Should the Wall Street Journal accept Columbia University’s Global Warning Challenge?

Question

On July 14 the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial suggesting that the evidence for global warming is weak. In the October 2006 issue of Scientific American, scientists offered a challenge to the Wall Street Journal editorial staff.

Here is a quote:
“Many of the world’s leading climate scientists are prepared to meet with the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and to include in that meeting any climate skeptics that its editorial board wants to invite.”

Of course finding climatologists who are skeptical of global warming will be a challenge since virtually 100 percent agree that the evidence is strong. Even reports commissioned by the Bush administration agree with the climatologists. The only report sited by the Wall Street Journal editors is one conducted by three statisticians who have no background in climate science!

Do the Wall Street Journal editors have a moral and professional obligation to educate themselves on the scientific data before judging that data?

Bottom line: If the Wall Street Journal, or the Bush Administration, or anyone else wants to claim that global warming is not a serious threat, they will have to argue against the entire community of climatologists. If scientists virtually all agree that the evidence is strong, on what basis can newspaper editors, politicians, and random citizens here in Yahoo Answers claim that the evidence is weak?

By the way, here is a link to the challenge in Scientific American:
Fiddling While the Planet Burns:
Will the Wall Street Journal's editorial writers accept a challenge to learn the truth about the science of global climate change?
By Jeffrey D. Sachs
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D5C47-C124-1509-805C83414B7FFDB0&sc=I100322

Answer 1

OMG.
You mean that newspapers are biased? and have agendas?

Hard to believe.


(yes- of course they should accept the challenge. Let's see if they do)

Answer 2

They do indeed have an obligation, and lets hope they fill it before it's too late. That's kind of shocking that they still hold that view. It would have been tenable maybe 5 years ago, but there's really no dispute anymore. And, yay for Jeff Sachs!

Answer 3

yes,unless the are just bush administration flunkies.