Klimaat en krant
3 februari 2011 | Scott Mandia, 'lector' in de USA, analyseerde de opiniestukken van de Wall Street Journal over het klimaat. Het viel niet mee. “They have an obligation to report the overwhelming consensus on scientific issues so that their subscribers can make informed decisions, especially when those decisions have great financial consequences. When considering future investments, WSJ readers cannot peer into the crystal ball if their heads are buried in the sand.”
Mandia ging de betreffende artikelen scoren ophun invalshoek en de data die er in gepresenteerd werden. 93% ervanbleek negatief te staan tegenover de breed gedeeldewetenschappelijke analyses op het terrein vanklimaatverandering.
Mandia concludeert daaruit: “After reading the editorials andop-eds it becomes clear that the WSJ does not like the SOLUTIONS toclimate change so they attack, misinform, and ignore the science inthe hope of avoiding or delaying dealing with the issue. A morehonest approach would be to accept and explain the science ofclimate change and then debate how best to mitigate and adapt toclimate change.”
Zijn analyse leest u in extenso
