« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
In New Column, Will Sticks To His Guns On Global Warming
Just when we thought we were out, they pull us back in.
We thought we were done with the topic of George Will and climate change. But now we've gotten an advanced look at Will's latest column, set to run tomorrow in the Washington Post and in syndication. And it amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother -- including us.
Will's new effort is framed as a response to a New York Times story, by science reporter Andrew Revkin, from earlier this week, which asserted that Will's earlier column, published February 15, was guilty of "inaccuracies and overstatements," in the view of experts. (That Revkin story itself provoked some blogospheric ire by equating Will's out-and-out distortions with some minor exaggerations on the other side by Al Gore -- but that's a whole other story.)
In the new column, Will makes two central claims, one directed narrowly at Revkin, the other more broadly at critics of the February 15 column.
First, he suggests that Revkin is guilty of sloppy journalism, noting that the Times writer doesn't name the experts who judged the February 15 column inaccurate, and adding that Revkin contacted him for comment only late in the afternoon of the day before his story ran.
Revkin didn't immediately respond to an email from TPMmuckraker seeking a response to those charges.
Second, Will stands by the substance of the February 15 column, maintaining, in the case of the key factual dispute, that he had accurately reported the findings of a respected climate research center on the question of sea-ice levels. Though the center has since put out a statement disavowing Will's use of its data, Will claims that last month it posted confirmation of that very data on its web site -- and, getting all bloggy, includes a link.
We'll leave it to others to parse the finer points of this defense -- though it's immediately noticeable that Will doesn't mention that the center's confirmation of its findings notes that the data concerns global sea ice levels, rather than northern hemispheric levels. Global levels, it says, "may not be the most relevant indicator."
But after Will and Post editorial page editor Fred Hiatt declined to answer TPMmuckraker's questions about the column -- leaving that task to the paper's ombudsman, who cited the paper's "multi-layer editing process" -- it's certainly intriguing that Will has chosen to wade back into the muck.
Josh
Zachary
I take it that he doesn't try to defend his extremely dishonest use of selective quotes to make the case that climate scientists used to be equally alarmed about global cooling as they are now about global warming?
February 26, 2009 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would like to see Will write a paper for a refereed journal on climate. He can try to get his data, methods, statistics, conclusions past reputable editors.
He then would present his results at a conference attended by scientists, experts in the field. He then would take questions from the other attendees.
I have seen this attempted - a guy with a new theory insisted on presenting his ideas ( about physics ) to an audience including a Nobel prize winner. He was cut to pieces and humiliated; he left his job; he moved away.
Will can pontificate all day about baseball - but can he play in the big leagues ? Ridiculous charlatan, he is.
February 27, 2009 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you going to believe, George Will, or the world's top environmental scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
http://www.ipcc.ch/
The sad part is that it's not an obvious choice for Fred Hiatt of WaPo and so many dogmatic conservative Americans.
February 27, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would add that the funders of this fake science know it is fake !
Exxon, for example,one of the main funders of fake science : their scientists know about climate change. The search for oil requires an understanding of how sea levels have risen and fallen in the past, and how the climate changes through time, and how plants and animals live in their habitats.
Exxon and the other funders of fake science are not waving bibles.
They hire 'thank you for smoking' type agents to make it look like there is a debate. Sophistry, lobbying, prevaricating, squid ink - call it whatever you want.
February 27, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually he did in the new column, at least the way I read it. It isn't a particularly well written column and at times is a bit difficult to follow.
February 27, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess he has not read this recent story
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090225/ap_on_sc/un_un_warming_antarctic
Things continue to look worse with each bit of new research.
February 26, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sound like we should stop researching global warming, maybe it will stop getting worse.
