Lashing out at critics, George Will spreads more falsehoods in new global warming column
SUMMARY: In a column obtained by Media Matters in advance of its publication, George Will falsely claims that in his February 15 column, he "accurately reported" on the contents of an Arctic Climate Research Center document on sea ice data. In fact, while Will suggested the ACRC data undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming, the document actually states that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models.
In his forthcoming column -- obtained by Media Matters for America in advance of its publication -- George Will doubles down on his previous global warming distortions, once again misusing sea ice data to falsely suggest that the data undermine the overwhelming evidence that humans are causing global warming. In his new column, Will falsely claims that in his February 15 column, he "accurately reported" on the contents of an Arctic Climate Research Center (ACRC) document when, in fact, the document he cited rebutted the very argument he was making. The ACRC document that Will relied on actually stated that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models. In the words of TPM Muckraker's Zachary Roth, Will's new column "amounts to a stubborn defense of the amazing global warming denialist column he published earlier this month, that was ripped apart by just about everyone and their mother."
In his February 15 column, Will suggested that the ACRC data undermine the case for the existence of "man-made global warming":
As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
Responding to widespread criticism of his distortions, Will's new column cites and provides a hyperlink to a January 12 ACRC document that he claims to have "accurately reported" on in his prior column. As he did in his February 15 column, Will once again falsely suggests the ACRC data undermine the "global warming consensus ... in the media-environmental complex."
From Will's new column:
The [February 15] column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken.
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 ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began." According to the center, global sea ice levels at the end of 2008 were "near or slightly lower than" those of 1979. The center generally does not make its statistics available, but in a Jan. 12 statement the center confirmed that global sea ice levels were within a difference of less than 3 percent of the 1980 level.
So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying "we do not know where George Will is getting his information." The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center's Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data (http://arctic.atmos.
uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that this column subsequently reported accurately.The scientists at the Illinois center offer their statistics with responsible caveats germane to margins of error in measurements and precise seasonal comparisons of year-on-year estimates of global sea ice. Nowadays, however, scientists often find themselves enveloped in furies triggered by any expression of skepticism about the global warming consensus (which will prevail until a diametrically different consensus comes along; see the 1970s) in the media-environmental complex.
But Will did not "accurately" report on the January ACRC document in either of his columns. As Media Matters and others noted when Post ombudsman Andy Alexander reportedly cited the same document in response to complaints about Will's February 15 column, that document actually says that the ACRC data are consistent with global warming predictions and that it is important to distinguish between sea ice in the Northern and Southern hemispheres when discussing global warming. The full document states that "[a]lmost all" climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, but that some recent studies have suggested that warming might initially cause sea ice to increase in the Southern Hemisphere, and that these projections are consistent with observed sea ice data.
In addition, Will's claim that his sea ice distortion was the "only" assertion from his February 15 column that has been "challenged" is itself false. For example, Media Matters and others "challenged" Will's assertion that "according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization [WMO], there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade." Will did not cite a source or provide a quote to back up that claim. In fact, as recently as January 7, Agence France-Presse quoted WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud as saying, "The major trend is unmistakably one of warming." Similarly, the WMO issued an April 4, 2008, statement saying that "[t]he long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing" and quoting the following statement from Jarraud: "There has always been and there will always be cooler and warmer years, but what is important for climate change in the present context is that the trend is still upwards; the global climate on an average is warming despite the temporary cooling brought about by La Niña."
Rather than provide evidence to support his claim about the WMO, Will simply asserts in his new column that "the last decade ... passed without warming":
[New York Times] Reporter Andrew Revkin's story was headlined: "In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall." Regarding exaggeration, the Times knows whereof it speaks, especially when it revisits, if it ever does, its reporting on the global cooling scare of the 1970s, and its reporting and editorializing -- sometimes a distinction without a difference -- concerning today's climate controversies.
Which returns us to Revkin. In a story ostensibly about journalism, he simply asserts -- how does he know this? -- that the last decade, which passed without warming, was just "a pause in warming."
This is on a par with the people who say that local weather occurrences are evidence of no global warming.
