I like the factual nature of the study. The main thing that knocks this story down a notch is omitting WSJ's viewpoint on if and why they have carried so many climate denier viewpoints.

"97% of climate science experts and every international scientific organization endorses the conclusion that human activities are primarily responsible for modern global warming. An honest newspaper should reflect that consensus." DEFIANTLY NO!!! An honest newspaper has no obligation to "reflect" any consensus. On the contrary, honest newspapers share the obligation to present alternate views that may be at odds with a particular consensus.

This was an interesting/unexpected subject to report on. I like the contrast between the status/reputation of Wall Street Journal and the platform it is giving to so many people to provide false information to its readers. I would have liked to see more information about how information was gathered, and/or what constituted "scientific consensus."

On political questions of opinion, there can be some argument for bias from a news outlet that is known for bias in favor of big corporations and the rich. On questions of science, there is much more question when a news outlet shows clear bias in favor of a very minority position among qualified scientists. Especially when that bias goes to a basic conflict between the survival of our whole earth ecosystem vs. the short term economic interests of the rich and their polluting corporations. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

This is both a summary and commentary about a report that analyzed the science (or lack of) in Wall Street Journal opinions on climate change. As such, it is not investigative journalism but cultural reporting and commentary. It succeeds within these goals, but I wonder what sort of article it would have been if the writer called the WSJ opinion page and asked what they thought? Or, perhaps take a look at the topics in which they do integrate science to their advantage. In general, insightful -- now, where next on how to move past this stage...?

This pretending to be scientific story is just the author's opinion. The WSJ does not believe in global warming alarmism so not surprisingly their editorial viewpoint disagrees with global warming alarmism, characterized as the scientific consensus by the author. There is no scientific consensus and the evidence for global warming alarmism is very slender indeed. www.climateviews.com

This blog post has minimal journalistic merit. The author is unfamiliar with the state of climate science, and instead relies on political consensus. He therefore claims that articles were against the "consensus" but does not know whether or not they accurately reflected the state of climate science. Climate science is in its infancy and projections of future climate have very large uncertainties. Past climate is still being characterized to determine what the major factors are (what caused climate to be warmer a thousand and 2000 years ago, for example). It is likely that many of the "con" articles simply reported on these uncertainties (or on the Climategate scandal).

This is terrible journalism. The author doesn't know what he's talking about and proves it by making up his own criteria to analyze multi op-ed articles he fails to specifically cite. We have no idea what he's referencing!We are to take his word for it? Finally he quotes Professor Mandia who has been in the back pocket of the IPCC since the beginning of the global warming premise which has been proven to be bogus. Give me a break!