Andrew Alexander, The Washington Post's new Ombudsman, has really stepped into it big time with the mounting Will scandal due to his distortions, deceptions, and dishonesties when it comes to Global Warming columns. Alexander sought, it seems, to calm the raging seas by stepping up with a piece in today's Post but has, it seems clear, simply thrown more oil on the flames. The Heat From a Global Warming Column begins:
Opinion columnists are free to choose whatever facts bolster their arguments. But they aren't free to distort them.The question of whether that happened is at the core of an uproar over a recent George F. Will column and The Post's fact-checking process.
Well, the record is clear, George Will has distorted facts. Here are two from his second column:
1. Claiming that just one item from his first article was challenged. BEEP! Wrong. Not true. Whether or not he could defend his views, there were multiple items substantively challenged and George Will and The Post editors received a letter detailing three examples.
2. As a small example, Will misrepresented a 1975 New York Times article in a blatant (and, well, rude) attack on The Times' credibility. (See material below.)
The list, as we are aware by now, goes on and on and, distressingly, on ...
Will's Feb. 15 column, headlined "Dark Green Doomsayers," ridiculed "eco-pessimists" and cited a string of "predicted planetary calamities" that Will said have never come to pass.A key paragraph, aimed at those who believe in man-made global warming, asserted: "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
Yes, this is "a key paragraph" but, again, it is far from the only distortion and deception in that column. (Here is a discussion of three examples.) George Will and The Post wish, it seems, to seek to narrow this down to this one specific issue where, while Will was wrong, there is a path to create a case that there was at least some basis (however bad) for his writing what he wrote (as deceptive and wrong-minded as it was). Even as, see below, Alexander admits that Will misrepresented the factual information about total ice coverage and that this should not have passed through fact checking. (Alexander, of course, does not get into how Will misrepresented the discussion by focusing on global ice coverage when the ice coverage issue of concerned is Arctic ice.)
This becomes a boring battle over a specific scientific fact when the issue is, truly, Will's serial distortions and deceptions. This is a pattern and habit we're speaking of, not isolated incident or isolated factual dispute.
The column triggered e-mails to The Post from hundreds of angry environmental activists and a few scientists, many asserting that the center had said exactly the opposite.
Let us be clear, the letters and emails were far from just about this one paragraph, one issue. I, alone, sent Alexander three notes and covered multiple issues, including, but not limited to, the issue of ice extent.
The ruckus grew when I e-mailed readers who had inquired about the editing process for Will's column. My comments accurately conveyed what I had been told by editorial page editor Fred Hiatt -- that multiple editors had checked Will's sources, including the reference to the Arctic Climate Research Center. Although I didn't render a judgment, my response was understandably seen as an institutional defense and prompted an orchestrated e-mail campaign in which thousands demanded that The Post correct Will's "falsehoods." Like they say when the pro football rookie gets clobbered: "Welcome to the NFL."
Is that an indication that you got it wrong? What do you mean that you didn't "render a judgment"? Didn't sending that out render a judgment of stating that the Post had done its job? How were readers who saw that supposed to judge your work?
And, it is disingenuous to write "readers", when people were identifying their institutions and, in some cases, being quite clear that they were in reporting situations. As per the "reader" who broke your email to a wider audience.
The messages, often identical in wording, were soon countered by waves of e-mails defending Will and attacking what many labeled "global warming alarmists" trying to muzzle him.
You pledged to read all emails. What an insane pledge in today's world of communication where an email like yours can so easily be swamped by coordinated campaigns. But, Mr Alexander, the real issue is not numbers, but of substance. Were there substantively correct comments in those emails? From those challenging the Post as to running serial disingenous material? From those defending Will? What was the quality, rather than quantity, of the material in your inbox? That is truly what matters in terms of a substantive discussion seeking to enlighten your readers as to some truth.
And, well, as hard as it seems to be for you and Fred Hiatt to admit, the challenges to George Will are correct as to his serial distortions and twisting of information when it comes to the issues of Global Warming (and, well, many other things).
By mid-week, it was a bit like watching chairs being thrown in a bar fight.
You were watching? Seems to me that is disingenuous, you are a participant.
Responding to the controversy, Will wrote again on Friday and insisted that his first column "accurately reported what the center had reported."
Of course, that was not true.
As the debate continues, questions linger about The Post's editing process. And there are separate questions about how The Post reacted once readers began questioning the accuracy of Will's column.
"Questions linger ..." How about questions are mounting in intensity?
First, the editing process. My inquiry shows that there was fact-checking at multiple levels.It began with Will's own research assistant, Greg Reed. When the column was submitted on Feb. 12 to The Washington Post Writers Group, which edits and syndicates it, Reed sent an accompanying e-mail that provided roughly 20 Internet reference links in support of key assertions in the column. Richard Aldacushion, editorial production manager at the Writers Group, said he reviewed every link. The column was then edited by editorial director Alan Shearer and managing editor James Hill.
Next, it went to The Post's op-ed editor, Autumn Brewington, who said she also reviewed the sources.
Cool. George Will "provided roughly 20 Internet reference links". Okay. Please provide them. For some reason, it might be quite interesting to see what George Will and The Washington Post see as legitimate sources for information about Climate Change. The controversy has mounted to the point where such openness makes sense. Warning. There will people who actually fact check those sources.