Weather is very complex. Those on the right never seem to be able to understand complex things, and think in black and white. But climate change is not black and white. When the globe warms, some areas will also warm, and some areas will also cool. The average temperature will rise, but that doesn't mean that the temp will go up everywhere. When the globe warms, the oceans' average temperature will rise, which will lead to melting sea ice in some areas. But the decrease in local temperatures that will happen with global warming will increase the ice in some locations.
Black and white thinking, hopefully, will be the death of the Republican Party as we know it today.
LuvLuLu is correct.
But Media Matters is engaging in a contemptible sort of double speak here, the very sort of thing that it was ostensibly created to combat.
The following two things are true:
1. Global temperatures have been trending downward for the past ten years. This is true for ALL major sources of data.
2. Global ice coverage are substantially unchanged from 30 years ago. Significant reductions in arctic ice coverage have been roughly balanced by a significant increase in antarctic coverage.
These are measurable quantities and are verified by the very same data sources on which the IPCC and most climate scientists rely.
I think that Media Matters' readers expect it to present a balanced view of the facts. By attacking George's facts (which are largely correct) instead of his conclusions (which are probably not) Media Matters has betrayed the confidence that its readers place in it.
It is perfectly accurate to say: "Global temperatures have risen over the past hundred years, and scientists expect the rate of change to rapidly accelerate over the next hundred." But it is also perfectly accurate to say that "Surface temperatures have been trending downward for ten years".
Science is not so brittle that it is unable to handle seemingly contradictory information.
They haven't been trending downwards over the last ten years. This is a myth propagated by the right.
jsolinsky, did you actually read through this entire article here? mmfa quite clearly addressed the issue of ice coverage in the northern vs. southern hemisphere and mentioned reports that predicted this. if you wish to draw a different conclusion, feel free. but don't pretend they didn't present it.
How did MMFA get an advance copy?
They may have gotten it from TalkingPointsMemo.
Awesome! Now we can keep Will in the foreground and continue to hound this fool!
BTW, did he really just say "the media-environmental complex"??? I LOVE IT! This must be like Limbaugh's idea of a homosexual lobby!
That is pretty good, MK. I got an email from Human Events a while back promising to expose the Global Warming Profiteers.
They were barely getting their Democratic gasoline tax conspiracy cobbled together, when they had to do a complete 180 to tell the faithful that the liberals were trying to make a killing off of selling less gas.
George Will's initial misinterpretation of the ACRC document, followed by this latest obfuscation, illustrates a kind of professional arrogance. Just because you are studied in one discipline (politics, in the case of George Will) does not mean you can instantly become an expert in something else. This goes to the root of the whole problem with professional commentators. While George Will is by no means the worst, there is really something vulgar about anyone who believes they can be an authority in anything - especially when they insist they are right in the face of conflicting evidence.
Rasotis is right on the money.
I am a biologist and discuss climate change in my college classroom from the standpoint of disruption of the carbon cycle (i.e. rapid burning of fossil fuels which were formed over ~an 80 million period and were derived primarily from trees, concordant with development and deforestation).
I often get questions on atospheric aspect of climate change. My response is "this is not my area of expertise" and can only comment as an informed layperson.
Which brings me to the point: I trust what the VAST majority (all but handful) of scientists who communicate their interpretation of the data, which is: climate change is real and there is a high probability we are the cause.
I like George Will (well sometimes) but he (should be) smart enough to know he is out of his league.
c harendza5545, you had me at concordant. I believe this may be the first time I've seen this word in a MMFA post. Is it a good word? It has CON in it.
I concur conclusively and concurrently that the use of the word concordant is congruously and conversantly consistent with the poster's context.
i.e., I like it too ;-) Even though it has Con in it.
One of the prime strategies of neoconservatives is to never admit they are wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Their audience feeds on there denials, misinformation and even bigotry. Will, by being angry at the messenger calling out his misdirection, chooses to be defiant so his audience will believe he is right rather than the "libruh" opposition.
I wouldn't confine that statement just to the neocons. The whole of the current Republican party seems to employ a more or less similar strategy. Basically sreaming bloody murder at the slightest invocation of any truth they don't to hear. I think they've screamed themselves so silly, they've lost their hearing.
