Chris Mooney replies to George Will

The Washington Post has published Chris Mooney's reply to George Will's misinformation. Mooney corrects some of Will's false and misleading claims and finishes with:

Readers and commentators must learn to share some practices with scientists -- following up on sources, taking scientific knowledge seriously rather than cherry-picking misleading bits of information, and applying critical thinking to the weighing of evidence. That, in the end, is all that good science really is. It's also what good journalism and commentary alike must strive to be -- now more than ever.

There is also a letter from the WMO correcting Will's misrepresentation of the WMO data.

I don't think this excuses the Post from their obligation to publish a correction to Will's columns.

Mooney rounds up responses on his blog.

More like this

Congrats to Chris Mooney for getting his rebuttal to George Will published in the Washington Post. And kudos to the post for allowing his serious factual answer to an article composed entirely of crank arguments and lies (they also published a rebuttal from WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud…
Kudos to The Washington Post for publishing an op-ed by author, journalist, blogger, Chris Mooney, on the George Will WaPo global warming fiasco. Author of "The Republican War on Science," "Storm World," and co-author with Sheril Kirshenbaum of the forthcoming "Unscientific America: How Scientific…
Actually, Journalists do take some of the blame for the death of newspapers: But why is the business model dying? Competition is a factor, and blogs are obviously part of that mix. But again, if I'd started a business and someone else opened up down the street and offered a more appealing product,…
I'm dwelling on George F. Will's latest violation of journalistic ethics because it seems to have hit a nerve. Journalists ordinarily too polite to attack another journalist for fear of appearing biased and unprofessional have broken with their habits to call Will on his misrepresentation of the…

"I don't think this excuses the Post from their obligation to publish a correction to Will's columns."

No, it doesn't, and whilst it's better late than never it is disappointing to see a response published only when the storm has largely blown over. I suppose it does again demonstate the problems with traditional print media in the instamedia internet age.

Still don't understand why we couldn't have seen this earlier though.

The Post always prefers to first fill up its editorial pages with right wing hackery and then later on issue such regrets / incomplete apologies as it feels pressured to have to do before getting back to the all-important task of promoting more right wing hackery.

Mooney's argument seems to imply that good science and good journalism are the same thing. Why, then, do we have two completely different systems for doing the same thing?

Why, Sortition? Because we are merely mortal after all. To know that all is one, to understand the chaos of the daily world around us to be (as it is) mere illusion or maya, is for the giants who stride amongst us. In my own experience it has been only the great polymath Tim Curtin who has seen such things clearly, and look how he is unkindly mocked and sported with by the multitudes of his inferiors. Nature can be cruel, Sortition, my friend.