Washington Post Columnist repeats falsehoods yet again
In an interview today, George Will seems to imply without saying so explicitly that maybe, just maybe, he was wrong when he falsely claimed — in two columns — that Arctic Sea Ice has grown to an extent not seen since 1979. But then he immediately distracted attention from that inconvenient revelation by uttering two additional falsehoods in one sentence.
Here’s the relevant part of the Q&A:
•Q: The big issue was about how much global sea ice there is now compared to 1979.
•A: And that of course was a tiny portion of the column. The critics completely ignored — as again, understandably — the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.
•Q: They like to pretend that there really wasn’t any hysteria back then.
•A: Since I quoted the hysteria, it’s a little hard for them to deny it.
So the sea ice thing was wrong, Will seems to concede, but let’s not focus on that because it was just a tiny part of the column. Meanwhile, can we just change the subject and get back to global cooling?
As numerous people have pointed out before, there never was a global cooling hysteria. Will can selectively quote any number of articles he wants, but what he says is simply false. Science writer John Fleck has documented this better than anyone else, in both a column in the Albuquerque Journal, and a scholarly paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. So, that’s the first falsehood in the sentence.
Then Will claims that his critics have “completely ignored the evidence I gave . . . ” Well, not even close. John Fleck didn’t ignore it, and neither did a host of other experts who documented how there was no global cooling hysteria. So, that’s the second falsehood in the sentence.
It seems almost impossible that Will is unaware that his assertion about global cooling hysteria has been proved false, yet he continues to repeat it. Knowingly repeating a falsehood? I’ll let you label what this is.
But even if Will were correct that scientists back in the 1970s believed the Earth was heading into an ice age, so what? As I’ve said in a previous post, scientists back in the 1940s thought pressures related to contraction of the planet were responsible for mountain building. By the 1960s, however, that theory had been disproved and a new paradigm had taken hold: plate tectonics. No one doubts plate tectonics today just because scientists believed something else 70 years ago. So even if some scientists in the ’70s believed cooling was on the way, where is the logic in the argument that this casts doubt on global warming?
Many argue that the Washington Post should censor Will. This is a profoundly bad idea. It would raise Will’s standing among the public, and the chilling effect of suppressing free speech would be a much bigger evil than whatever harm Will is doing to public understanding of climate change. (And I sincerely doubt that he’s doing much damage to that.) Even so, it sure would be nice to see a detailed article in the Washington Post analyzing everything Will got wrong — and continues to get wrong.
This thing has 7 Comments
There was a really interesting post that looked back at how many times Will has repeated the same global warming falsehoods. The behavior goes back years.
Equally interesting is the number of times that Will repeated falsehoods about second hand smoke years after the federal government concluded in 1992 that there was a danger.
So this is a pattern for Will. I don’t think that we should expect any changes.
Don’t forget that it was WaPo ombudsman Andy Alexander who ignored all but the sea ice issue when push came to shove, and that even that criticism was shoved into a short, obscurely-located sentence framed in passive voice.
Re censorship, what about the claimed layers of fact-checking? It seems to me that the issue here is the abject failure of that process. Note that Fred Hiatt tried to defend himself by arguing that opinion columnists should be free to be selective about facts (i.e. ignore contrary ones), but did not try to assert that it was OK for them to build arguments on straight-up falsehoods.
I would think that from a journalism prof’s POV the most interesting thing about this affair would be these multiple clear failures of internal process and the dishonesty and/or cognitive dissonance that they expose.
Uh oh. Just found my comments being removed from Keith Kloor’s wonderful new blog.
Let me try and reconstruct them here.
Keith, your concern over ad hominem is, well….feigned. See your clever “thin gruel” jab at Steve Bloom for further understanding. Also, the continuous use of the word “tribe” (your witty take on RPJr’s “your team”) to describe people who disagree with RPJr’s relentless attacks on credible scientists and climate science is equally banal.
If we belong to a tribe, it’s the one that can’t stand dishonesty, especially when it tries to cast itself as an “honest broker.” The same tribe that dislikes individuals who claim respect for the First Amendment, and then ban people who skewer their muddled thinking.
Thom,
I had asked you to refrain from using coarse language and ad hominem attacks. You still couldn’t help yourself. So then I deleted the most offensive comments and emailed you personally to tell you.
Keith,
You kept up with the inappropriate “tribe” meme, even after it was pointed out to you that your slipshod foray into social anthropology was really not working. You’re on the internet now. It’s not like writing for a magazine where the editor gets to pick which bits of criticism to run, sometimes with a counter from journalist.
Inverting the issue with phony jibes about “coarse language” and “ad hom” doesn’t really work, Mr. “Thin Gruel.” On a blog, you get criticized in real time. Sorry if you find that a wee soul crushing.
Back here again. I’m at home sick, with nothing to do but lay on the couch and surf the internet. The dratted flu.
Since we’ve been beating up on Will, you should know that he has a rather interesting column out today in which he makes some slight criticism of the the agri-industry and the Department of Agriculture. I call today’s column interesting because Will could have continued with the libertarian “free market, consumer choice, liberals just don’t get it” theme which ran as a subtext in his writing on climate change and earlier columns on second hand smoke.
In fact, Will almost comes off like some quasi-liberal with his hinting that government needs to make some changes in federal food policy. Although it could be that he’s just using the issue as a tool to make subtle criticism of a government agency, a favorite saw of his.
I’m not really certain why he seems to be ignoring the obvious science on climate change and ignored the science on second hand smoke in the past, yet seems to readily embrace equally obvious evidence when it concerns weight gain and diabetes, and the link between this weight gain and our food policies resulting in agriculture subsidies to corn growers.
My suspicion is that, unlike Big Tobacco and Big Oil, corn growers have not coalesced into an effective lobby that has created a well-oiled disinformation campaign. There are no front groups questioning the science on weight gain and diabetes. No scientists who are paid shills or third-tier researchers who pony up contrarian views about corn subsidies to get on Fox News or notice by right-wing news sites. No “Honest Brokers” digging through Michael Pollan’s book to try and gig him on some minor fact and then passing it off to the New York Times to get some press time and add “balance” to a news story. No “Honest Brokers” calling doctors who raise the alarm over increased diabetes rates “advocates” and raising concern that they are selling out their professional duties to “provide policy options.”
So why hasn’t the corn lobby created such a beast as “Big is Beautiful” movement? My guess is that the corn lobby is just one of many interest groups in agriculture and would have a tough time dominating the discussion on food policy. You just got too many interest groups with different views. Also, if the Dept of Ag shifts policy away from corn to something else, the interest groups still get their money, although the pie would be divided in slightly different wedges.
This is not the same with second hand smoke and climate change. On these public health issues, the science creates industry fears of excessive regulation and a resulting drop in profits. They react accordingly.
Steve:
I’m working up a response to your point about the failure of the Washington Post’s fact checking process. It will be a separate post.
– Tom
This thing has 2 Trackbacks
[...] Yulsman, CEJournal, George Will Unmasked, 7 March 09, Will can selectively quote any number of articles he wants, but what he says is [...]
[...] Yulsman has a reasonable discussion of this in George Will unmasked. Sadly, Yulman concludes: Many argue that the Washington Post should censor Will. This is a [...]