George Will’s shameless dishonesty about global warming continues. Will responds to the very tardy publication by the Washington Post of a letter from the WMO correcting Will’s misrepresentation of their data by again misrepresenting WMO data.
Does the Post read its own letters? Does it remember them? Do they think if you add the phrase “statistics” you can continue to mislead on the exact same point emphasized by Jarraud? Perhaps Will’s editors think if they put a link in Will’s misleading statement, it somehow makes it right. Did they actually look at the linked document? If they did, they’d find stuff like this:
The global average temperature for 2007 is statistically indistinguishable from each of the nine warmest years on record.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74Â°C, but this increase has not been continuous. The linear warming trend over the past 50 years (0.13Â°C per decade) is nearly twice that for the past 100 years.
Every time I think this sorry tale of fact-checking woe can’t get worse, it does.
So here’s an idea, Mr. Will: Why don’t you openly acknowledge your critics, and debate them, and explain to us all why it is that you think there’s a relationship between the 1998 record-which is only a record according to the WMO, not NASA-and the idea that global warming isn’t happening due to human causes?
Yet again, despite publishing a letter from the head of the organization that Will is citing stating that this is a misuse of the data, The Washington Post publishes his distortion. Clearly the Washington Post editorial board has not learned a lesson and are not interested in holding George Will to any reasonable journalistic standard.
Is the Post in the business of trying to inform its readers or does it just publish anything anybody writes? Does the editorial staff of the Post exercise any editorial judgment whatsoever?
I’m all for newspapers giving their columnists latitude, but at some point I wonder if some very basic, low level of factual knowledge ought to be required to propound upon a topic in their pages.
Will really should just avoid this topic altogether. For that matter, the Post’s editors should probably take a closer look at the column when Will submits items like these for publication.