Some of the most popular business news outlets are complete failures when it comes to climate reporting. If they get basic climate science this wrong, how can they be trusted on any other topic?

Recently, news outlets such as Forbes, the Wall Street Journal and CNBC have been in misinformation overdrive. It's not like it's difficult to get real scientists to speak to journalists. In spite of this, these news organizations have their so-called experts wax ineloquently on climate change, all the while displaying enormous ignorance of the actual science.

Let's take the Wall Street Journal which published an article by non-scientist Matt Ridley about the then not-yet-released 2013 IPCC climate change report. Ridley made a number of unsubstantiated claims which I then rebutted in the WSJ. Had he waited just a few days for the report to come out and then had he taken the time to read it, he might have recognized the errors in his understanding.

Take for instance his claim that the global warming from increased water vapor in the atmosphere may be offset by precipitation or clouds. This comment is absolute nonsense and reflects a complete misunderstanding of the topic. Here is what a real scientist, Dr. Andrew Dessler, says about this claim:

"This argument is rhetorically clever but scientific nonsense. While there is uncertainty about both issues, we nonetheless know a lot about both. In fact, water vapor is quite well understood, and, while there is uncertainty in the behavior of clouds, the evidence we do have agrees well with models that they will amplify the warming from greenhouse gas emissions."

What about his unsubstantiated claim that up to 3.6F of warming might be good for the planet? Unbelievable. What is more unbelievable is that the WSJ presented him as someone who is an expert in the field of climate science – but the WSJ neglected to inform its readers that Mr. Ridley lacks any expertise in this field and was writing about something he had never done any research in.

But the WSJ managed to outdo itself on September 24th with an article by yet another nonsensical non-scientist – Donna Laframboise. What is Ms. Laframboise's expertise? Well, she may be a good photographer (go here to book her from your next party!), but she is not a scientist. A literature search on her name on October 1, 2013, turned up… you guessed it – nothing. Ms. Laframboise has a checkered past described here, and her poor reporting is described here. This hasn't stopped her from using her blog to attack reputable scientists and respected environmental reporters. But her past sheds some light on her present writing.

In June 2009, in response to a defamation suit against her, the National Post in Canada had to provide a full written retraction and a financial settlement in excess of $100,000 for an article she had written about Dr. Ferrel Christensen. I was surprised by the egregiousness of the charges (described on this site). Links to the lawsuit materials are included which, along with my communication with Dr. Christensen, verified the claims on the site. I wrote to both Ms. Laframboise and the National Post asking for verification that the retraction and settlement had, in fact, occurred. I never received a response.

But it isn't just the Wall Street Journal. Other supposedly reputable institutions similarly mislead their audiences; CNBC is a prime example. Media Matters reported on that channel's dismissive coverage of climate change. Similarly, Forbes relies on the Heartland Institute's James Taylor (also not a scientist) to report on climate change. How bad is the Forbes reporting? Well, in an August 2012 interview, I correctly stated that in a warming world, hurricane intensity can increase and these increases are being observed. Also, rainfall, storm surge, and storm size can be affected.

In response, Mr. Taylor attacked me and discussed the frequency of landfalling U.S. hurricanes, as if the two were the same. Obviously, he either misunderstood my comments or does not have the knowledge to interpret them. When I asked for the right to rebut Mr. Taylor, what did I hear? Crickets…. Did Forbes feel even a bit embarrassed when just over a month later, Superstorm Sandy hit the U.S. coast, causing approximately $65 billion in damage? Do they feel embarrassed now that the newly released IPCC report supports me, not their non-scientist Mr. Taylor? Perhaps we will never know.

What is the point of all of this? First, these organizations, if they are serious about providing their readers with accurate information, must set a higher standard. Right now, their climate science standard appears to be set at zero. Zero experience from their contributors. Zero research publications. Zero science background. Zero. Why can't they get real scientists to write for them? Why can't they present real science their readers are eager to understand as they try to make decisions about the business challenges of a changing climate?

Perhaps it is because there are so few reputable scientists left who still have their heads in the sand on climate change. All that remain are former or retired scientists who typically work in other disciplines. But even these worn-out voices are beginning to cede the science. They know that they are wrong, and have been wrong for decades.

In their stead, the only ones left are the Matt Ridleys, Donna Laframboises, and James Taylors of the world. Perhaps these organizations are afraid that if they get real and reputable scientists to write for them, their thread-bare ideological slant will be exposed.

So the real message here is for the readers of these organizations' publications. If you want to be misled, if you don't mind having information misinterpreted or withheld, then continue to peruse these sites. Readers should expect high standards of reporting on financial or economic news. They should expect a similarly high standard on science reporting.

• This article was amended on 21 November 2013 to correct 3.6C to 3.6F