The difference between politics and science

The Wall Street Journal published a letter refuting anthropogenic climate change signed by 16 scientists who turn out to be engineers, retired meteorologists or scientists from non-related fields. The WSJ's letter was an opinion piece that included major inaccuracies and distortions of the actual science, if not outright lies. The WSJ thinks that by misleading Americans in this manner, it will serve their political stance, but instead it has caused a well-deserved backlash.

In response, 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable, but this time scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change as well as the need for improved and serious public debate.  This was offered to the Wall Street Journal who rejected it.

On this Forbes writes:

"The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organization. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation."

Above quoted from the Forbes article Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal.

So the journal Science, a highly regarded scientific journal, published the letter from The National Academy of Science members after the WSJ turned it down.

As the Forbes article states: "Read both, side by side. And understand that every national academy of sciences on the planet agrees with the reality and seriousness of human caused climate change."

• The letter signed by 255 National Academy of Sciences members, from Science magazine.
  
• The letter signed by 16 “scientists” in the Wall Street Journal.

For scientific expertise on climate change, our nation’s leaders should listen to respected sources of credible science rather than political rags like the Wall Street Journal.