{"id":401,"date":"2007-02-07T08:38:48","date_gmt":"2007-02-07T13:38:48","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=401"},"modified":"2007-02-16T15:48:45","modified_gmt":"2007-02-16T20:48:45","slug":"wsj-editorial-board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/archives\/2007\/02\/wsj-editorial-board-head-still-buried-in-the-sand\/","title":{"rendered":"WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report<\/a>, one small village still holds out against the tide – the Wall Street Journal editorial board<\/a>. This contrasts sharply with the news section of the paper which is actually pretty good. They had a front-page piece on business responses to global warming issues which not only pointed out that business was taking an interest in carbon reduction, but the article more or less took as a given that the problem was real. However, as we have pointed out before, the editorial pages<\/a> operate in a universe all their own.<\/p>\n

This would not be of much concern if the WSJ wasn’t such an influential paper<\/a> in the US. However, the extent of its isolation on this issue is evident from the amusing reliance on the error-prone Christopher Monckton<\/a>. They quote him saying that the sea level rise predictions were much smaller than in IPCC TAR (no they weren’t<\/a>), that the human contribution to recent changes has been ‘cut by a third’ (no it hasn’t<\/a>), and that the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was written by politicians (no it wasn’t – the clue is in the name). <\/p>\n

Even more wrong is the claim that “the upcoming report is also missing any reference to the infamous ‘hockey stick’ “. Not only are the three original “hockey stick” reconstructions from the IPCC (2001) report shown in the (draft) paleoclimate chapter of the new report, but they are now joined by 9 others. Which is why the SPM comes to the even stronger conclusion that recent large-scale warmth is likely to be anomalous in the context of at least the past 1300 years, and not just the past 1000 years. <\/p>\n

Thus on any index of wrongness, this WSJ editorial scores pretty high. What puzzles us is why their readership, who presumably want to know about issues that might affect their bottom line, tolerate this rather feeble denialism. While we enjoy pointing out their obvious absurdities, their readers would probably be better off if the WSJ accepted Jeffery Sachs’ challenge<\/a>. For if they can’t be trusted to get even the basic checkable facts right on this issue, why should any of their opinions be taken seriously? <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Enquanto o resto do mundo tem aceitado a conclus\u00e3o do \u00faltimo relat\u00f3rio do IPCC<\/a>, uma pequena cidade ainda permanece contra a mar\u00e9 \u2013 o corpo editorial do Wall Street Journal<\/a>. Isso contrasta nitidamente com a se\u00e7\u00e3o de not\u00edcias do jornal que \u00e9 muito boa. Eles publicaram uma mat\u00e9ria sobre as respostas dos mercados para as quest\u00f5es de aquecimento global que n\u00e3o apenas apontava que os mercados est\u00e3o cada vez mais interessados na redu\u00e7\u00e3o de carbono, mas o artigo de certo modo tomava como certo que o problema \u00e9 real. No entanto, como j\u00e1 apontamos anteriormente, as p\u00e1ginas do editorial<\/a> operam em um universo pr\u00f3prio.<\/p>\n

Isso n\u00e3o seria muito preocupante se o WSJ n\u00e3o fosse um jornal influente<\/a> nos Estados Unidos. Contudo, a extens\u00e3o de seu isolamento sobre essas quest\u00f5es \u00e9 evidente pela divertida confian\u00e7a que tem o propenso Christopher Monckton<\/a>. Eles o citam dizendo que as previs\u00f5es de aumento do n\u00edvel do mar foram muito menores que aquelas do IPCC TAR (n\u00e3o eram<\/a>), que a contribui\u00e7\u00e3o humana para as recentes mudan\u00e7as foram \u2018cortadas em um ter\u00e7o\u2019 (n\u00e3o foram<\/a>), e que o Sum\u00e1rio para Tomadores de Decis\u00e3o (SPM) foi escrito por pol\u00edticos (n\u00e3o foi, a dica est\u00e1 no seu pr\u00f3prio nome). <\/p>\n

Ainda mais errado \u00e9 a declara\u00e7\u00e3o de que \u201cno futuro relat\u00f3rio falta qualquer refer\u00eancia \u00e0 famosa curva \u2018taco de r\u00f3quei\u2019. N\u00e3o somente as tr\u00eas reconstru\u00e7\u00f5es originais dos ‘tacos de r\u00f3quei’ do relat\u00f3rio IPCC (2001) s\u00e3o mostrados no cap\u00edtulo (rascunho) de paleoclima do novo relat\u00f3rio, mas estas s\u00e3o agora fundidas com mais outras nove reconstru\u00e7\u00f5es. Essa \u00e9 a raz\u00e3o para que o SPM venha com uma conclus\u00e3o ainda mais contundente de que o recente aquecimento de larga escala \u00e9 provavelmente an\u00f4malo no contexto de no m\u00ednimo 1300 anos atr\u00e1s, e n\u00e3o somente nos \u00faltimos 1000 anos. <\/p>\n

Assim, em qualquer \u00edndice de erro, este editorial do WSJ pontua muito alto. O que nos deixa intrigados \u00e9 porque seus leitores, os quais presumidamente querem saber sobre as quest\u00f5es que podem afetar suas pr\u00f3prias bases, toleram um negacionismo t\u00e3o fraco. Enquanto nos deleitamos em apontar seus \u00f3bvios absurdos, seus leitores deveriam provavelmente estar melhor servidos se o WSJ aceitasse o desafio de Jeffery Sachs<\/a>. Se eles n\u00e3o podem ser confi\u00e1veis mesmo nos fatos mais b\u00e1sicos sobre essa quest\u00e3o, qual a raz\u00e3o para se acreditar seriamente em quaisquer de suas outras opini\u00f5es? <\/p>\n

Por Ivan Bergier Tavares de Lima e Fernando Manuel Ramos
\n<\/lang_po><\/p>\n\n<\/div> ","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report, one small village still holds out against the tide – the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This contrasts sharply with the news section of the paper which is actually pretty good. They had a front-page piece on business responses […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1,26],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-401","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-climate-science","7":"category-rc-forum","8":"entry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/12"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.realclimate.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}