I see that you have been following up on the George Will case. Perhaps I should comment on those threads. But in general if a columnist continually distorts the facts, it’s hard to see how his continued employment can be justified. The alternative would appear to be run caveats and corrections along with every column.

I would say the Washington Post is perhaps an exception insofar as they at least try to do the right thing, although they fell well short in this case. Not so with the National Post and Fox News.

And the obvious question is this: where is George Will getting this stuff? Is he on Marc Morano’s speed dial perhaps? I’d really like to see you address this issue.

It’s not enough to say where he *should* get his information – how about exposing where he *did* get his misinformation?

I would suggest:
a) There should be a lot more transparency concerning donations to think tanks and support of “astro turf” groups. All donations from corporations and corporate officers to these groups should be disclosed.

b) There should be 100% transparency in all “directed” donations to specific university projects. (Yes, some universities have such policies, but many do not).

c) Pseudo-science should not enjoy charitable tax-deductible status. A good example is the University of Calgary climate “research” project, where hundreds of thousands of dollars went to APCO Worldwide to produce and disseminate the Friends of Science propaganda film “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled”. See:
http://sourcewatch.org/?title=Friends_of_Science

Other groups enjoying charitable status in Canada include Fraser Institute and Frontier Centre for Public Policy. I’m sure there are many such groups enjoying similar status in the U.S. Such groups purport to provide climate science, but are clearly producing disinformation for political purposes.

Of course, such groups have the right to put forth their views, no matter how cretinous or ill-founded, but why should the taxpayer subsidize this?

Are you suggesting that the government should not regulate charitable organizations?

d) Science journalists have a duty to call a spade a spade and condemn this disinformation. I can’t understand your reluctance to do so. Don’t media outlets have an ethical duty to correct misinformation?

George Will in Newsweek, numerous columnists in the National Post, CNN’s Glen Beck and Fox’s Bill O’Reilly are among the journalists who have time and time again propagated misinformation on climate change. More often than not the respective media outlets refuse to correct the mistakes, even when they involve egregious factual errors.

A joint panel of scientific and journalism ethics experts should be convened to examine this entire area. That makes a lot more sense than Joe Barton’s McCarthy-like pursuit of Michael Mann.

“The antidote to disinformation is reliable information.” I can agree with that. But that reliable information should also include exposure of the sources and motivation of the disinformation.

I beg to differ — vociferously: Freedom of speech most definitely IS a license to propagate disinformation, or any other kind of information, as long as it not libelous, or the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. Tell me: Who is going to decide which groups are actually spewing disinformation? Would you have trusted the Bush administration to do this? Are you really suggesting that we trust the government to decide what speech is acceptable and what speech must be suppressed? Are you, in fact, really suggesting that we repeal the First Amendment?

The antidote to disinformation is reliable information.

I couldn’t agree more.

For responsible journalists that means investigating those responsible for the disinformation and exposing it for what it is. (And it means not taking blowhards like $5-carbon-tax Pielke at face value, by the way).

For the general public, it means refusing to invest in companies that support or propagate the disinformation, or using their products. Or the products of their advertisers.

In Canada (and in the U.S. too I believe), it is possible to donate to think tanks and other groups that spew disinformation about climate change, and receive a tax receipt. Why should public money be subsidizing this garbage?

How did that “bald, loudmouthed twerp” get on Fox? Who paid for the PR effort to get him there?

Tom you asked Steve, “And you think we’re in this fix because of bad science communication?” That’s not what Steve is saying. Rather, he’s saying that it’s time to call the phony science debate for what it is: odious propaganda in the service of corporate interests.

I’m all for freedom of speech. But that’s not a licence to propagate disinformation, and then pretend it’s all just a difference of opinion.

I’m not suggesting that we give up on the problem. If I felt that way, I’d stop teaching my science writing course, resign from the CEJ, and go hide in a cave somewhere (at about 9,000 feet, not far from a stream…). My point is that I’ve been hearing different variations on the same argument for 20 years: “If only we could help people understand science better they would make better decisions.” On climate change, I think this is a very simplistic argument. Even if people knew and believed everything you did, they would not necessarily feel the same urgency for action that you feel. I’m sure you know extremely well educated folks who know all about global warming, who care quite a lot about it, and yet they are still driving a hulking SUV. We’ve got legions of them all over Boulder.

HOLD ON A MINUTE! THIS JUST IN: My son just tuned in to Hannity on Fox News. Some bald, loud-mouthed twerp who sounds like he’s from my old neighborhood is saying that “these tree huggers are all America haters.” (Seriously, I’m not kidding.)

And you think we’re in this fix because of bad science communication?

“Third, we can reasonably expect to survive the coming disasters more or less unscathed.” Oh, that’ll work. Well, it works *now*.