February 27, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In all fairness, I haven't read Will's original column, nor his subsequent one, but I did look at the link (posted above) that's supposed to be in his new column coming out tomorrow. I didn't see anything that would fit into any larger narrative set to question global warming. According to the link, today's levels of global sea ice are similar to those of the late 1970s, but that finding is actually consistent with other trends in global warming. The author(s) explain that sea ice in the Norther hemisphere is shrinking (about 1 million square kilometers less than in the late 1970s), but that this has been in some ways off-set by increasing sea ice in the Southern hemisphere. To take this at face value is a mistake though. As the author(s) states sea ice in the Southern hemisphere has increased because of the added moisture in the air due increasing sea evaporation from greater green house emissions (see the link within the link) which then turns into snow in the Southern Hemisphere (and perhaps rain elsewhere, but that's my guess), and is really more of a temporary phenomenon. The link also said that the ice in the Arctic Ocean is much newer and therefore thinner than in years past, another indicator of global warming.
February 26, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's the point: Will did take it at face value, and at least implied that global warming was no more a serious threat than the global cooling that he claimed everyone was in such a dither about in the 1970s. (All of his citations for the latter, of course, were from the popular press; he cited no actual scientific studies that predicted global cooling, just noted that "some disputed that the 'cooling trend' could result in 'a return to another ice age'".)
In that context, here is what he said about sea ice levels:
Now, he doesn't actually say that this proves that global warming is bunk, but the derisive tone of his column makes it clear that is what he thinks. He does actually refer to global warming as a "hypothetical calamity" and goes on to claim that the UN World Meterological Organization said there had been "no recorded global warming for more than a decade," a (willful?) misinterpretation of what they actually said.
February 26, 2009 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't actually think that; he knows better. He is knowingly lying.
That is how Republicans/"conservatives" get at the truth -- with pitchforks.
February 27, 2009 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please write the WaPo editorial board with your comments at:
Editor Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071
202 334 6000 editorial department
Clearly, if I wrote a column supporting slavery, it wouldn't be published. So why do they support this ridiculousness?
February 26, 2009 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their credibility is at stake: they publish this guy without fact-checking, and have done so for years. They're invested in his credibility -- except he hasn't any. So they're on the defensive.
February 27, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If GWillie gets any more obtuse he'll have to change his name to Jonah Goldberg. Or is that the other way around?
February 26, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh, didn't I read just today in my paper a story about how the glaciers in Antarctica were melting at a higher rate/speed than previously believed......Hah! I'm waiting for someone to actually use any George Will "climate columns" as fodder for an argument.
Waiting in ambush....
February 26, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"We'll leave it to others to parse the finer points of this defense." Um, lame. The finer points are the point. You cared about the finer points before. Now? I'm ideologically aligned and this is an issue I care about, but it's beyond lame to all of the sudden be out of the details when Will comes with a response. Embarrassing for TPM.
February 26, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Better make it a decaf.
February 26, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's make this plain and simple: Will is a coward and a liar. No ifs, ands or buts about it. It is quite simple for him to contact and speak directly to actual climate scientists rather than "report" (actually "lie") about information that he has obtained and purposely misinterpreted. Science is debated through the scientific method which includes peer review and conferences. The idea that Will thinks he knows something that literally thousands of climate scientists do not is the height of arrogance and anti-science, dumb-downed ignorance. And it is not a matter of "opinion"...the science is clear. Patrick Moynahan said "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts". Will thinks facts are irrelevant. It is absolutely wrong for him to be pontificating on a topic of which he knows nothing. And it is inexcusable for the Post to publish such anti-science crap.
February 26, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dumb as a sack of hammers, and the worst part is it is intentional.
February 26, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, it's not like i've got anything else to cover, pourmecoffee.
February 26, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great response, Zachary. I'll note for the future that TPM may or may not have time to cover the details of its stories and not to hassle you because you are busy.
February 26, 2009 5:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What part of the headline or lede of this article led you to believe that you should expect a complete, detailed debunking of Will's latest column, Pourme? Generally speaking, you don't debunk unpublished work. This article makes note of the fact that George Will has decided to defend an earlier debunked piece of work and will do so in tomorrow's paper. Seems like that is what the headline and lede promise and that is what is delivered here.
February 26, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The part where he links to what Will claims is a confirmation of his view and then completely excuses TPM from commenting on it.
