Wall Street Journal Slammed for Giving Platform to Climate Change Deniers

Wednesday, February 1, 2012 by Common Dreams

In response to an op-ed printed late last week in the Wall Street Journal, signed by sixteen 'scientists' and entitled, 'No Need to Panic About Global Warming,' forty climate scientists have penned a letter, printed in today's WSJ, arguing that taking advice on climate change from scientists who have either "no expertise in climate science" or "extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert" is akin to allowing dentists perform heart surgery.

A letter from some 40 leading scientists, which the Wall Street Journal published, noted that 97% of researchers who publish on climate change agree the phenomenon is real and caused by humans.

Suzanne Goldenberg reports for The Guardian:

The Wall Street Journal  has received a dressing down from a large group of leading scientists for promoting retrograde and out-of-date views on climate change. 

In an opinion piece run by the Journal on Wednesday, nearly 40 scientists, including acknowledged climate change experts, take on the paper for publishing an article disputing the evidence on global warming. 

The offending article, No Need to Panic About Global Warming, which appeared last week, argued that climate change was a cunning ploy deployed by governments to raise taxes and by non-profit organisations to solicit donations to save the planet. 

It was signed by 16 scientists who don't subscribe to the conventional wisdom that climate change is happening and is largely man-made - but as Wednesday's letter points out, many of those who signed don't actually work on climate science.

Here's the full letter, along with the signatories:

Do you consult your dentist about your heart condition? In science, as in any area, reputations are based on knowledge and expertise in a field and on published, peer-reviewed work. If you need surgery, you want a highly experienced expert in the field who has done a large number of the proposed operations. 

You published "No Need to Panic About Global Warming" (op-ed, Jan. 27) on climate change by the climate-science equivalent of dentists practicing cardiology. While accomplished in their own fields, most of these authors have no expertise in climate science. The few authors who have such expertise are known to have extreme views that are out of step with nearly every other climate expert. This happens in nearly every field of science. For example, there is a retrovirus expert who does not accept that HIV causes AIDS. And it is instructive to recall that a few scientists continued to state that smoking did not cause cancer, long after that was settled science. 

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming. 

Thus, climate experts also know what one of us, Kevin Trenberth, actually meant by the out-of-context, misrepresented quote used in the op-ed. Mr. Trenberth was lamenting the inadequacy of observing systems to fully monitor warming trends in the deep ocean and other aspects of the short-term variations that always occur, together with the long-term human-induced warming trend. 

The National Academy of Sciences of the U.S. (set up by President Abraham Lincoln to advise on scientific issues), as well as major national academies of science around the world and every other authoritative body of scientists active in climate research have stated that the science is clear: The world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible. Impacts are already apparent and will increase. Reducing future impacts will require significant reductions in emissions of heat-trapping gases. 

Research shows that more than 97% of scientists actively publishing in the field agree that climate change is real and human caused. It would be an act of recklessness for any political leader to disregard the weight of evidence and ignore the enormous risks that climate change clearly poses. In addition, there is very clear evidence that investing in the transition to a low-carbon economy will not only allow the world to avoid the worst risks of climate change, but could also drive decades of economic growth. Just what the doctor ordered.

• Kevin Trenberth, Sc.D, Distinguished Senior Scientist, Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research

• Richard Somerville, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego

• Katharine Hayhoe, Ph.D., Director, Climate Science Center, Texas Tech University

• Rasmus Benestad, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, The Norwegian Meteorological Institute

• Gerald Meehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

• Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences; Director, Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy, Princeton University

• Peter Gleick, Ph.D., co-founder and president, Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security

• Michael C. MacCracken, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Climate Institute, Washington

• Michael Mann, Ph.D., Director, Earth System Science Center, Pennsylvania State University

• Steven Running, Ph.D., Professor, Director, Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group, University of Montana

• Robert Corell, Ph.D., Chair, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment; Principal, Global Environment Technology Foundation

• Dennis Ojima, Ph.D., Professor, Senior Research Scientist, and Head of the Dept. of Interior's Climate Science Center at Colorado State University

• Josh Willis, Ph.D., Climate Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

• Matthew England, Ph.D., Professor, Joint Director of the Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Australia

