It was ideology that led the conservative pundit George Will to type up an error-riddled column denying the science of global warming. But it was the combination of pride and arrogance, coupled with the Washington Post's institutional defensiveness, that has kept the controversy alive well past its natural expiration date.
On 15 February, Will lampooned the new US energy secretary, Steven Chu, over his dramatic predictions that California would become a dry, sun-baked hell if something is not done to reverse the warming trend. Will then sought to prove Chu was not to be taken seriously by making three arguments: that, in the 1970s, many scientists believed we were heading for catastrophic planetary cooling; that global warming stopped more than a decade ago; and that sea-ice levels are the same today as in 1979.
Inconveniently, Will was shown to be wrong on all three counts. What has gotten the most attention, though, is his claim about sea ice, mainly because his source – the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Centre – quickly set the record straight. "We do not know where George Will is getting his information," the centre said in a statement published on its website (since taken down, but preserved inside the tubes), adding that the amount of sea ice lost between 1979 and 2009 "is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California and Oklahoma combined".
For good measure, Joseph Romm, the editor of the Climate Progress blog, offered evidence that, contrary to Will's claim, there was no scientific consensus regarding global cooling in the 1970s, and that the past decade was the warmest on record.
The Post, though, reacted as slowly as a melting glacier. The new ombudsman, Andrew Alexander, was presumably still trying to find the vending machines when he sent out e-mails defending both Will and the Post's editing process. The Post's editorial-page editor, Fred Hiatt, also defended Will. It looked like a standoff.
Then, on 24 February, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin wrote a "news analysis" about two cases of overreach on global warming. One was a warning by Al Gore that warming is contributing to "weather-related disasters". The other was Will's claim about sea ice. Gore, Revkin reported, had promptly corrected himself when his error was pointed out. Will, on the other hand, was refusing to back down.
Revkin's piece led to a classic Times-Post smackdown. Will defended his reading of the data in a follow-up column on 27 February, and attacked 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'," Will wrote, adding a complaint that Revkin had not given Will sufficient time to respond.
Revkin, responding on his blog, pointed out (in the sort of detail that might interest Will if his mind weren't already made up) that Will had failed to separate differing trends in the Arctic and the Antarctic, and had presented single-year data as evidence of long-term developments.
There matters might have stood – except that Post ombudsman Alexander, finally settling in, administered to Will and his editors a carefully worded but fairly thorough thrashing. Though Alexander accepted Will's editors' characterization of their fact-checking process as something resembling peer review for a scientific journal – only more complicated – he nevertheless made it clear that everyone had fallen short, especially on the matter of sea ice.
Not letting himself off the hook, Alexander wrote: "Readers would have been better served if Post editors, and the new ombudsman, had more quickly addressed the claims of falsehoods."
So has Will's credibility with the public been diminished in any way? Please. His original column, as well as his retort, have been allowed to stand unhindered by so much as a correction or an editor's note.
What's more, Will is probably our most respected conservative pundit, someone liberals take seriously because – unlike Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, for instance – he has a reputation for getting his facts straight. He holds forth on ABC News and writes for Newsweek, a Post sister publication. His column is syndicated in more than 450 newspapers.
In other words, Will's erroneous column could do more damage to the average person's understanding of global warming than every word ever spoken by Glenn Beck, a radio and cable blowhard who, among other things, has compared Gore's global-warming activism to Nazi propaganda. (No, you can't make this stuff up.)
It's a shame that Will won't admit to his errors. But it's a scandal that the Post – other than its news ombudsman – is unwilling to hold him accountable.
What do you expect from an Ultra-Consecrative GPO Puppet-Master? Truth? The GOP needs its Sheep Herders.
No comments:
Post a Comment