February 26, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guys like Will are everywhere. They always think they know more than the guy actually doing the job they are advising on. He's an idiot, or at least a low grade moron.
February 26, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
But gosh I have this article listing all sorts of links that the globe is COOLING now....
And this one about how the Arctic ice has been undercounted due to satellite sensor drift.
The real truth is that there is little hard science, and this has become an article of faith for the left. Like a religion. Not provable, but it sounds good.
February 26, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. Links from Jim Inhofe's blog to carbon-industry-funded studies. And an article about a short term miscalculation caused by "sensor drift" in which one of the scientists involved makes clear that the long term data are unaffected. Well, you've sold me. There's "controversy" so no one can know who's telling the truth.
February 26, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter says;
heh heh heh.
February 27, 2009 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the laugh, JohnW1141. You get my vote for best response to this antediluvianism.
February 27, 2009 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think about it, what Republican/conservative has ever admited to being wrong? Any? It's like phobia.
February 26, 2009 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will says sloppy journalism. He, he he ehe eh eh hee hee he he he
That is rich.
Look, he can never retract. He can never "come around". He can never retreat. His job is to bloviate and blow hard until the darkness falls. Deny and obfuscate to the bitter end. He knows that. Folks like him know that. Most of the hardcore rightwing base knows that, they are all in the same position. Will's job is to give those types 'official' cover.
He is not doing this, necessarily, out of personal obtuseness. His whole social circle demands this. He thinks he is ingratiating himself with them. He thinks he is striking a blow for his team. He does not WANT to understand climate change, nor does he have any great curiosity or insight about it.
That is what all sycophantic white supremacist money worshippers do....grovel for the approval from the super-rich. Their number one goal is to BE the super rich, and if that fails they want to be patted on the head by the super-rich and given a pat on the back and a wink and a nod, assuring that someday they will have their chance to sit in the Big Chair.
February 26, 2009 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will is experiencing the perils of an inflexible mind. He formed his ideas in the mid 20th century and never looked back.
February 26, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Will is, always was, and always will be an ass.
February 26, 2009 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Will has gotten so much press and attention on this one why not go for another round- Isn't this case best approached with a DNFTT policy? I wonder if ignoring GW is an effective strategy.
February 26, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Climate Change -- What would Einstein say?
Here's the link to the National Academies, Division of Earth and Life Science (DELS) report brief on
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
Highlights of National Academies Reports 2008
The DELS report brief series are ones designed for an intelligent, policy making audience, not PhD scientists.
http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf
Page 5 is where the graphs proving global warming exist start.
In case you hadn't heard of the National Academies before, they are a Congressionally chartered non-profit (Abraham Lincoln signed the charter) charged with providing objective advice to government leaders, including Congress, the President and state and local entities.
If you have been in DC, their headquarters is the one on Constitution Avenue with the statue of Albert Einstein in front.
This is from the NAS.edu home page:
For more than 140 years, the National Academies have been advising the nation on issues of science, technology, and medicine. The 1863 Congressional charter signed by President Lincoln authorized this non-governmental institution to honor top scientists with membership and to serve the nation whenever called upon. Today the National Academies—the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council—continue that dual mission.
Earth & Life Studies at the National Academies enlists the nation's experts to address issues of local and national importance where policy meets the geo-, life-, and chemical sciences. The division's program units conduct a wide range of activities that facilitate communication among the research community, policy makers, industry, and the public.
Regards,
Virginia Common Sense
A Favorite quote: Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."