Condescending conservatives might think of that as a contentious conclusion, even though the reasoning is neither convoluted nor contrarian. As always, it is not possible to conceal or evade the consequences of your post. It is a veritable concantination, a cornucopia, of logically connected considerations worthy of a sage like Confucius. Consider their consternation as they contemplate, with contorted reasoning, your considerable contribution to advancing the argument.
I bow to your superior skill in adding Confucius to the mix, as I had wanted to ;-)
Thanks Julia. But I just couldn't work Constantinople into the mix. I am sure you would have found a way.
OK, you've con-vinced me.
allright enough with the V for vendetta speeches.
Could I consult somebody for a Chili con carne recipe?
bravo.
Last time I ever mention a word I've never seen on MMFA
>>I like George Will (well sometimes) but he (should be) smart enough to know he is out of his league.
These two posts are well articulated and are exactly right. For example, why do we have Thomas Sowell, an economist, spouting off about the threat of terrorism?
But C Harendza, I think the problem is that Will does *not* recognize that he is not smart enough to analyze complicated sets of data. Anyone reading this post should go to realclimate.org to see what real scientists say about global warming. Most of you will not be able to comprehend it, just as I am not. That would probably lead an honest person to conclude that he or she shouldn't even try to draw his or her own conclusions from carbon core data, tree rings, etc.
But the deniers are not honest people. George Will is neither honest nor intelligent enough to realize his own limitations.
I don't know whether you're granting Will more or less credit than I am; I think he knows he's lying and doesn't care. I completely agree with you that he is dishonest; I think he's smart enough to know that he's lying and doesn't want to admit it.
>>I think he knows he's lying
It's hard to guess the motivation for such illogic. In my opinion, people who spread propaganda often become convinced by it. An ideology is a powerful blinder, as the Nobel prize winning novelists Solzinstin so powerfully renders in his novels.
I can only draw an inference by what Will has actually written. His own words show someone who clearly lacks the expertise to draw the conclusions he does, and yet the writer does so anyway. That's pretty pathetic for a writer deemed to be one of the smartest conservative voices.
I agree with funnyman on this. It's simply the greatest myth of academia. George Will has a Ph.D. in politics from Princeton, so therefore he must be an expert on everything that has or ever will exist. The fact that his degree in no way guarantees expertise in any other subject or that it was acquired over 40 years ago in a field which today bares little resemblance to what it did in 1968 means nothing. George Will is an academic titan, and his bonafides and intelligence dare not be questioned. He attended Princeton, for God's sake! For further ridiculousness, please see the conservative argument that Michael Savage's Ph.D. from Berkeley is proof that he isn't a raving fringe lunatic. Because when I want to know about complex political procedural stuff, I always consult the best nutritionists I can find.
Oh I disagree it's very easy to guess the motivation, $$$$$$$. What self respecting con conference would hire a speaker that admits to understanding global warming in the affirmative? That is that indeed, there is anthropogenic caused global warming. If he retracts, apologizes the speach bookers will shun him and he won't be able to make his Mercedes payment.
I think you nailed it -- MONEY. Will gets paid to put forth Neocon talking points, granting them "legitimacy" because he is supposed to be such an accurate source, and he's far from the only one spouting right-wing nonsense for lucre.
George Will is not a genius in the field of politics, either. I have posted previously about one column from between 1989 and 1992s in which he "pointed out" that the Republican party had "built up a surplus of electoral votes" over the last three elections" that the Democrats could not overtake in less than a generation. He's also got a terrible track record in annointing future POTUSes-- according to Will, we were supposed to keep our sharp eyes on Dan Lungren, certain to be elected Governor of California in 1998, and Rep Chris Cox, sure to be President by the year 2004. Will also heralded the coming of Bruce Hershenson (sic) to the US Senate back in the 90s.
Will has been coasting on his undeserved reputation as an intellectual giant for decades now. It's time to call him out for what he is; a phony and a poser who, disguised as a 1940s-era college professor, has managed to pull off an impressive con job for pretty much his entire adult life.
quote:"there is really something vulgar about anyone who believes they can be an authority in anything -"
So do you include Al (so-what-if-I-use-eight-times-more-electricity-than-any-eightr-humans-alive-I-give-myself-carbon-offsets) Gore inyour cateogrization? I'd really love to hear Al explain the second law of thermodynmics in an open Q&A session someday.
