So, the Post doesn't have a problem with one of its columnists lying.

Very depressing to see the Washington Post lose credibility under Mr. Hiatt... and this has been going on for many years now. Hiatt might be a decent editor, but not of/at the Post. I see him as a very conservative, don't-rock-the-boat type that would fit in much better with a straight out conservative news organ, maybe even working for AIPAC or some other neocon organization.

Hiatt argued that, rather than trying to prevent Will from expressing his point of view, Will's critics should take him on.

Hi Will,

I'm here, at Hiatt's advice, to take you on. I charge you with being a lying putz regarding global warming issues. Your lies are well documented and need not be repeated here. How do you respond? [baseball analogy or diversion?]

OK, Fred, I'm taking you at your word. I want to challenge Will's garbage. Please give me a weekly slot, a standard Washington Post Writer's Group contract, and a national syndication deal.

Oh, you want me to submit something for free, subject to whatever editing and length limits you and Will decided are appropriate? And then you'll decide whether to publish it in your own good time?

Putz is too weak.

Fred Hiatt said: "And do I think it's somehow dangerous to have one of our many columnists casting doubt on this consensus? No, I think it's healthy."

If Fred Hiatt were an honest journalist and editor, I would argue with him thusly:

In fact, Mr. Hiatt, I do think it is both dangerous and unhealthy to have one of your columnists who has absolutely no relevant expertise on the subject of anthropogenic global warming "cast doubt" on the overwhelming consensus of thousands of scientists who have studied the matter diligently for decades, particularly when that columnist is a partisan Republican with a very clear political agenda of undermining public support for legislation to reduce CO2 emissions, and particularly when that columnist deliberately uses blatant falsehoods in his column. It is dangerous and unhealthy and a grave disservice to your readers.

However, Fred Hiatt is not an honest journalist and editor. Like George Will, he is a bought-and-paid-for propagandist for the corporate-sponsored right-wing Republican climate change denialist agenda, who is paid quite a lot of money to lie to his readers. So it is as useless a waste of time to argue with him as it is to argue with Rush Limbaugh (who is at least forthcoming about his political agenda, unlike Mr. Hiatt).

I am sympathetic with Hiatt's recently stated POV that opinionators on Editorial pages have the right to be wrong and should be able to put out Points of View worthy of debate. The problem is that this greatly conflicts with what WashPoCo is trying to get across with any fact-based, general reporting departments.

Here's a Solution: On Opinion/Editorial pages run a very prominent 148pt disclaimer like this: IDEAS EXPRESSED HERE ARE OPINIONS ONLY AND NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON RESEARCHED FACTS. THEREFORE, SOME STUFF COULD BE MADE UP AND NOT REALLY TRUE! THE WashPoCo IS NOT RESPONSIBLE! REALLY! IT'S NOT OUR FAULT!

This type of honesty should help them ride out this, and future, controversy. (also sent to WashPoCo for consideration)

The time has long since passed when we should extend any credibility whatever to the WP editorial board. They are infested with a collage of right wing crazies and Hiatt is an idiot to boot.

He is correct, it is healthy. But it is not healthy when you have to lie to have that "healthy" discussion.

That is the issue here and that is the issue both Will and his editor are missing.

I do love watching George Will squirm like a worm on a sidewalk after a thunderstorm. It's obvious that he is scientifically illiterate and got caught cut and pasting coal and oil talking points in his column. And now, like McCain, he's doubling down and going all Ahab on us.

Hiatt has a point, though. Op/Ed pieces are not scrupulously fact checked, nor should they be. Especially on a topic like global warming. I don't see how you could fact check a global warming opinion piece, except in the most superficial fashion.

Douglas Watts wrote: "I don't see how you could fact check a global warming opinion piece, except in the most superficial fashion."

In the case of Will's column, it would be very easy. Will specifically cited reports from the World Meteorological Organization and the Arctic Ice Center at the University of Illinois and asserted that those specific reports said certain specific things. So, all that is involved in "fact checking" Will's column is to look up those reports and see whether they say what Will claimed they said.

