Freedom of speech and freedom of the press means freedom to disagree (even if the opinion in question is stupid). I think it demonstrates a kind of integrity for a newspaper to allow its writers to express their opinions even when they are in opposition to that paper's "party line." Good for the WSJ. Boo on Stephen.

I have to agree with Monica!

It has been said that Murdoch is trying to take over all media to put forth his own ideals. This would seem to be an example of Murdoch doing just the opposite. Maybe he is just in it for the money like so many others.

Right, Rupert Murdoch plans on making the WSJ better. After he bought the Times of London (at the time perhaps the UK's most respected paper) and turned it into a slatternly old rag in which almost any article must be viewed with mild suspicion, I think Murdoch's got a tough job convincing anyone he's going to make the Journal better. At best, he might be able to keep it from turning to dust in his hands as the real journalists run for the doors. Watch the Financial Times invest some money and eat their lunch over the next ten years. On the other hand, as a longtime enemy of the Journal's repulsive opinion page, I am hardly mourning the paper's imminent decline. Those bastards are getting what they deserved.

There's a lot to be said about Bret's article, but I don't find most of what he says fundamentally wrong.

The whole problem began with dubbing climate change "global warming," giving "non-believers" a chance to rub the noses of the "believers" into the fact that the earth's climate is warming and cooling in areas where it normally should not or would not.

The problem with climate science is that there is still a lot we don't know, a lot of prediction based on possible evidence and a massive amount of theory. Evolution is a theory. Hell, plate tectonics is a theory. We don't know, 100%, that the earth's crust exists on plates which fit together like a puzzle. But we can make logical conclusions based on the evidence we *do* have.

Climate change is much the same. We don't KNOW what's going to happen in fifty years, but we can make certain logical theory-based conclusions based on observations of past climate behavior. We can take into account melting ice caps and rising sea levels and the frequency of dramatic storms. Then we can make a prediction. But a dramatic climate crisis prediction isn't any more reliable than a Tornado Watch in Northern Virginia in the middle of summer. It *could* happen and the signs are all there, but it could skip Northern VA all together, never touch down, hit the Bay or the Eastern Coast.

Bret makes a very good point in that the "believers" of "global warming" tend to be morally elitist, particularly those who create mass media or new media projects. Look at Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or DiCaprio's "11th Hour." These films provide their viewers with a moral obligation to "do the right thing." They aren't looking at economic consequences, the impacts on modern human life, the charts or the figures. Man doesn't even seem to enter into the picture, and it should.

The "global warming" movement is very much a biodiversity extravaganza. It asks questions like "What will we do without the Orangutan?" or "How will we survive without the golden tree frog?" It does not ask questions like "How will a spreading desert impact the lives of rural Chinese farmers?" or "How will a disappearing rainforest affect the lives of women and children collecting fuelwood in West Africa?"

The biodiversity hoopla is important. I'm not denying it. But it is also a moral undertaking, and it shouldn't be. The theories shouldn't be an issue of what is RIGHT or WRONG to do in the face of possible climate issues. The problems should be addressed critically, defined absolutely, and solved efficiently. And in a critical thinking system, there is no right or wrong. There is no moral dilemma. There's no religious overtone, no berating of bad decisions.

Bret's a smart guy. I think what's important is to divide up his argument and address it with a critical eye, see what the real problems are, and how to solve them.

Many interpretations are possible. Could even be a disinformation strategy - say you'll do one thing and then do contradictory things, maintaining ":plausible deniability" in the name of "balance." That's pretty much SOP in some other media.

stephen's words are only opinions.... editorial page drivel...
it's no article based on fact...

& as the saying goes..."opinions are like a**holes... everyone's got one"... sounds like stephens IS one...

I would need to agree with Monica, except that many of the claims the article makes are false. Anyone who believes reducing your carbon footprint is antagonistic to economic growth is clearly not keeping up with any of the science or economics of climate change. The economic costs of leaving fossil fuels behind are dwarfed by the economic costs of letting human-induced global warming run its course. Meanwhile, the economic benefits of improved efficiency are tangible and immediate: less energy per dollar of GDP divided into the same total supply of energy equals economic growth. Beyond that, the available supply of nuclear, wind, and solar is vaster than anything fossil fuels have ever offered mankind, as even a quick wikipedia search will show. If only McCain could use a computer, he might know this as well. I'd add a smiley, but I don't know if it should be happy or sad.

Those of us committed to being green arrive here for very different reasons. Some do have almost religious ideals or at least strong moral opinions, and I respect and sympathize with them. Some make the choice to preserve the world so that their children will have a better place to grow up in, and as a young person myself I greatly appreciate their efforts.

But I want to live out my life in a world that is wealthy. Coming from a physics background, I can't help but notice that global prosperity throughout history tracks quite closely with the amount of energy available to mankind. The conquest of man over fire, the sun for agriculture, animal power, wind and water for mechanical work, coal, oil, and natural gas: these were the moments at which man's prosperity jumped in a short period of time. Nuclear should have been the next such jump, which would also have prevented both global warming and the negative health effects of coal, but that switch was cut short by the environmental advocates of a previous generation. As I was not yet alive, I can't be sure if that choice was misguided, short-sighted, or right for the time, but I think you can tell what I suspect.

The point is, if economic growth is to be continued during my lifetime and beyond, we need to both increase efficiency and increase the supply of energy. With enough energy almost anything can be accomplished. Need more fresh water? Desalinate! More food? Synthesize our own fertilizers! It also lets us automate more tasks so we humans can devote our life to more innovative, creative roles. Let the robots make my shoes and send the factory worker back to school to become an engineer, a scientist, an artist, or something else that adds even more value to the world.
We know the route to increased efficiency. better appliances, better transportation- and by that I mean more and better mass transit (whether public or private) as well as more efficient cars.

The route to additional energy supply is through wind (global supply: hard to find a good estimate, but at minimum, hundreds of terrawatts) and solar (supply at the Earth's surface: ~120 petawatts), with nuclear (6 times as much energy in the world's uranium as in its fossil fuels, 3 times as much in its thorium as in its uranium, and many times more still in its deuterium) to help these out until they reach price parity.

We as a species know that the solutions that will allow us to maintain economic growth for centuries without destroying the world and ourselves all exist. We know that most of the technologies to do so already exist, and many of these are already commercially viable. Unfortunately somewhere along the line our collective consciousness, and the politicians who get elected by catering to it, had its sense of reason derailed by lack of understanding or desire to understand.

I think Murdoch is mostly in it for the money. He doesn't seem to have a real agenda. I think he came up with Fox News to fill a niche, as most 24 hour news stations tended to stand at the center. Making a station that was biased and proud of it would definitely attract anyone who shared those views as most people are loathe to cognitive dissonance, liberal and conservative alike. I imagine the reason it isn't going for the leftwing is because A) There are more conservatives in America, B) The Democratic party seems to be made up of many different views while the Republican party, despite its big-tent tagline, tends to be more homogenized, and C) Rupert Murdoch himself probably leans a bit to the right.

Murdoch is probably in it for the money, but I'd say he's smarter than the other media moguls in realizing that he can round up and rile up new audiences by creating stations that are polarized and brash in addition to just trying to feed existing audiences' needs.

I don't think he really needs to tell his writers that they can't write articles like this. After all, the media in a capitalist society is a marketplace of ideas. However, it'd be nice if he'd give some space next to the editorial to an opposing view so that people would be encouraged to think critically.