Off-topic, but related:
A new CPI report finds that alternative-energy and environmental lobbyists are outnumbered by the fossil fuel industry and other global warming denial lobbyists by a margin of 8 to 1.
Is Will really so ignorant that he doesn't know how to compute a trend? I mean, this is supposed to be one of the right wing's best thinkers, right? And he thinks it's okay to cherry pick start dates and do an endpoint analysis--effectively ignoring decades of data?
...this is supposed to be one of the right wing's best thinkers...
Sort of like being the most well-groomed Carny or the Munchkins best power forward.
Yeah, he's pretty tall and stout for a jockey.
Don't tell Georgie's mother what he's up to....
She might lose her lunch.
MMFA missed another huge dishonesty on Will's part. In his previous editorial, Will said "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." The column appeared on February 15. At that time, global sea levels were *not* the same as in 1979.
In trying to sound like he used correct data, Will uses a quote to show that the global sea ice levels were the same on Dec 31 2008 as they were on Dec 31 1979. But Dec 31 is not the same as February 15, so naturally the research center was baffled as to where Will got his statistics.
A critic might ask what difference 2 months makes. If two months ago the ice levels were the same, doesn't that in itself prove global warming is not occurring? As MMFA points out, the web site Will links to states the opposite: global ice levels are meaningless in determining global warming. So Will is both wrong in the technical sense (the ice levels were not the same) and in the general sense by implying the ice levels disprove global warming.
A critic might ask what difference 2 months makes.
George W. Bush is still president as of now. My data is only two months old :)
Here is the exact quote from the University of Illinois Artic Climate Research Center. Note how they are very specific in stating that on Feb 15, the ice levels were not the same. How can Wil pretend he was not wrong?
In an opinion piece by George Will published on February 15, 2009 in the Washington Post, George Will states "According to the University of Illinois" Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.
U of I CRC group is getting grants from Clean Air-Cool Planet group, who in return gets money from Aspen Institute who has board members that have vested interest in advancing GW information. This means that their data is influenced and can not always be trusted.
>>U of I CRC group is getting grants from Clean Air-Cool Planet group, who in return gets money from Aspen Institute who has board members that have vested interest in advancing GW information
That's a generic fallacy and leads to a self defeating argument. Since you have an interest in denying global warming, we shouldn't trust your arguments, either. Using that logic, we shouldn't trust anyone.
But more to the point, it is laughable you would claim there is somehow a bias here. U of I CRC simply listed numbers. I fail to see how hard numbers can be biased.
So you are admitting that this line of reasoning on sources is a 'fallacy.' Good to hear since idiots like you use the same line when sources disputing your garbage are presented.
>>Good to hear since idiots like you use the same line when sources disputing your garbage are presented.
That's false. I don't use this line of reasoning.
I just use your logic on the other side. Since you all think that any information that shows GW false is back by Oil, why is it not the same for your side?
We think it's false because it's false. It doesn't matter who got payed to say it and by whom, it's faulty information. You haven't simply haven't done enough research on the subject if you think otherwise. I know this because I too got sucked into global warming denialism for about half a second, until I started looking into the claims. And also, we don't have to play six degrees of frigging Kevin Bacon in order to prove the dubious nature of global warming deniers.
You're seriously trying to equate the Sierra Club with Exxon, little fella?
Nice try. No sale.
The ratio of industry/GW denial lobbyists in Washington to enivronmental/GW acceptance lobbyists is currently 8 to 1.
IMO, it kind of makes fear mongering about the money involved in the environmental lobby pretty silly. The influence of big oil and big coal is plenty big enough to drown out the influence of those who want to save the planet.
>>I just use your logic on the other side. Since you all think that any information that shows GW false is back by Oil, why is it not the same for your side?
That's not my logic. I think that MMFA and others weaken their position when they use this argument. As I pointed out above, it allows the deniers (such as you), to simply shift the debate over who gets funding, rather than arguing the science itself. The science itself proves global warming without a doubt.
just like the Neo cons who get money from industries to deny they cause climate change
As opposed to the handful of scientists on the take from the petrochemical lobby who still subscribe to and shill for your flat-earth, gop-slop nonsense.
Nice try, little fella. Ya gonna tell me there's no link between smoking and cancer now, too?
