of this research has a hidden government agenda?

Then they bring on a Yale - bit of an argument from authority that - economist who thinks that it would be best for the economy to do nothing regards carbon for the fifty years, because as we all know, economics is the first port of call when doing climate science.

Utter tripe with not one jot of actual evidence to refute what climate scientists have produced.

[Jamie]

In my defence, I didn't RTFA - the general tone indicated it would be ripe for discussion

[Shadowwolf]

...the general tone indicated it would be ripe for discussion

It does at that

[Doonhamer]

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/6447 ... each-lower

[Shadowwolf]

Interesting how the follow the money does not seem to apply to their "experts", nah, bias only exists where public funding is concerned or from people you don't like but industry funding is inherently impartial; especially so where Koch is involved.

Tis also worth noting I think that the WSJ is part of the Murdoch media stable.