• Ken Caldeira, Ph.D., Atmospheric Scientist, Dept. of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution

• Warren Washington, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research

• Terry L. Root, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University

• David Karoly, Ph.D., ARC Federation Fellow and Professor, University of Melbourne, Australia

• Jeffrey Kiehl, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

• Donald Wuebbles, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois

• Camille Parmesan, Ph.D., Professor of Biology, University of Texas; Professor of Global Change Biology, Marine Institute, University of Plymouth, UK

• Simon Donner, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Canada

• Barrett N. Rock, Ph.D., Professor, Complex Systems Research Center and Department of Natural Resources, University of New Hampshire

• David Griggs, Ph.D., Professor and Director, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University, Australia

• Roger N. Jones, Ph.D., Professor, Professorial Research Fellow, Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Australia

• William L. Chameides, Ph.D., Dean and Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University

• Gary Yohe, Ph.D., Professor, Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University, CT

• Robert Watson, Ph.D., Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Chair of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia

• Steven Sherwood, Ph.D., Director, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

• Chris Rapley, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Science, University College London, UK

• Joan Kleypas, Ph.D., Scientist, Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

• James J. McCarthy, Ph.D., Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University

• Stefan Rahmstorf, Ph.D., Professor of Physics of the Oceans, Potsdam University, Germany

• Julia Cole, Ph.D., Professor, Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

• William H. Schlesinger, Ph.D., President, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

• Jonathan Overpeck, Ph.D., Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona

• Eric Rignot, Ph.D., Senior Research Scientist, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Professor of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine

• Wolfgang Cramer, Professor of Global Ecology, Mediterranean Institute for Biodiversity and Ecology, CNRS, Aix-en-Provence, France

Runaway Toyotas Caused by Driver Error? Not So Fast

Was the sudden acceleration that caused the major Toyota recall earlier this year due to driver error?
BY G.E. ANDERSON

Citing "people familiar with the findings," The Wall Street Journal reported today that "the U.S. Department of Transportation has analyzed dozens of data recorders from Toyota Motor Corp. vehicles involved in accidents blamed on sudden acceleration and found that the throttles were wide open and the brakes weren't engaged at the time of the crash."

NHTSA, however, says otherwise. "It didn't come from us," Julia Piscitelli, a NHTSA spokeswoman, says. "Toyota gave The Wall Street Journal that story. All I can say officially is, ‘No comment.' The investigation is ongoing."

Whether or not Toyota is eventually exonerated for the unintended-acceleration issue, NHTSA will not be returning the record $16.375 million fine Toyota paid in April for not reporting various safety defects in a timely manner.

"Toyota had problems for which they recalled millions and millions of cars," Piscitelli says. "We did a Timeliness Query (TQ) and found out that they had known about those safety defects—sticking gas pedals and poorly designed floor mats—for quite some time before they alerted us."

Toyota, meanwhile, has no immediate plans to release the details of its own vehicle evaluations. "NHTSA has not reported the details of its findings to Toyota and we continue to provide our findings to them," Brian Lyons, Toyota's safety and quality communications manager, said in an e-mail. He went on to say, "Toyota's own vehicle evaluations have confirmed that the remedies it developed for sticking accelerator pedal and potential accelerator pedal entrapment by an unsecured or incompatible floor mat are effective. We have also determined a number of other reasons for customer concerns about unintended acceleration, including cases where an increase in engine speed is normal, such as engine idle up, as well as pedal misapplication. In no case have we found electronic throttle controls to be a cause."

Sudden unintended acceleration is possible for a number of reasons, including a sticking gas pedal, floor mats that may come untethered and trap the gas pedal, a malfunctioning electronic system that opens the throttle and driver error. However, as Popular Mechanics reported in April, it is extremely unlikely that a car's brakes would fail simultaneous to developing a problem with its throttle. See this video for what to do if your car accelerates unintentionally.

How Bank of America Got Away With a Huge Swindle

If You're Going to Do Something Illegal in America, Do Something Spectacularly Illegal!
By DAVE LINDORFF

If you want to avoid facing a tough prosecution for malfeasance, be a banker, not a biker.

