George Will
hrynyshyn | February 23, 2010It's hard to know just when George F. Will parted ways with reality. Some argue he abandoned respect for historical accuracy years ago. But it's only in the last year or so, thanks to a series of bafflingly misinformed column on climate change, that it became clear to all but his most loyal readers that he no longer cares about getting it right.
Still, you have to appreciate his way with words. In this past weekend's affront to the traditions of evidence-based commentary -- a column that has been eviscerated by most of the better science-oriented bloggers who pay attention to such things --…
tlambert | July 23, 2009Carl Zimmer summarizes:
In earlier days, Will liked to claim the World Meteorological Organization as an authority when he wrote that there has been no global warming since 1998. Now that the World Meteorological Organization has set things straight, he's claiming a columnist at National Review as his authority. That's quite an upgrade.
Actually, it's worse than "a columnist". His authority is fact averse Creationist Mark Steyn.
ddobbs | June 24, 2009Nate Silver makes George Will clear:
Will's argument is apparently this: The government does not need to make a profit and will have greater leverage with providers; therefore it will deliver the same service for less money. That's unfair!
Is this really the best argument that one of the most prominent intellectual conservatives can mount against the public option?
Post is a bit longish for tweetish attention spans -- but a great exposure of the real objection to public plans (Congressional conflicts of interest notwithstanding), and of why no real competition exists in the insurance…
tlambert | April 10, 2009In my post on the Washington Post's refusal to correct this false statement by George Will:
According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979"
I also referred to the "University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center". But the correct name, clearly given at the bottom of the page is the "Polar Research Group". I regret the error.
See also corrections from James Hrynyshyn and others, but not, of course, from George Will.
illconsidered | April 8, 2009So, George Will and the Washington Post are at it again, head over to Things Break for the details.
These institutions are oblivious to their own impending demise, a demise that articles like George Will's show they fully deserve.
[Update: Grist notes that Will is called out by name by his own paper for making claims contradicted by the facts...and let's call a spade a spade, given that he has been loudly and repeatedly informed of his factually incorrect claims and yet repeats them, he must be stupid or a liar.]
tlambert | April 2, 2009George 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.
Carl Zimmer:
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…
illconsidered | March 25, 2009I may be very late to the party, but I would still like to refer readers to Chris Mooney's Op-Ed response to the recent George Will fiasco.
Congratulations, Chris, it is very well presented and important material. I can't however share your warm fuzzies for the WaPo's change of heart, because, well somehow presenting two sides to a debate, you know, bat-shit crazy versus intelligent reality, still falls a little short for me!
denialism | March 21, 2009Congrats 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 dealing with the lies in Will's article)
Mooney does an excellent job, and points out the frank dishonesty not just regarding the sea ice data (the only point the obtuse Ombudsman would even talk about), but also how every other argument in the entire article represents flawed rhetoric. In particular…
terrasig | March 21, 2009Kudos 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 Illiteracy Threatens Our Future."
This is Mooney at his best - first and last paragraph:
A recent controversy over claims about climate science by Post op-ed columnist George F. Will raises a critical question: Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real…
tlambert | March 7, 2009George Will has in an interview in the Pittsburgh Tribune where he repeats the whoppers from his column:
A: 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.
More like took quotes out of context, as John Fleck explained:
If you read the full 1975 Science News article, rather than Will's hand-picked quote, you get a different picture. "The cooling trend observed since…
illconsidered | March 2, 2009Just while we are on the subject of George Will and lying with impunity...
denialism | March 1, 2009Is he being purposefully obtuse? Once again the ombudsman decides to defend George Will, but only on a single point.
A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
Bizarrely, he acknowledges Will was wrong:
It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979. That's roughly the size…
tlambert | February 28, 2009In Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander's column on George Will he notes that he received thousands of emails demanding corrections to Will's column, and eventually concedes that Will's sea ice claim was false and should have caught by the fact checkers,
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.
It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those…
illconsidered | February 27, 2009Things Break does a thorough take-down of George Will's continued dishonesty in the Washington Post. For the background, if somehow you have missed this kerfuffle, check his earlier post.
The story in a nutshell is not remarkable: mainstream columnist prints op-ed full of outright falsehoods, complaints are rejected, paper stands by its right to fill the information age with disinformation. ie Facts don't matter.
The only remarkable thing really is the attention it is receiving and who knows, perhaps there will be some real consequences... like maybe people will remember this for a change.…
tlambert | February 27, 2009Carl Zimmer tells the whole story of how the Washington Post declared that George Will was entitled to his own facts. The latest development since my previous post is that instead of a correction, Will has produced a new column with more misrepresentations of the science. Joe Romm has already critiqued it, but I want to pick out one particular egregious bit of dishonesty.
Will writes
Citing data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog, the column said that since September "the increase in sea…
sheril | February 22, 2009Having recently emerged from the hospital, I'm catching up on the news I've missed--beginning with the Washington Post nonsense Chris has covered here.
Apparently reporter George Will is about as informed on climate change as octuplet mom Nadya Suleman is on the fiscal responsibilities of raising children. There's not much I'll add that hasn't already been written, except given Will's influential position, his dishonesty is far more reprehensible.
denialism | February 20, 2009I'm heartened to see a broad disgust with George Will's lies about climate science. After all it's pretty extraordinary when a major syndicated columnist repeats a lie about science, not once, not twice but three times despite being corrected.
PZ wishes he too could just make up his own facts, and Mike too is pleased the disgust is moving beyond the scientific community. Carl Zimmer at the Loom covers the broad mistakes made in the essay, and TPM documents how it was almost all lies. Mark Kleimen has caught on to the fact that in the end, this is just another conspiracy theory on par with…
tlambert | February 20, 2009I didn't write about George Will's recent global warming denial piece, because his numerous errors have been well documented. Even Nate Silver joined in.
But I can't let the latest development pass. The Washington Post has refused to make any corrections to his column. Why not?:
Alan Shearer, the Washington Post Writers Group editorial director, told the Wonk Room that he looked into the accuracy of Will's claim that "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979":
We have plenty of references that support what George…