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

Yes, you does.


Cherry picking at it's best. But then.. you know that, don't you.

Once again 'mar....

I second that emotion!

I've been following this thread and was going to finally get involved last night (late with a glass of wine) but I thought better of it. Heh!
Whew. It made me tired.

What Martha said.

That is the point

Several years ago I subscribed to the Economist Magazine. If you have not ever read it, I suggest that you have a look since the writing in that magazine is absolutely superb.

And, in the face of such a publication, I had a sort of built in deference to what ever was written there... after all, these guys are really REALLY good.

Then an interesting thing happened. I read a couple of article about subject where I had some pre-existing expertise on the subject. And, what I noticed was that the Economist articles on these subjects were actually not so well researched and understood. It was as if an editor had assigned a talented young writer to do a piece on xxx... and he did some research, and came back with a confidently written article... which never the less suffered from the inevitable problem that it is very difficult for anyone to move into an entirely new field and to comprehend that field in all its intricacies in a limited space of time.

But what is not so very difficult is for a talented writer to amalgamate some facts into a narrative that would be convincing for most people reading that narrative who have no background on the issue.

And, interestingly, this is one area in which I agree with some of our conservative brethren. Liberals tend to be intellectual, and are talented at writing intellectual pieces that are implicitly condescending of those who cannot formulate their ideas with such polish. But people who cannot express their ideas well may still have some very important things to say.... the diamond in the rough sort of idea.

-----------

I all this, I am sorry that you have felt that I have an agenda to attack Mr. Will in general. I have tried to be clear from the very outset that my only interest was in looking at the manner in which Mr Will handled a singe subject... Climate Change. I make not generalized claims about him.

YOu further say

"Originally Posted By: Ardy
I confess that I mostly do not read him

Talk about a credibility-destroying statement."

I have repeatedly said that I am only commenting about his climate change writing... and I have clearly read that. Do I need to read what he writes about Autism or spring in Vermont in order to comment upon his expressed views on climate change?

I agree that he is an excellent writer on very may topics
I am only talking about his attempt to debunk climate science.
Can we not address any specific issues without being accused of trying to demonize a person

Yes yes yes, Mr Will is an excellent writer on very many topics
Yes he is popular
yes he is widely read and influential
yes many people rightly enjoy what he has written.

After acknowledging all of that... can we not also look at the points that he made about climate change?
Can we not look at the manner in which he made those points
Can we not separate these things from the many laudable things about George Will?

-----------

I thought in amny ways that Bill Clinton was an excellent president.... but that does not also stop me from also saying that many of his behaviors were egregiously deplorable.

Why is it that in the case of Mr George will he must be all good or all bad... and if I say something bad about him I am attacking in an existential way?

-----------

And there is a further issue here... that I at least think is important. OK... climate change is a controversial issue... agreed? Mr Will is portrayed as the thinking mans conservative... and he has expressed views on this controversial issue.

Now, lets suppose that I disagree with climate change skeptics. Obviously I cannot address every single person who expresses those views. Does it not make sense to take a leader of this stream of thought? I take Mr Will as an influential leader. And as such, if I choose to take on the climate change skeptics... well... why not start at the top... start with a person who has the resources and intelligence to best present the case for the views that I am trying to address? If I can debunk his efforts in this respect... IMO I have substantially undermined the broader climate skeptic stream of thought.

So again, it is not about Mr Will per se. It is for me about a person who is accepted as a leader of a particular political thought that I wish to address. I want to look at the expressed views of a leader and to see if they hold up.


Because Mr Will is widely read and respected, very many people will read what he writes on this topic and presume that if George Will says so.... well he must have looked into it. IMO it is important to show that actually he has not looked into the topic in any great detail and that you cannot rely upon his expressed views.

And.... while must also seem that the length of my postings have been obsessive and over the top... still, IMO, it is important to be more comprehensive in my objections... since if I limit myself to one or two posts... it would be easy to dismiss these as mere quibbles in the larger argument that Mr Will makes.

Cherry Picking in the sense that I am limiting my discussion to Mr Wills expressed views on climate change.

Cherry picking indeed if my goal is to generally discredit Mr Will... but that is not my goal and I have said that many times.

Since I really don't know George Will from Adam's off ox, I'm just going to assume, from the staunch defense by his advocates, that this "Climate Change" thing was an aberration. That in the many many articles listed and read by our colleague Sky Hawk, he has held himself to well researched facts, that, in truth, this wasn't even Mr. Will's error but that of an underling who fed the Master faulty intelligence.

If indeed, George Will; held by many to be a good writer, is what you would call a "thinking man's conservative" then I applaud him. Few enough of them seem capable of independent thought or even willing to gather facts enough to engage in some form of deductive reasoning.
I don't insist that every writer or speaker be right all the time. I do insist that when proven wrong they be willing to admit it.

While the facts are stacking up against the deniers of global warming, I don't expect them all to suddenly see the light, as it were, but I would really like it if they could provide some substantial proof which was contrary to all that has been published. At least deniers of evolution have some mythical mystical scriptures they can fall back on, claiming it takes precedence over any modern research, conclusions, and proofs. Global Warming deniers seem to have naught but straws to grasp which they cling to stubbornly even as they come loose from their tenuous moorings.