That appears to be the lesson of Saturday’s front page of the Wall Street Journal, where the lead story was about how Bank of America repeatedly hid its massive bad debt holdings from regulators and investors through a creative accounting device called “repurchase agreements,” and the second story, just above the fold, was about how US Food and Drug Administration prosecutors are “Casting a Wider Net” investigating the use of steroids by competitive cyclists.

According to the BofA story, the bank, during a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into the real financial condition of the nation’s biggest financial institutions, admitted that at the ends of all the quarterly reporting periods from 2007 through 2009, it had used repurchase agreements, or “repos,” to temporarily shed bad debt before drawing up and releasing its required public filings. That is to say, it managed to lie about and hide from view its weakened liquidity position all through the financial crisis.

Astonishingly, the Wall Street Journal article reports that this practice, known euphemistically in financial industry parlance as “window dressing,” is “not illegal in itself,” unless it is done with the intent of misleading investors. The article is quick to note that “Bof A said its incorrect accounting wasn’t intentional.” (The newspaper didn’t go to the SEC or to any independent source such as an academic expert or lawyer for comment on this laughable whopper.)

BofA, every three months, was transferring mortgage-backed securities briefly to a trading partner in return for a simultaneous agreement to repurchase similar securities from the same partner, once the required SEC filing had been shipped out in the mail. As the Wall Street Journal’s reporter Michael Rapoport writes, “The practice amounts to a bank renting out its balance sheet for short periods; the bank gets fees, and the client on the other end of the trade gets short-time cash.”

If this kind of thing is not deliberate fraud I don’t know what is, and yet the bank, in its statement to the Wall Street Journal, claims the “effort to manage its balance sheet” was “appropriate,” and that the intent behind the shell game was not to mislead investors or regulators, but rather was “to reduce the specific business unit’s balance sheet to meet its internal quarter-end limits for balance sheet capacity.”

How’s that for financial mumbo jumbo?

It would be interesting to see how well an ordinary citizen would fare, if he or she used a “repo” type strategy to hide half his or her income from the IRS (the equivalent scam might involve “donating” half of one’s income on December 31 of the tax year to an accommodating charity, and then taking the money back on January 1 of the next year), and then claimed that the fraud was “not intentional.”

But hey, it works for the banks. The article goes on to report that, “Apart from requiring more disclosure about its repo accounting, the SEC hasn’t taken any action against BofA over the matter. The fact that the [BofA] letter [to the SEC] was released suggests the SEC has concluded its review.”

Meanwhile, even as BofA and other financial behemoths get away with accounting murder, and are held harmless after their crooked dealings brought the US and the global economies to their knees, we’re informed that FDA legal bloodhounds are doggedly stepping up their investigation into illegal steroid use by US cyclists involved in the current Tour de France bicycle competition. The FDA is reportedly hoping to get some participants to turn in competitors who are using illegal substances to enhance their physical performance.

In this fishing expedition, the FDA, according to this second Wall Street Journal article by Reed Albergotti and Vanessa O’Connell, is not out to prosecute rank-and-file riders, but rather wants to bring charges against “any team leaders and team directors who may have vacillated or encouraged doping by their riders.”

Clearly, it is viewed by the US government as being critically important that the sport of cycling be kept clean of drugs, so that the Americans who watch the race from the comfort of their sofas and barcaloungers will know that the winners really deserved to win. But it clearly is not very important for Americans to know whether the bank where they put their hard-earned savings, or in whose artificially inflated stock they have invested their IRA or 401)(k) retirement funds, is cooking its books.

It is apparently critically important to know that those who encourage the use of performance enhancing drugs, thus undermining the confidence of America’s sports viewers in the validity of their viewing experience, will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It is apparently not that important at all that the people who caused a financial collapse that has pushed real unemployment and underemployment in the US up to close to 20 percent, collapsed the housing market, and put school districts, town and state governments on the brink of bankruptcy, be called to account, made to do jail time, or to perform community service.

The absurdity of this juxtaposition is made all the more clear by the fact that the FDA isn’t even able to come up with a significant charge to bring against the alleged dopers in its intensifying investigation of the cycling sport. As the Journal notes, “Federal investigators are exploring several avenues,” for possible prosecution, including “whether teams defrauded sponsors by failing to race cleanly,” or whether US Tour de France multiple winner Lance Armstrong’s US Postal Service team might have “misused federal funds.”