Dismissed.
I think Will is just being defensive. Someone should tell him we are not accusing him personally, just mankind in general, of which he is arguably a part.
I enjoy the fact that many left wing bloggers usually prefer to cite material (..."The ACRC document that Will relied on actually stated that the sea ice data are consistent with the outcomes projected by climate-change models"...) when debating their own political atttentiveness for a particular issue. If any of us truly are concerned about an issue, then let us apply the same standard for all topics (those conservative or liberal; right or wrong; republican or democrat)
What the hell are you talking about? Please rephrase this in a coherent manner. I'll also caution you to avoid framing global warming as a "liberal" issue, as it makes you seem like an idiot.
MMFA- Can you please dig deeper into the true "source" of Will's misinformation? He is pulling his bogus data interpretations from global warming denier Michael Asher (http://www.dailytech.com/blogs/~masher) @ DailyTech. If you look at this denier's blog, you will see postings along these lines:
"Global Warming can lead to fewer huricanes"
"More iceberg growth"
and
"Climate Science has it wrong"
Will is backing up his claims by using a denier's blog hidden within a techie blog site that needs from serious debunking and wake-up formula.
>>Can you please dig deeper into the true "source" of Will's misinformation?
You are right about the bogus nature of the source, but I think by using the actual scientific data, MMFA makes a stronger case. If we use motivation as a basis for argument, then the denialists will do the same (as they already do), arguing that ciimatologists advance the theory of global climate change only to benefit themselves. We can argue that climatologists do no such thing, but then we reduce the argument to motivations. The science itself presents the strongest case for global climate change.
I think we all know the true source of Mr. Will's information. You seem to be suggesting that MMFA should give Mr. Will a colonoscopy, and I don't think anyone wants to dig any deeper into that source.
Stand Strong Will, do not cave into MMFA.
For all that which is false and misleading, stand strong, Will.
You realize, of course, that you just came out and openly advocated for Will to continue lying.
Way to go, cleerleader for lies.
yes stand strong with Billo the Clown, Comedian Rush Limbaugh, Bobby "Kenneth the Page" Jindal, Sarah Palin the Ariel Mistress of Wolf Hunting, John "Bonehead" Boehner, and Mitch "Lets take a shot at Labor" McConnell"
keep defending these clowns mark, its all you have left
oh and i almost forgot master of inciting treason The Mannity
Attaboy, don't let yourself be confused with the facts.
Nice try, little fella. Is it your clueless-cretin contention that criticism of Will's line of "thought" is confined to MMFA? Good luck to the factually-challenged, lunatic-fringe likes of you, Will, flush and the mannity makin' that case.
See here:
link
For a detailed analysis of the dishonesty and inaccuracies of Will's two articles.
Will refuses to be confused with the facts. I'm shocked.
When gops pull this number they call it standing on principle. When rational, intelligent human beings do it, it's willfully refusing to acknowledge changing facts on the ground.
Hilarious. I'm no statistician but don't you usually disregard outliers? Will is using the 1998 spike as the basis for his whole argument. What if he started in 1999? Could he still say there has been no warming?
No one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans contribute to global warming. Even the most left-wing scientists can only say that there is a high probability that humans have an effect. Is that enough proof to build a large portion of you political agenda on? Is that enough proof to leave behind fossil fuels and take a chance of losing billions while trying to find some alternative energy source? Something that we have not come close to being able to effectively do? How come for every few scientists that fall in line and support global warming, there is another that has the guts to stand up and oppose it? This climate change thing is anything but a slam dunk.
"This climate change thing is anything but a slam dunk."
This might be true if you are getting your facts from the NBA's Chris Anderson.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BieL_YOzQkI
Or maybe the global warming deniers are getting their "slam dunk" information from here.
Ah, yes, the old "no one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt" song and dance. Gee, who coulda seen that comin' from the gop-slop spewin', lunatic-fringe likes of you?
Once again, you have no case, no clue and no reason yet you attempt to pass off the odd Exxon shill as evidence that there's as though this matter is still a jump ball and hasn't been put to rest along with the notion that the earth is flat and there's no link between smoking, cancer and heart disease.
Nice try. No sale. Thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for your sorry shrub-shillin' butt.
