Where the paper once debated policy options -- which reasonably could include doing nothing -- it now uses intellectually deficient arguments riddled with logical fallacies to debate the subject. The tone has gone from one of applying academically-accepted economics to undermine the policy prescriptions for dealing with climate change, an approach that is intellectually honest but hard to follow for those without an economics background, to simplistic arguments that are much easier to understand but are lacking in intellectual rigor.

Conclusions

There have been changes over the years with respect to how climate change arguments are framed. For much of the debate in the past fifteen years, the Wall Street Journal has staked out an editorial position as climate change skeptics, but its news coverage reflected balance. The tone of the writing was in general sober and professional. It is only in the past couple of years that a distinct...
[ View Full Essay]