People send me stuff. Below, there’s an email being circulated today by Gore’s activists. They are upset that the Wall Street Journal had the audacity to print a dissenting opinion by Climate Scientist Dr. Patrick J. Michaels. I particularly liked this passage from Dr. Michael’s essay:
Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that “Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find.”
No links? One of the panel’s four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia’s School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years.
Below, Gore’s people are having a conniption fit, “demanding the WSJ cover the facts about climate science“. Um, they did, just facts you don’t like. Even though most MSM just passed on the Muir-Russell findings without as much as a question, here we have Gore’s followers trying to silence the lone dissenting MSM voice in the USA. I notice they haven’t demanded that the Guardian retract Fred Pearce’s story.
So yes, let’s all send in letters to the Wall Street Journal. You can even use Gore’s own handy online tool to do it (complete with suggested talking points) or you can think for yourself and write a letter the old fashioned way, using your own brain. To contact the staff of the Journal’s Editorial page, please send an e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org. Short and to the point letters of 150 words or less get preference. The shorter the better.
It shouldn’t be too hard for WUWT readers to get a few more letters published than those being pushed by Gore’s climateprotect.org As seen in the traffic plot below, they got a heckuva climategate bump didn’t they? Heh. It makes you realize what a minority they really are if some unfunded nobody like me can kick traffic butt against Gore’s millions:
The letter from Gore’s followers is presented in it’s entirety and unaltered below, all boldings are theirs.- Anthony
Last week, a third independent investigation exonerated the climate scientists whose emails were hacked last fall — finding the attacks lacked foundation. That’s right: Three full, independent reviews have found no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists — and most importantly, affirmed the scientific evidence of climate change.
So you might think that any reputable media outlet would feel compelled to set the record straight. But you’d be wrong.
In particular, the Wall Street Journal has published more than 30 editorials and op-eds on climate change since November of 2009. All took the stance that climate science was unreliable, dishonest or questionable — or minimally unimportant. And unbelievably, just today, the Journal published another op-ed about the reviews, calling them a “whitewash” by “global warming alarmists.”
It’s vital that we receive balanced coverage from all of the media, and the Journal‘s actions matter. As Congress works to craft comprehensive policies to address our energy and climate crises, public understanding of this issue is more important than ever before.
A news outlet like the Wall Street Journal relies on its reputation as a balanced, unbiased news source. With your help, we can convince the Journal editorial page to give equal space to the fact that climate scientists have been exonerated and their findings remain affirmed.
Few news outlets in the U.S. are as well regarded and widely read among opinion makers and politicians as the Wall Street Journal. It has a responsibility to its readers and the American public to be fair and accurate on one of the most important issues of our time.
Balanced media coverage today won’t give back the precious time we’ve lost defending scientific facts that should not have been in question. But perhaps it will remind our media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, of their responsibility to the American people.
Maggie L. Fox
President and CEO
Alliance for Climate Protection