Go peddle your psychotic gop-slop to powerline and freeperville, little fella.
Dismissed.
Jpeagle
"No one knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans contribute to global warming. Even the most left-wing scientists can only say that there is a high probability that humans have an effect. Is that enough proof to build a large portion of you political agenda on? Is that enough proof to leave behind fossil fuels and take a chance of losing billions while trying to find some alternative energy source? Something that we have not come close to being able to effectively do? How come for every few scientists that fall in line and support global warming, there is another that has the guts to stand up and oppose it? This climate change thing is anything but a slam dunk."
I guess the flipside of that is whether you risk the health of the planet on the chance that global warming isn't influenced by people. Fossil fuels won't lost forever anyway, so you're going to have to shift your focus elsewhere at some point. Besides that, it's not like there wouldn't be any money to make in the alternative energies. So if we are contributing to global warming and we take measures to protect the planet, we don't lose anything we weren't going to lose at some point, and we might prevent a warming phenomenon in the future. If we really are contributing to global warming and we don't do anything about it, then what happens?
From a pro/con viewpoint, I don't understand the motivation to question what the clear majority of scientists say. Do you?
I am all for being responsible about our use of the planet's resources. What I am against is building your strongest case for environmental activism on something that hasn't been proven just because it is a hot-topic item. I agree that we should look into alternitive energy sources, but it is not because I think carbon emmissions are warming the planet. It is becaues, like you said, fossil fuels are limited. But while we have it I believe we can responsibly tap into it while searching for a realistic alternative fuel source. This global warming issue is just something that environmentalists latch onto as their reasoning for keeping us from drilling for oil in our back yard.
>>What I am against is building your strongest case for environmental activism on something that hasn't been proven just because it is a hot-topic item.
It has been "proven," as much as any scientific theory can.
link
Why do you think it's a good idea to use up all of our fossil fuels as quickly as possible? Dontcha think it'd be a good idea to try to ration them out, as much as we can, to make them last?
Jpeagle
"I am all for being responsible about our use of the planet's resources. What I am against is building your strongest case for environmental activism on something that hasn't been proven just because it is a hot-topic item. I agree that we should look into alternitive energy sources, but it is not because I think carbon emmissions are warming the planet. It is becaues, like you said, fossil fuels are limited. But while we have it I believe we can responsibly tap into it while searching for a realistic alternative fuel source. This global warming issue is just something that environmentalists latch onto as their reasoning for keeping us from drilling for oil in our back yard."
I think you're making a political issue out of an environmental one. How do you identify who is a "left-wing" scientist, for instance? And people are engaging in "environmental activism" because global warming is a hot topic? Or is it because it could have tremendous effects on the environment? There's just no way to assert that anyone's acting in bad faith here.
If you think we should be drilling here, then surely there can be an argument made for that. There's no reason to question scientific conclusions for that goal.
Will simply does not have the required background in science to make a cogent argument on the topic. He is merely a pundit. We expect dishonesty from pundits. We should not expect expertise from them. Will does not have the ability, nor the desire, to accurately research a complex subject. Like other pundits, he is merely a noise-maker. Editorial pages are not the place to read about science or serious research, academic journals are. But then, Will has never struck me as particularly well-educated.
Nah, Will's well-educated. He's just not gonna let the facts stand in the way of his pathetic preconceived notions any more than the lunatic-fringe likes of bill kristol and clueless krauthammer.
Why give will any atention, he is obviously a lying propagandist, not to mention a joke.
George Will is innumerate. The idea that he could be an expert in climate modeling equations is absurd -he doesn't have the discipline to study the math.
Will like so many other sceptics wants to shift the argument to one climate event and ignore the whole. The real question he has to answer is how can extract and burn all this carbon in fossil fuel and not expect it to have the same effect the last time is was in the atmospere? See my post: http://open.salon.com/blog/bart_stratton/2009/01/30/how_to_win_the_climate_change_debate
global warming is a hoax, and alternative energy is one of the most massive ripoffs imagineable. a total waste of money. coal production costs in tax subsidies about 7 cents a megawatt. solar and wind cost over $34.
Way to jump in hours after the conversation has wound down to get in the "last word," Miss Dee.
Good lord, what a worthless, witless coward you are.