It’s the old story: steal a loaf of bread for a family and go to jail for years. Deceive national regulatory authorities and steal from a generation of pension investors and get a Troubled Asset Relief Program handout of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

How to Buy a Judge

Money Talks
By CHRISTOPHER BRAUCHLI

"No matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme coort follows th' iliction returns."


-- Finley Peter Dunne

It is yet another example of democracy in action and plaudits to the Wall Street Journal for coming to the defense of the millions of dollars that helps some states choose judges.

In a recent editorial, the paper applauded the use of dollars to fund the campaigns of judges in states that still enjoy the direct elections of judges. The WSJ (that enthusiastically supported the Supreme Court when it rejected Arizona’s attempt to level the playing field between the independently wealthy candidate and a less affluent opponent calling it “freer Political Speech) is also campaigning in favor of the notion that we are entitled to the best judges that money can buy.

The system of non-partisan selection of judges that offends the editorial writers has been in place in some states for more than 40 years. It first appeared in Missouri in 1940 and was known as the Merit Selection System. At the present time more than 30 states use some form of the Merit Selection system. Although there are many permutations, the purest merit selection system involves a commission that consists of equal numbers of lawyers and laymen and in many of the jurisdictions, an equal number of members of both parties. The commissioners interview candidates and then furnish the governor with a list of those it has found to be the most qualified from among the applicants. The commissions are to avoid partisan considerations in making their selections but the governor may select any of those on the list using whatever criteria, including political affiliation, that he or she chooses.

Within a relatively short time after their ascension to the bench, the appointed judges are subject to a vote of approval or disapproval from the general electorate. It is a non-contested election and there are no costs involved for the judge seeking retention. Campaigning by the judge, whose retention is being considered, is prohibited except under exceptional circumstances. The drawback to this system, the WSJ believes, is that the public has no opportunity to participate in the process in the most meaningful way-contributions of money. That is because there is no one to whom to contribute. The system that the WSJ favors gives money the opportunity to participate in the process.

One of money’s more amusing appearances was in the 1980s when the Texas Supreme Court decided a contract dispute between Pennzoil and Texaco in favor of the former with the result that Texaco settled with Pennzoil for $3 billion. Following entry of that judgment, wags observed that in one year the lawyers for the winning side had contributed in excess of $300,000 to members of the court for their reelection efforts whereas lawyers for the losing side had contributed less than $200,000. Only a cynic would believe that the contributions affected the justices’ decision, at least until West Virginia came along. Capperton vs. A.T. Massey Coal Company, decided in 2009, demonstrated that even the U.S. Supreme Court, a majority of whose members rarely take offense when money takes control, took offense.

Brent Benjamin, a West Virginia Supreme Court Justice, accepted $3 million in campaign contributions from Don Blankenship, the owner of A.T. Massey Coal Co. (Massey was most recently in the news, before being eclipsed by BP, when an explosion at one of its mines with countless safety violations killed 29 miners.) Justice Benjamin saw no conflict in accepting $3 million in campaign contributions from Mr. Blankenship or entities controlled by him and then, in two separate appeals, casting the deciding vote in favor of his benefactor. (A slim majority of the U.S. Supreme Court saw it differently and said he had a clear conflict and sent the case back to the W. Virginia Supreme Court where presumably Justice Benjamin will stay home when the case is again heard by the court.) A report by Justice at Stake discloses that in 2000 candidates seeking Supreme Court seats in the state of Alabama spent slightly more than $12 million. In 2006 that figure was $13.4 million and in 2006 the candidates seeking to become that state’s chief justice raised $8.2 million. Between 2000 and 2008, candidates for state Supreme Courts positions throughout the country where contested elections were permitted, spent close to $200 million.

In its attack on non-partisan selection systems, the WSJ concludes that although the system is intended to take politics out of the selection of judges, “the plan has in practice handed disproportionate influence over the judiciary to lawyers and bar associations.” That conclusion is not supported by fact.

In the 2006 judicial elections, business interests outspent all other groups (including lawyers) by a 2 to 1 margin. There are no published studies to suggest that has changed since 2006. Not that that matters to the WSJ. All that matters it that money not be muzzled. With the present Court its free speech is virtually assured.