Tag Archives: Wall Street Journal

June 25th, 1996 – Wall Street Journal finally publishes Ben Santer’s letter

The second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was released in 1995-6.  It was attacked by the denialists and the fossil-fuel lobby, in part because momentum was building for an international treaty to not just stabilise emissions, but reduce them.  The narrative that the denialists chose was that one scientist, Ben Santer, had somehow taken over the process and edited out all uncertainties.  This was nonsense of course, but nonsense that the Wall Street Journal was happy to print.  Santer tried to respond-

Santer immediately drafted a letter to the [Wall Street] Journal, which forty of the other IPCC lead authors signed. Santer explained what had happened, how he had been instructed by Houghton to make the changes, and why the changes were late in coming. At first the Journal wouldn’t publish it. After three tries, Santer finally got a call from the Journal’s letters editor and the letter was finally published on June 25. Santer’s reply had been heavily edited, and the names of the forty other cosigners deleted.

Oreskes and Conway, 2010 Page 208

The denialism continues down unto this day, almost 20 years later. There are some serious design flaws in the human species. Oh well.

Also on this day
The peak in articles in June 2008 is partly due to a Shell-sponsored CCS supplement in the Guardian on 25 June which contained 14-articles, all focusing on CCS.
Page 234 of Mander et al (2013)

June 12th, 1996- Denialists attack IPCC and Ben Santer in Wall Street Journal

Frederick Seitz, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed [A Major Deception on Global Warming] complained that alterations made to Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report were made to “deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming.” Similar charges were made by the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a consortium of industry interests; specifically, they accused Santer of “scientific cleansing.”[6]

The whole sordid story of how the Wall Street Journal then refused to publish a letter from Bert Bolin et al in full makes you weep.  The denialist attacks were ‘successful’ but began to raise the costs of remaining within the Global Climate Coalition, and within five years it would be dead.  But not a real problem for them, since it was a case of ‘mission accomplished’ – they’d killed the idea of rich nations agreeing to cut their emissions, and bought more (profitable) time for oil, coal and gas….

As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.

March 12, 1974 “Clean Coal” advert appears in Wall Street Journal

Before the adjectives “clean” and “advanced” were needed to provide a climate fig-leaf for Big Coal, they were routinely used for issues such as sulphur emissions and mercury.  This is a corking example from 1974.


Other things that happened on this day

2007 Telegraph reports “Scientists threatened for ‘climate denial’”: Does the plot thin? Isn’t it lovely to play victim…


As ever, see the disclaimers, help the project and comments policy.