If you produce one more
editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity.
Not exact matches
The Wall Street Journal
editorial page has for years railed
against these scientific findings on
climate change, even as the global consensus has reached nearly 100 percent of the scientific community, including the reports commissioned by the skeptical Bush White House.
Who knows, maybe in another 10 years or so, the WSJ
editorial page will be claiming that they were never really
against actions to deal with
climate change but they just felt the science needed to be more certain first.
It's funny how the WSJ
editorial says nothing about the potential consequences of placing a losing bet
against climate change.
The Wall Street Journal's
editorial board has tried every trick in the book to wrongly defend ExxonMobil
against allegations that the company intentionally misled shareholders and the public about the science of
climate change.
As they tend to do from time to time in an effort to distract from the
climate science consensus, a group of scientists who are also
climate «skeptics» have published an opinion -
editorial (op - ed), trying to make the case
against taking action to address
climate change.
In the spirit of rigorous philosophical thinking and good science — has anyone on the
editorial board spent even 5 minutes reviewing the evidence *
against * anthropogenic global warming -LCB- and / or the newer «
climate change»? -RCB-
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/
Climate-Revolt-Worlds-Largest-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-
Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed «An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting
against the group's editor - in - chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an
editorial appeared claiming â $ œthe science of anthropogenic
climate change is becoming increasingly well established.â $
But Will's most prominent fight has been his refusal of manmade
climate change,
against the findings of scientists and the assertions of the
editorial page of his newspaper, the Washington Post.
While I agree that Muller's op - ed piece in the Wall Street Journal seems to be tooting his own horn quite a bit... But on the positive side, to have the Wall Street Journal
editorial page publish anything that is arguing for, not
against, at least some aspect of the scientific consensus on
climate change is a step forward!