When will the Washington Post issue a correction for George Will’s error-filled global warming denial column?
By on Feb 23rd, 2009 at 7:29 pm
When will the Washington Post issue a correction for George Will’s error-filled global warming denial column?
In the Washington Post last week, columnist George F. Will recycled a column he’s been printing for years which denies that there’s a global warming crisis. The column earned widespread condemnation across the progressive blogosphere because it contained so many egregious scientific errors. The Washington Post has yet to issue a correction and has instead defended Will, claiming the column was “checked to the fullest extent possible.” In a new report, The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson compiles, explains, and debunks all the false statements from the column that the Washington Post is willing to stake its reputation on. Download the report and take action.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Probably when hell thaws out.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:32 pmNever – will is just a political hack, one that the networks kept bottled up, pretending he was a baseball “expert.”
But he always has been a lying liar, a voice for the propaganda. We are seeing more of him now and will see and hear even more from him in the future.
The mainstream media has to find replacements for the tired gang of political hacks that “catapulted the propaganda” on behalf of the criminal cabal behind dur chimpfurher. Like the smirking chimp, they have lost most of their credibility.
But will has been kept in “suspended animation” as a baseball genius – now he is more useful him in the echo-chamber of lies.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:36 pm“fullest extent possible”
_____
I just always love that. ‘Extent’ means “full” or “complete.” There is no such word as “fullest,” either. Something is either full or not.
That WaPo stupidity is just, well, the very most beautifulest. Like, I am just completely surrounded on all four sides with awe at such ‘erudition.’
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:37 pmWhen one speaks with loquacious, erudite, obfuscation, it usually is a mask to cover up all of the bullshit that is actually flowing in one’s column.
George Will definitely needs to be taken down a notch & is deserving of a good “slap”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:39 pmWhen will the Washington Post issue a correction for George Will’s error-filled global warming denial column?
When monkeys fly out George Will’s butt.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:42 pmLooks like so far, Washington Post’s fullest extent comes up a bit short. Must be the cold weather.
We’re waiting is all Washington Post.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:43 pmThe slow roll is on–the current WaPo op ed editors have little regard for fact.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pmYou don’t have too. Everyone, except the rightwing cretins, knows George “The Stooge” Will is one big error.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 pmIt’s time for George Will to take a very long vacation at the North Pole, during the summer months. He can use a raft or a boat or he can choose to hop ice floats, if there are any left.
Funny how the right wingnuts can’t come up with anything new. It’s all repeat and repeat again. Boring…
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 pmAnd don’t forget, the Washington Post is a MSM shit sheet.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:50 pmI wonder if “checked to the fullest extent possible” means “it’s in his contract that we don’t check it.” I can’t think of any other way to parse that.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:51 pmWayne – just wait… monkeys will probably fly out of George Will’s butt, soon enough and Obama will be blamed.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 pmA better question would be when will the Washington Post issue a correction for George Will.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:53 pmWrong thread, Mr. Dillweed.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:54 pmUhm… never?
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 pmMr. Philby Says:
God you are stupid. Troll crops up. subject change ahead. Do ou ENJOY showing how stupid you are? Is this look over there troll idiocy really the best you can do? Grow up
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:55 pmI think it must be the effect of the orange hair dye.
It’s rotted him clear to the hypothalamus.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:56 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Why don’t you make this a broader crusade against the newspaper and television industry for allowing pundits and talking heads to make radical claims without any fact checking? This one article is just the tip of a gigantic iceberg!
It’s assumed that major newspapers practice journalism, which involves checking facts cited even in opinion pieces. I think everybody’s pretty much given up on expecting television punditry to adhere to such a standard, although they used to try, back when Cronkite was still kicking.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:58 pmJust keep beating the Post to death with letters, emails, etc and they will eventually. It’s a new time. Gone are they days when the Left sits back and takes it. And remember, there are WAY more of us than them.
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:59 pmNever. He’s George F. Will, king of the Villagers. He doesn’t apologize or issue corrections. It’s beneath him. You see, he’s NEVER wrong. He’s a conservative.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:05 pmGeorge Will, like most reichwingers, describe reality as they would like it to be, not as it actually is.
This is why it is so difficult to have a rational conversation with a reichwinger: They live in a world where saying it is so, makes it so. The more authoritative the tone they use, the more it is true -facts and evidence be damned.
When Will says there is no global warming, in his mind, he is right. After all, he just said so, repeatedly, didn’t he?
