Capitol Hill Blue Forums Misc. Topics General Stuff The George Will Climate Thread

Next in our critique of Mr Will we have the following from his WP column

Washington Post

In reviewing the above, I think that most readers would conclude the Secretary Chu is an alarmist who has suggested the destruction of California's ice pack within 10 years

Here is what Chu actually said..

link

Of course we all know that the world will not look so very differnt in the space of 5-10 years.... but 90 years? Well, IF climate warming concerns are valid.... yes we could see climate substantially changed over the course of 90 years.

It is not a sure thing, and Chu did not present it as such.... but it is also a very real risk that cannot be flippantly dismissed. Which is, IMO, exactly what Mr Will attempted to do by distorting what was said.

Further from Mr Will

Wahington Post

I assume that what mr will has written is true. But once again it is irrelevant and distorts reality

It is irrelevant because it cites only one person's opinion. And, al;though the timing of Mr. Erlich's views may be off... the end result is still very much on track.

The point is distortion since it compares commodity prices at the height of an inflationary bubble with commodity prices at the depths of a deflationary crash


In any case, do any of us believe that there is an endless supply of easily mined raw materials? Apparently Mr Will does. This source does not

link

Estimated price for copper
1910 $284
1940 $254
1960 $713
1979 $1289
1980 $2234
1986 $1400

link

IN 2008, the price per ton of copper was $7040 link

These are the numbers.... figure out for yourself if what Mr Will wrote is technically accurate but misleading

Sky
I am sure there are many points worth discussing in those columns that you cited. At this time I am only making a point about mr Will's expressed views on Climate topics... but you knew that didn't you.

Sky, I do not dispute the readership or popularity of Mr Will. I hope you are not implying that such a popular writer is above criticism, or incapable of bias or error. Perhaps that was not your point and you could clarify what you were getting at.

I would say more the pity that Mr Will has used his enormous popularity to distort the facts on this important issue, A distortion that I thought it was worthwhile to correct... especially since as you point out.... there are so many people who read his columns.


I am curious as to your opinion Sky.... do you suggest that one should ignore the things I have raised simply because Mr Will is a popular writer?

Ardy, darlin...

I suggest nothing. GW is not an elected official. He is not a policy maker. He is a talented writer. You seem to have an issue with the fact that some of us find him an interesting read.

You don't like him? Don't read him...

I have at various times enjoyed G Will.
I confess that I mostly do not read him
I agree that he is not an elected official.
Never the less, he is commonly presented as a leading conservative thinker.
And as you have pointed out, he has wide readership... which implies that he has has a disproportionate impact on political thought in this country.
And on that basis I think it is both fair and appropriate comment on what he says.
Particularly when his opinions are directed at trying to sway public opinion on a matter that many people consider one of the most important issues of our time.

But I said all that before

People who disagree with Right-thinking Conservatives are contrarian, partisan political hacks. Those who disagree with and take to task Leftist propagandists are performing a patriotic duty.

Perhaps too strong...
Although there does seem to be a certain presumption that criticism of conservatives should be handled a bit more delicately since we can all see that conservatives are good patriotic people... however misguided some of them at times seem.

On the other hand even the most vitriolic criticism of liberals should be tolerated since..... after all, these criticisms are made by conservatives who as we know are good patriotic people... however misguided some of them at times seem.


When is the last time you have heard a liberal excused because his heart is in the right place?

Ardy, I believe what I hear most often about Liberals is that they are trying to destroy our country.

Yes, but arguably he is a journalist. I does not seem inappropriate to apply the standards of journalism to him and his writing? So.... I think one of the foundations of journalism is that you check your sources on a story.... lets see how that works in this case.

Here you have George Will
a famous, widely read journalist
he works for a famous media outlet... The Washington Post
And being an important journalist, Mr Will has access to perhaps 20 research assistants to do grunt work research for him.

Now, Mr Will sets out to debunk one of the biggest frauds of our time.... Global Warming. And impotant story... important to do the job right.

Mr Will discovers that although Climate change advocates have made a big deal about melting ice.... in fact, ice coverage now is at the same levels as 1979. And the best part of the story... this evidence comes from the scientists themselves!!!

This is a a key piece of evidence that will be the centerpiece of his debunking exercise.... it is like finding the smoking gun.

So... what is the obvious thing for a solid journalist to do? I would say to call up those scientists and re-confirm the evidence directly from it;s source. After all... he has the resources of the Washington Post behind him... he has 20 researchers... it is not as if these guys will not pick up the phone for the Washington Post.

But what actually happens? Mr. Wills researchers go on the Internet and look for links.... they do not actually talk to the scientists.

How do I know this?

Well, it turns out that after Mr Will wrote his column.... lots of people DID call those scientists asking about this story. The scientists got so tired for trying to clarify what Mr will wrote... that they wrote a formal clarification that significantly repudiates Mr Will.... saying among other things that the cited data was not correct


and, that in any case the figure reflect measurement in the winter, when in fact measurement in the summer is the significant data




And further that the new ice coverage was much thinner and more fragile than the long term ice found in 1979

link


And so, in the end one is force to consider the question if Mr will is better described as a professional journalist, or a professional propagandist?

Talk about a credibility-destroying statement.

Ardy, I think you're getting static from Sky--and me--because a logical fault might be at play. (Hasty generalization, if I remember correctly.) I'm sensing that you wish to destroy Will's popularity because of his mishandling of one subject. That one subject is not all there is to George Will, even if it is one boundary of your thread.

I'm reminded of an argument I had several years ago with a teaching colleague. We were aguing the worth of playwright Arthur Miller. He asked, "What did Miller do besides create Willie Loman?" I responded, "What else did he need to do?" That ended the argument, but now I question the validity of the point. Years have passed, Miller has written more and more drek, and I'm no longer convinced the creation of Willie Loman, all by itself, makes him a great writer.

Nor am I convinced mishandling of one subject removes Will from the category of "good writer." If, however, your point was to warn us not to automatically trust a popular writer, you may consider me warned.