Perhaps there was a time when the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) could be considered a legitimate and ethical journalistic enterprise. Those days are long gone, particularly after Rupert Murdoch and his minions transformed it into a print version of Fox News. Articles and opinions that appear on its pages are largely of interest in what they reveal about the intellectual bankruptcy of corporate conservatives. The latest attack on climate science by Bret Stephens "The Great Global Warming Fizzle") is a perfect case in point.
Murdoch's News Corporation properties have long been at the forefront of the war on climate science. Thus, the missive by Stephens is not surprising. If Murdoch pays your salary, you damn well better the tow the company line. However, it is none the less remarkable.
First, the piece is remarkable for its complete lack of originality. Stephens presents the same talking points found in a 2009 column by George Will, even down to some of the central metaphors. Will used the stolen emails at the center of "climategate" to claim that climate science was faith-based rather than fact-based. Here are several examples:
Nor would they meretriciously bandy the word "deniers" to disparage skepticism that shocks communicants in the faith-based global warming community.
Some climate scientists compound their delusions of intellectual adequacy with messiah complexes. They seem to suppose themselves a small clerisy entrusted with the most urgent truth ever discovered. On it, and hence on them, the planet's fate depends.
Stephens flogs the same dead "climategate" horse and calls climate science a religion.
Consider the case of global warming, another system of doomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.
As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to make the seas retreat and the winds abate. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "climate change" when thermometers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.
What is the point of repackaging the same old sour wine? Simple. The annual international Climate Change Conference is taking place in Durban, South Africa and faithful conservatives need to be reminded that no truce has been called in the war on climate science. Stephens, the deputy editor of the WSJ editorial page took on the task, but could only manage to recast Will's talking points (without attribution of course).
The piece by Stephens is also noteworthy for its lack of integrity. Much has happened since a few personal emails were stolen and published in 2009. Here are several events that must have escaped Stephens. While prominent climate scientists have been repeatedly cleared of misconduct, the authors of the notorious 2006 Wegman Report to Congress have been found to have plagiarized content in at least five of their publications. The ever classy Wegman blamed a graduate student for the plagiarism. The biggest story is that the most exhaustive analyses of climate data ever attempted, funded in part by Charles Koch, supported the rapid increase in global temperatures over the past two centuries. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project analyzed 1.6 billion data points from 15 different data sets. It addressed every quibble raised by so-called skeptics over the years, including transparency, data availability, statistical methodology, measurement siting effects, and combination of temperature proxies. Here is a look at the BEST temperature summary over the past two centuries.
In short, the analyses vindicate previous work by climate scientists. Perhaps Mr. Stephens was too busy rereading the sacred text handed down by George Will, high priest of conservative objectivity.
One can hardly blame Stephens for following News Corporation company policy regarding the war on climate science. During the 2010 Climate Change Conference, a Fox News executive gave explicit directions as to how to spin climate science stories.
In the midst of global climate change talks last December, a top Fox News official sent an email questioning the "veracity of climate change data" and ordering the network's journalists to "refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question."
Besides doubt, the only other gun in the Fox News arsenal was "climategate."
Sammon's orders for Fox journalists to cast doubt on climate science came amid the network's relentless promotion of the fabricated "Climategate" scandal, which revolved around misrepresentations of emails sent to and from climate scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.
However, News Corporation's disinformation campaign against climate science precedes any stolen emails. Lauren Feldman and colleagues just published a fascinating study of cable news coverage of climate science in the International Journal of Press and Politics. The researchers conducted a content analysis of programming transcripts from Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN for the years 2007 and 2008. Among their findings:
Of the three networks, Fox News was simultaneously the least likely
to be accepting and the most likely to be dismissive of climate change (see Figure 1).
Nearly 60 percent of Fox News broadcasts were dismissive of climate change,
whereas less than 20 percent were accepting of climate change. On the other hand,
more than 70 percent of CNN and MSNBC broadcasts were accepting of climate
change. Not a single MSNBC broadcast took a dismissive tone toward climate change
and just 7 percent of CNN broadcasts did so.
Two things happened in 2007 that required intensification of efforts to discredit climate science by Fox News. First, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change published its third consensus report in 2007, which made the strongest case for climate change secondary to carbon emissions. Second, Republicans lost control of Congress, increasing the potential for policies that favored clean energy over fossil fuels.
Feldman also found an interaction between network programming, political affiliation, and views on climate science.
Interestingly, the data were not altogether supportive of the biased processing of cable news messages; instead, the evidence supported a model of direct persuasion, at least among Republicans. Although the negative association between Fox News use and global warming acceptance was stronger among Republicans than among Democrats, the positive association between CNN/MSNBC use and global warming acceptance was also stronger among Republicans. The former finding, taken in isolation, is consistent with biased processing. However, when considered along with the latter finding, it suggests a direct persuasion effect, in which the views of Republicans on global warming reflected the cable news outlet they watched, regardless of how well that news outlet aligned with their political predispositions. The views of Democrats, on the other hand, did not vary as a function of their cable news consumption.
No wonder News Corporation continues to churn out propaganda like the jabberwocky from Bret Stephens. The beliefs of Republicans are easily swayed.
Finally, the use of religion as a cudgel by Stephens is noteworthy. If climate science can be dismissed because it is a religion, then what does that say about religion? To paraphrase Stephens, religion is something presided over by a caste of ugly people spouting obscure ideas that defy falsification and its adherents are prone to corruption. Since Republicans cannot win elections without religious conservatives, it seems like Stephens is playing with fire by mocking religion. Yet, none of the 1500 comments to the column showed any indignation. Either religious conservatives do not read the WSJ or are incapable of perceiving the slight.
Can you imagine the reaction if the New York Times or Washington Post published an editorial that said something like this:
Consider the case of supply side economic policy, another system built around heaven-based prophecy and faith in things unseen.
As with religion, it is presided over by a caste of spectacularly unattractive people pretending to an obscure form of knowledge that promises to bring jobs and prosperity to every American. As with religion, it comes with an elaborate list of virtues, vices and indulgences. As with religion, its claims are often non-falsifiable, hence the convenience of the term "job creators" when employment numbers don't oblige the expected trend lines. As with religion, it is harsh toward skeptics, heretics and other "deniers." And as with religion, it is susceptible to the earthly temptations of money, power, politics, arrogance and deceit.
It is safe to assume that the News Corporation talking heads would be apoplectic with rage. Fists would be pounding on every megachurch pulpit demanding a retraction and the head of the heretic that wrote the inflammatory column. Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin would be organizing a boycott of advertisers. In short, all hell would break lose. Maybe the culture warriors are too busy fighting the war on Christmas to notice.
All of this nonsense would be a good deal more amusing if the stakes associated with climate change were not so daunting, particularly for future generations. There is nothing really funny about screwing up the planet so energy company executives can become billionaires.