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 pmIn one of the WaPo chats last week, Lois Romano basically stated that lying on the editorial page is okay, because you can just call it “opinion”, and the opinion columnists are afforded “latitude”.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:15 pmThis puts the veracity of the whole paper in doubt.
What everyone needs to do is write every day to whomever is doing the politics chat for the day and ask when they are going to correct Will. The only way this is going to be fixed is if the credibility of the journalist side is pulled into this debate, and if they get really annoyed at getting asked about it so much.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/schedule/front.html
“checked to the fullest extent possible.”
Ya know, I bet my senior english teacher could do a much better fact check.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:21 pmI’m running a special on “Carbon Credits”. A lifetime supply with unlimited rebuys only for $1,000.00 Send checks or money orders to:
Idiots for Al Gore
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 pmP. O. Box 9999
Brainless, Liberal. USA
Beethoven Rules Says:
You are so stupid I bet you thought that was clever instead of ignorant and pathetic. Do you parade your ignorance for the amusement of websites often? I mean we do appreciate the free clown show but we already know what incredibly stupid morons you Conservatives are. You really ought to stay away from humor though. It requires higher brain function and sadly that will forever be beyond your wildest dreams. Stupid you have. Go with that.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:35 pmI’m running a special on “Carbon Credits”. A lifetime supply with unlimited rebuys only for $1,000.00
That makes no sense. If you get a “lifetime supply”, then why would you need to “rebuy”?
Next time, try an insult that’s a little more intelligent.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 pmThere has been cooling, there has been warming, there has been cooling, and there has been warming, just a normal earth cycle. Are we so egotistical that we believe we can affect the climate? This is just a way for a few fast hustlers to make a buck.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:37 pmAnyone that believes in global warming, sorry Climate change, would also believe in rebuys for a lifetime supply.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
There has been cooling, there has been warming, there has been cooling, and there has been warming, just a normal earth cycle. Are we so egotistical that we believe we can affect the climate? This is just a way for a few fast hustlers to make a buck.
Boy, that’s a relief. All those climatologists who actually study this stuff have been telling us just the opposite. I’m glad a real “expert” has straightened us all out.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 pmDeuce Coupe Says:
Are YOU so stupid that you think dumping millions of tons of chemicals in the atmosphere per year would have NO effect? Are you so stupid that the huge scientific consensus is overuled by what the hateradio screechmonkeys that do your thinking for you over rule them? Man, you are a dolt
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:52 pmBeethoven Rules Says:
Anyone that believes in global warming, sorry Climate change, would also believe in rebuys for a lifetime supply.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Any MORON who would make EITHER of your astonishingly ignorant posts would believe the oil companies and Rush Limbaugh over the scientists. Got some peer reviewed studies? NO? Imagine my suprise. You are stupid and you are brainwashed. That makes you the perfect GOP demographic
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 pmWayne A. Schneider Says:
Next time, try an insult that’s a little more intelligent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
HA I wouldnt hold my breath waiting for THAT. I think the best we can expect is a retold Rush witicism
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:56 pmI believe that global warming is all wrong. I found this article on Bloomberg just now. Here are the first 2 paragraphs.
Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) — A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 pmblclem babbles:
I believe that global warming is all wrong. I found this article on Bloomberg just now.
Because, as we all know, Bloomberg is the most reliable source of scientific information. Not Nature, not Science, not even the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences… no sir, oh no, it’s Bloomberg.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:09 pmThe industries that are financing the “global warming denial campaign” share the same unethical “profit at all costs” philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.
Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:22 pmblclem Says:
Ist ok we know you cons are determined to believe your fantasies. You just dont LIKE reality. The SCIENTISTS, the ones doing SCIENCE, that is peer reviewed studies disagree with what you WANT to believe.
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:29 pmLush, was that an insult to TP? Or… did you just have a stroke and babble off some word salad?
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:18 pmLushMoron is back. He cant help himself. He is addicted to our pity. Since he has no hope of ever having any self respect he comes in shows just how stupid and pathetic he is and begins begging us to pity him. It is certainly one of the most sad and pitiful spectacles I have ever seen. It is apparant no one will ever respect him or love him or spend any more time in his presence than is absoluty necessary but I had hoped he might one day have enough pride to stop beggins us continually to pity him for being so stupid and pathetic. I guess that day will never come. Just one more reason to pity the stupidest most pathetic creature the world has ever seen.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:52 pmLushInterior Says:
Salad? We bears don’t eat salad…..we eat baby fur seals alive…silly pharmaceutical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
My GOD you are a stupid and pathetic piece of garbage. I am starting to resent your constant begging for our pity.