And when readers checked the original reports, they found that the reports DO NOT say what Will claimed they said.

It wasn't necessary to dig into the underlying climate change science and "fact check" the reports themselves to see if they are scientifically correct. All that's necessary is to check whether the reports say what Will claimed they say. They don't. So Will is a liar.

Douglas Watts wrote: "So how does an op/ed page 'fact check' an opinion piece which takes either position in regard to these fires?"

Again, it's simple. If George Will writes a column in which he asserts that scientific organization X issued a report saying there was no link between global warming and the Australian fires, then all you have to do is look at that report. If it says what Will claimed it said, then fine -- Will told the truth, regardless of whether the report that he cited is correct or not. On the other hand, if the report from scientific organization X actually says the opposite of what Will claimed -- if it says there is a link -- then Will lied about the report.

The problem with Will's column is not his ignorant, ideologically-driven, bought-and-paid-for opinion about global warming. Who cares what some second-rate sports writer thinks about global warming?

The problem is that Will claimed that the World Meteorological Organization and the Arctic Ice Center at the University of Illinois have said things about global warming that they, in fact, have not said -- indeed, Will claimed they had said things that are the exact opposite of what they actually say on the subject.

The problem with Will's column is that he deliberately lied about those reports, and that Fred Hiatt knew and knows that Will deliberately lied, but chose to publish and defend Will's dishonest column anyway.

It is not the job of the op/ed page editor or staff to fact check every single assertion or quotation or citation in an op/ed piece. It is their job to run a correction when a factual error in an op/ed piece has been discovered and verified.

I have been an op/ed page editor and, in addition to writing editorials, it was my job to carefully read and copy edit everything that on those two pages because I was ultimately responsible for all of it. In order to do this effectively, an op/ed page editor needs to have some knowledge of almost everything. If an op/ed says that Iraq is bigger than Iran, then the op/ed editor needs to know that this is false and correct it.

In the case of the first George Will piece, I think Hiatt et al. assumed that, based on past performance, Will would not submit a piece which contains such a glaring factual misstatement, so they felt no need to research it.

To Mr.Hiatt at WaPo, Did Mr. Will misrepresent the facts and/or the opinions of others? The problem for you, Mr. Hiatt, is that you are equating differences in opinion with differences in fact or the reportage of previously reported opinions based on those facts. In other words, drawing conclusions that were not warranted by the facts. This to me is evidence of editorial laziness on WaPo's part. Facts do play a role in reality. Definitely "bush league'. This sloppy media crap is equivalent to the careless treatment of facts by the MSM on the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Another episode that the MSM can be justly proud bearers of speaking truth to power. Wapo was there then, too.

Well let's take a look at some real life end-of-the-worlders where dissenters were shouted down by the pseudoscience folks. Rachel Carson DDT, Paul Ehrlich Population Bomb, GM Foods, Y2K, Avian influenza, WMD, Global Cooling, Nuclear Winter, SARS, Ebola virus, killer bees and green M&Ms. All predicted apocalypse unless someone paid some organization a lot of taxpayer money. All were proven to be nothing more than nonsense when the facts played out. Shrill and strident shout-downs are always that last frantic gasp before the facts drown them out. Even old A.A. Gore backed away from his "facts" when the real scientists called him out. Relax already, global warming will pass too. It will be replaced by another crisis promising the end of the world.

Hiatt is an idiot. Isn't one of the rules of journalism to present facts that have been verified, or opinion that is based in sound reasoning supported by facts. Hiatt is saying, go ahead and lie and let others refute you. So are we to accept that it is OK for newspapers to spread lies and misinformation, then sit back and wait for someone to come along and call them on it? No wonder newspapers are on life support. On the web, there is a universe of instant fact checkers. Perhaps that is why more and more people are making the choice of web based news reporting. Hiatt is admitting to a very low standard that most journalists would find offensive.