George Will repeated Mark Steyn's false claim that "If you're 29, there has been no global warming for your entire adult life." In fact, climate experts reject the notion that global warming has slowed or stopped.
Despite George Will's history of misinformation on global warming, The Washington Post published a column by Will citing a widely disputed study that was "supported" by an oil-industry-funded think tank and rejected by the Spanish government to suggest that Spain's high unemployment rate is "partly because of spending" to promote green jobs.
Several conservative commentators have publically criticized conservative media figures and Republican politicians for deeming President Obama's reaction to unfolding events in Iran to be overly cautious, including The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan, who called such criticisms, "Aggressive Political Solipsism at work."
Brit Hume and George Will asserted that the disputed Iranian election will make it difficult for President Obama to directly negotiate with Iran. But Hume and Will each argued against direct negotiations long before the election.
In his Washington Post column, George Will baselessly claimed Sonia Sotomayor "embraces identity politics," including the notion that "members of a particular category can be represented -- understood, empathized with -- only by persons of the same identity."
It looks like conservative columnist George Will just wasn't content peddling misinformation about global climate change. He's now written on his ostensible subject of expertise, baseball, lauding a book about umpiring. Will claims:
Umpires are islands of exemption from America's obsessive lawyering: As has been said, three strikes and you're out -- the best lawyer can't help you. But because it is the national pastime of a litigious nation, baseball is the only sport in which a nonplayer is allowed onto the field to argue against rulings.
Now, aside from the fact that the first and second sentences seem to cancel each other out, Will falsely suggests that a "nonplayer is allowed onto the field to argue" balls and strikes. In fact, that will get the "nonplayer" an immediate ejection.
Also, "the best lawyer" can always help you, contrary to Will's suggestion. You can appeal any ruling by an umpire through two stages even when the motion to reconsider provided by arguing with the umpire who originally made the call is foreclosed because you can't argue balls and strikes: the appeal to the entire umpiring crew, and the appeal to the commissioner's office (formerly the league president's office) through the "playing under protest" system. The rules do say that such a protest has to be based on the violation of rules rather than a judgment decision. But that's a niggling detail that a lawyer like Clarence Darrow could probably get around.
(h/t A.H.S. who understands the rules of baseball far better than I, or Will, for that matter.)
New data on Arctic sea ice levels further discredit a widely criticized column by George Will in which he falsely suggested that sea ice data undermine the scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming.
George Will misused climate data published by the World Meteorological Organization to claim that global warming may not be occurring, even though the WMO secretary general recently criticized him for similarly "misinterpret[ing]" the organization's data in an earlier column.
Many media conservatives have recently embraced and promoted the accusation, almost in unison, that President Obama has "lied" or broken promises. In many cases, these accusations are based on distortions of comments he has made or misrepresentations of campaign pledges.
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.
As numerous progressive and science bloggers have noted, Washington Post columnist George Will misused data and distorted statements made by climate experts in order to suggest that human-caused global warming is not occurring. Moreover, in his reported response to criticism of Will's column, Post ombudsman Andy Alexander falsely suggested that a statement by the Arctic Climate Research Center supports Will's claims about sea ice levels when, in fact, the ACRC statement rebuts the very argument Will was making.
In his Washington Post column, George F. Will falsely claimed that the 25-year extension in 2006 of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act "was based on the evidence used for the 1975 extension." However, as the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote in a May 2008 ruling, before extending Section 5, Congress "held extensive hearings and compiled a massive legislative record documenting contemporary racial discrimination in covered states." Indeed, the House and Senate Judiciary Committees examined evidence of discrimination since 1982 -- the year of the last major reauthorization -- in extending the VRA.
Columnists Mona Charen and George Will continued a trend among conservative media of responding to comparisons between the current economic situation and that of the 1930s and between Barack Obama and FDR by attacking the New Deal. In separate columns, both Charen and Will cherry-picked unemployment figures to assert that the New Deal did not reduce unemployment. But historians and progressive economists have noted that unemployment fell every year of the New Deal except during the 1937-38 recession; further, Nobel-laureate Paul Krugman has said it was a reversal of New Deal policies, not a continuance of them, that contributed to rising unemployment in 1937 and 1938.
In recent weeks, several conservative media figures, echoed by Republican lawmakers, have responded to comparisons in the media of President-elect Barack Obama to FDR, or assertions in the media that a New Deal-level of government intervention will be necessary to resolve the current economic crisis, by asserting that the New Deal was a dismal failure, plunging the 1930s economy into a depression, an assertion that prominent progressive economists flatly reject.