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:54 pmYou’d think a man that looked this nerdy would be smarter.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:15 pmLushMoron why do you even try for clever? You are far too stupid to ever pull it off. Pathetic is all you have any hope of accomplishing. Dont you miss self respect? Havent you ever WISHED you had it? How humiliating it must be to go to a website like this constantly begging everyone to pity you for being so stupid and pathetic. It is so sad. You are tragic like a Meryl Streep movie accept without the charm or intelligence. Why not giving us a break from breaking our hearts constantly pitying you. Go stew in your ignorance and worthlessness for a while. Then we can recharge our batteries and pity you all over again. I mean you are ALWAYS going to be stupid and pathetic. It can wait a few days. Are you so addicted to our pity you have to get it constantly? The stupid and pathetic are your gifts you will always have them. You have an inexhuastable supply of stupid and pathetic. It is just who you are.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:20 pmDid I really write accept instead of except? My, I need to pay attention.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 pmLushInterior Says:
I have an urge to hate baby fur seals!
_____________
Is this in addition to your usual daily intake of shite?
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 pmThe Republic of Stupidity Says:
Well that is our little LushMoron. The shite goes in the stupid comes out.
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:43 pmbarack obomber Says:
Why in the world would you be so proud to show how incredibly ignorant you are. Global warming puts and keeps more energy in the environment you moron so there will be more intense storms including snowstorms. The TREND will be warming. I think they changed it because the underestimated the STUPIDITY and gullibility of morons like YOU that make these incredibly ignorant arguments. Beg, borrow, or steal a couple of functional braincells you fool. You are a stupid brainwashed fool without even the CAPACITY to think for yourself so you spew out these zombie memes that have been explained to the ignorant like you dozens of times. Have the decency to be ASHAMED to be so stupid
February 24th, 2009 at 1:04 amhttp://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Naomi Oreskes*
December 2004
Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For example, while discussing a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency report on the risks of climate change, then-EPA administrator Christine Whitman argued, “As [the report] went through review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change” (1). Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science (2). Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.
The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC’s purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).
The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies’ members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords “climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:05 amYour piece above is from 2004. It’s now 2009 and more and more people are catching on to this regulating, money sucking swindle of an idea touted as “science”. Don’t be sheep.
February 24th, 2009 at 2:48 ammchamma,
Well, that was certainly an excellent refutation of the thousands of climate experts!———–NOT
Looks like “YOU Can’t Touch This”. (That was a MC Hammer joke)
February 24th, 2009 at 3:51 am“…the Washington Post is willing to stake its reputation on.”
What reputation? It turned into a Zionist rag sheet years ago, sucking on Bush’s tits. Everyone knows it. The same happened to the NYT. They just act like nothing has happened when in fact their credibility is totally down the toilet.
When will Charles Krauthammer be committed to a mental institution?
February 24th, 2009 at 5:01 amHope you find your way down your own paper route, Lux.
February 24th, 2009 at 10:12 amThrough the hamburgers wrappers, the empty 30 pack boxes, the wadded up paper towels under your pillow, and the piles of National Enquirer on every available surface….
mchamma Says:
Your piece above is from 2004. It’s now 2009 and more and more people are catching on to this regulating, money sucking swindle of an idea touted as “science”.
In the last five years, it continues to get worse. By exactly what climatological mechanism do you think the problem is going to correct itself?
It sounds to me like you’re just believing in the possibility that you would prefer, rather than the one indicated by evidence. I’d like to live in a universe created from my hopes and dreams too, but unfortunately that doesn’t actually work.
.
mchamma Says:
Don’t be sheep.
They tell me that energy exchanges follow the laws of thermodynamics, they tell me that according to quantum physics particles become probability waves, etc. and I pretty much accept it on face value. Even though I can’t reproduce the high-energy particle physics experiments myself, I don’t have any contrary evidence either, and the vast majority of the accredited scientists who can do the experiments agree with these conclusions. Is that “being a sheep?”
That’s exactly the same situation when it comes to climate change. I don’t have any contrary data, and the vast majority of accredited scientists who have access to it agree that a) the greenhouse effect is increasing to such levels that will soon dramatically change the ecosystem of most areas, and that b) manmade emissions are a significan factor in this increase of the greenhouse effect.
When you go outside, the Earth looks flat. Does that mean you’re a sheep if you believe those who claim that it’s round? Is it “being a sheep” to believe in science at all?
February 24th, 2009 at 10:42 amOn Saint Never’s Day!
February 24th, 2009 at 10:55 am