The Editorial Boards Of The Wall Street Journal And The Washington Post Are In Agreement: 2+2=5

[ Nick Anderson; The Houston Chronicle ]

In Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal the paper’s deputy editorial page editor Bret Stephens writes, “The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years… Am I missing something here?”

Could be.

On Monday the World Meteorological Organization issued a press release stating: “The decade of the 2000s (2000–2009) was warmer than the decade spanning the 1990s (1990–1999), which in turn was warmer than the 1980s (1980–1989).” And also: “The year 2009 is likely to rank in the top 10 warmest on record since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850.”

NOAA also issued a press release on Monday, stating: “The 2000 – 2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.96 degree F above the 20th century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.65 degree F.”

Though thoroughly debunked, the “stable temperatures over the past 10 years” myth lives on in the minds of the WSJ editorial board and no doubt a good chunk of their 2.1 million readers, whose average annual income is upwards of $190,000.

Yes, we all know that the WSJ editorial page is notoriously conservative, and that the paper is now owned by Rupert Murdoch—okay sure—but it also happens to have the widest circulation of any U.S. paper, and a highly influential readership. What does it mean that this paper can get away with publishing something so wrong on such an important issue? Not to mention that Stephens’ piece is so loaded with comically absurd paranoia that it could easily be mistaken for something from the Onion—it even has a picture of Lenin in Red Square.

Not to be outdone, today the Washington Post published an op-ed by world-renowned climatologist Sarah Palin, the second time in five months that they’ve offered her a national platform to share her climate change expertise.  Palin is one of the few scientists in the world that we must take deadly seriously when she contradicts the findings of the IPCC with her bold assertion that “we can’t say with assurance that man’s activities cause weather changes.”  Gratefully, I defer to Joe Romm’s take down.

And in case you missed it, last Sunday George Will—arguably the nation’s biggest living blowhard—typed out some more of his typical pompous bloviations, peppered with gems like “faith-based global warming community” and “(postulated) consensus,” and “substantially diminished freedom.”  Again I defer to Joe Romm, who notes a few problems with Will’s credibility:

The executive editor of the Washington Post was formally with the WSJ, and perhaps that explains some, but not much of this embarrassment.  But no, there can be only one explanation:  these people are not mentally healthy individuals—they are incapable of processing reality.  And given what’s at stake, the word sociopath seems more and more appropriate.

Thankfully, much of the world has better grip on reality, and this Guardian editorial—printed in 56 newspapers, 45 countries, and 20 languages—says it well.