February 26, 2009 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
One by one McCainish behavior is exposing those we once though as somewhat honorable, decent, informed and trustworthy. Just as the "campaign" where John McCain outed himself and revealed the real John McCain and hence forth his image is now totally different from that of the one which we believe to be the real McCain. This week P. Jindal revealed himself to be the real Elmer Gantry disengenuous politician that he is; Santanni is revealed as a ranting drama queen that hides behind his wife's explanations, "too many too mention" revealed themselves at CPAC as doubting idiot Thomas's on Hawaii being a state; the creme of the crop is the once held high pedestle of respect that George Will was afforded for years by the American public. Will's stance in the eyes of millions of Americans has, just like McCain (ala Palin pick among other things), been knocked out of the park, insofar as trust, respect and admiration goes. It's one thing for Cris Wallace to dole out this misinformation; but, George Will, had some semblance of reverence (oh well, so did McCain). One by one, their true self is coming out. I lament that I am losing admiration for the few conservative figures that I believed were fair and balanced.
February 26, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will admit that I haven't investigated the topic thoroughly, and I may be unfairly critical of him, but even if I agreed with Gov. Jindal (which I emphatically do not do) all I can think when I see him speak is "exorcism." I mean, in a rational society, someone who believed in exorcism, let alone practiced it, would be a better candidate for institutionalization than Governor (or Congressman, for that matter).
February 27, 2009 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
In my opinion, George Will has never been that much of a journalist and had much to say anyway.
February 26, 2009 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Contrast the nonsense that George Will writes with what members of the American Chemical Society read in their weekly newsmagazine: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8706editor.html
Scientists - not even those in the big bad chemical industry - aren't arguing about this issue anymore, and they haven't for close to ten years. If George had any idea how totally stupid he looks, he would crawl in a hole and stay there.
February 27, 2009 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
A 14.000 square km ice block, almost the area of the Falkland Islands (12.173 sq. km.), has broken off Antarctica’s Wilkins Ice Shelf and fragmented into smaller icebergs reported on Tuesday the Spanish National Research Council, CSIC.
http://www.mercopress.com/vernoticia.do?id=16142&formato=HTML
I pointed out to Mr. Will that it's better to write this junk when koala bears aren't roasting by the thousands in Australia, and a 5,600 sq mile chunk of Antarctica hasn't just finished collapsing into the Southern Ocean.
February 27, 2009 4:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's one from the Audubon Society -
Birds' Movements Reveal Climate Change In Action
ScienceDaily (Feb. 26, 2009) — The northward and inland movement of North American birds, confirmed by thousands of citizen-observations, has provided new and powerful evidence that climate change is having a serious impact on natural systems, according to a new report by Audubon
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090220191837.htm
February 27, 2009 4:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Will and Fred Hiatt are deliberate liars. They are paid to deceive the American people.
They lie for money.
February 27, 2009 8:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I they lay for money, we'd know what to call them.
February 27, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will's columns are like theater or movie ads that selectively quote bad reviews: the NY Times or some prestige paper writes that a film is "so stunning in its stupidity, the only excitement in town is whether the comatose cameraman can keep in focus."
So they take out ads in 400 newspapers that reads: "Stunning... the only excitement in town."
I'm not sure the Post or its syndicate will ever take detailed criticism of Will's opinions on global warming (or anything else) very seriously, if only because those are all evidence that he is stirring up controversy, which is after all what he is paid to do and why they sell his column.
And I'm pretty sure they'd run "Stunning...." movie and theater ads, so long as the checks cleared.
But I'm reasonably confident that they wouldn't allow their reviewers to be used this way. So call 'em on THAT.
February 27, 2009 8:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't read his article, but he looks like the Pillsbury doughboy. Can anything good come of someone like that?
February 27, 2009 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it worth pointing out that Daily Tech, which Will calls "a technology and science news blog," describes itself as providing "hard-hitting and up to the minute CE, PC, IT and information technology news." Point being: it's not a science blog. It's an information technology news place.
February 27, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
On several occasions I've seen a reference to another time where he printed a provable "inaccuracy." When a person, Chomsky, wrote to the WaPo pointing out that the WaPo itself had printed the information putting the lie to Will's column (it involved whether or not Anwar Sadat had initiated talks with Israel and when), they promised to print his letter. Then later they called him to say they couldn't print it because Will was throwing a tantrum.
I think maybe the same personality defect is in action here so that he can't admit that he was wrong or allow Hiatt to admit it either.
February 27, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink