A glimpse behind the curtain - WSJ climate science wingnuttery

First, a disclaimer: the Wall Street Journal's news reporting on climate science, clean energy and related environmental issues is and has always been stellar. To a person, the reporters understand the underlying science, are subject matter experts in each of the relevant fields and, when it comes to cleantech, are the lodestars of accuracy, healthy skepticism and a desire to understand the complex, cascading set of issues.

Then there's the Journal editorial page. The page is known for its unabashed defense of ... well, of its own quirky ideology. Despite its passionate pleadings to the contrary, the editors are not exactly free market purists - they favor rigged markets that benefit their ideology. They're also not exactly capitalists; they like profits when they're privatized, as long as the related costs are socialized. But one thing's for certain: they disparage anything that they consider "green" or, heaven forbid, "liberal." A chance to combine the two - well, that's fodder for a week's worth of material.

Usually, the wacky, unsigned opinions on the Journal's editorial page give little insight into the personalities behind these, um, "unique" outlooks. At least, that was the case, until they started recording themselves on video and posting it on the internets. In this sample, James Freeman and Joe Rago discuss Kansas's decision to ban new coal-fired power plants. The state's officials based their decision on the basis of the unreasonable carbon risk they pose to ratepayers - that is, the hidden, "socialized costs" the proponents, Sunflower Electric, want to force unwittingly on Kansas electricity customers.

(Brief related note: I first wrote about this likely outcome four years ago.)

Rago begins with the quickly falsifiable claim that "everyone agrees Kansas needs more baseload coal-fired electricity," follows up with how carbon dioxide is "necessary for all life on the planet," and generally gets more "creative" from there. Watch:



Ouch. Are these the men you want to trust with your economic future? Amazing that millions of Journal readers uncritically accept advice on climate science and energy policy from a couple of guys who are all CEED talking points, no cattle.

Oh, and Joe? That little claim that Kansas' decision is "unprecedented, the first in the nation?" Once again, the facts are heavily biased against your opinion ... California banned new coal-fired power plants two years ago. Heck, even Idaho has banned them due to negative health and environmental effects, and Florida's Republican Governor (that's your party, Joe) rejected new coal plants because they were too expensive and environmentally unsound. Texas rejected plans for several new coal pants in favor of investments in efficiency, wind and some natural gas. A half dozen other states have either de-facto bans, or are considering them.

But you don't have to go all the way to Kansas to find opposition to coal, Joe - just take a cab uptown to JP Morgan.

That, Joe, is what you call a "nationwide trend." But then again, those are facts - annoying little things, ain't they, Joe?

Amusingly, Joe has a history of being fact-addled - so much so, in fact, that even Hugh Hewett has had some fun at Joe's considerable expense:

HH: Joe, you’re 23.

JR: Sure.

HH: Can you be expert in anything? And I’m serious here.

JR: I think I can write a thoughtful article, even though I’m 23.

HH: That wasn’t…the question is, can you be expert in anything at 23?

JR: No, I don’t think so.

So next time you read a Wall Street Journal opinion piece about climate or energy policy and want to tear your hair out, take pity instead - Joe Rago needs all the sympathy he can get.