The editors who checked the Arctic Research Climate Center Web site believe it did not, on balance, run counter to Will's assertion that global sea ice levels "now equal those of 1979." I reviewed the same Web citation and reached a different conclusion.It said that while global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979," sea ice area in the Northern Hemisphere is "almost one million sq. km below" the levels of late 1979. That's roughly the size of Texas and California combined. In my mind, it should have triggered a call for clarification to the center.
Yes. Since when does "near or slightly lower" equate to a strong assertion of "now equal". (Will could have written "nearly equal" but, after all, seeking to be "nearly" accurate to his source would have weakened his truthiness-laden broadside.)
But according to Bill Chapman, a climate scientist with the center, there was no call from Will or Post editors before the column appeared. He added that it wasn't until last Tuesday -- nine days after The Post began receiving demands for a correction -- that he heard from an editor at the newspaper. It was Brewington who finally e-mailed, offering Chapman the opportunity to write something that might help clear the air.
Well, even without the phone call, "nearly equal" might have been appropriate.
Now, are you going to mention that Will emphasized "now" when the citation was from several months ago? Would you allow a columnist to speak of former President Bush as if he were still in the Oval Office?
Readers would have been better served if Post editors, and the new ombudsman, had more quickly addressed the claims of falsehoods.
"Claims"? Okay, you are not getting it. Will's columns are filled with falsehoods and deceptions. Again, that direct falsehood in yesterday's column that he was only challenged on one issue is, in essence, repeated by inference in your column discussing only that issue.
Editors also missed opportunities to move the debate to washingtonpost.com. Will's column attracted hundreds of comments online, and the three-day cutoff period for comments could have been extended to allow more. Experts could have been quickly engaged to debate Will's assertions. Clarifications from the Arctic Climate Research Center could have been posted.
Okay. What is the readership of the printed paper vs the online columns? And, are you going to discuss the issue of distributing this to millions of other people via The Washington Post Writers' Group or is that complicity beyond the scope of your responsibilities?
There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that's where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.
What?
This is an incredible insult to the range and thoughtfulness of the commentaries from scientists, science reporters, media specialists, and others.
And, in terms of stepping into it, what does this say about Alexander's regard for the Columbia Journalism Review (which published The George Will Affair). (For links to many fantastic discussions, see:
On its news pages, it can recommit to reporting on climate change that is authoritative and deep. On the editorial pages, it can present a mix of respected and informed viewpoints. And online, it can encourage dialogue that is robust, even if it becomes bellicose.
Mr. Alexander. There are real issues as to how the Washington Post is faux and balanced within its reporting, often seeming to require "balancing" with a quote from a skeptic or denier for environmental/climate change reporting.
Second, while the Post could "present a mix", sadly it doesn't. And, "Respected and informed" ... what about "mis-informed"? And, any readiness/willingness to commit to actually holding those columnists to any reasonable standard of truth?
In all, this column does not truly answer the problems that The Post faces (created) with "The Will Affair." This situation is not Alexander's fault but he certainly hasn't solved it either.
Sometimes comment sections can be quite enlightening. Perhaps mine was useful:
There is a serious issue here: you focus simply on ice extent, when that is only one of many distortions and, yes, falsehoods in Will's first column.Why not deal with his misrepresentation of the Global Cooling discussion ... and his abuse of cited sources to misrepresent their totality?
What about his claims about Global Warming having stopped for a decade?
...
And, today's column?
To start with, the direct falsehood that Will had been challenged on only one assertion when, as per above, I've just shown three (and there were others).
And, his misrepresentation of the NYTimes article which he uses to attack the Times.
And ...
The list is impressively long for just two columns.
Why do you write as if there is only one item in dispute, when there are a plethora of misrepresentations and inaccuracies?
This is a situation, across much of the web, where climate realists are certainly in the majority. Here, from "imback", is a comment that I found particularly cogent:
Thank you, Mr Alexander. This column is a start, but I have a few comments.1) The volume or tone of your email traffic one way or the other is not important. The truth here is what matters.
2) There were other problems with the Will column besides the ice error. At least Will is now fully outed as a propagandist for climate change denialism.
3) The error checking at the Post clearly needs to be better, which you do address obliquely.
4) Online dialogue is NOT the answer. [NOTE: Alexander's piece will appear in Sunday's paper although the responses to it will not.] The signal to noise ratio is too low. The Post needs to get it right first or publish retractions.
Wonder whether Mr. Alexander will read and actually absorb "bellicose" commentaries like these.
And, another Will fabrication ...
Well, let us give the excuse for The Washington Post. I think one could employ a fact-checker full-time on George F Will and, even if that hard-working soul person worked 24/7, it is unclear whether they could keep up with all of his mischaracterizations and untruths.
In his most recent second column, he cites a 1975 NYTimes article to say the Times was a fear-mongering on Global Cooling. Here is the article. This is a situation where I will simply cite another's work. Here is an excellent discussion about this issue from The Way Things Break and George Will and The Washington Post - Reputations gone up in smoke over global warming denialism. From that discussion beginning with a quote from George Will:
Concerning those predictions, the New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."Here Will is engaging in obvious, pathetic quote mining. Setting aside that a single article in The New York Times is not itself sufficient evidence today or 20 odd years ago to proclaim the "near certainty" of anything- what does the NY Times article actually say? [following emphases mine]
The very headline of the article directly contradicts Will's assertion: "Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead."
The opening graph: "The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are the subjects of deepening debate."
Yes, this is the story that Will flatly claimed as a "[prediction] about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling".
Another fantastic example of how George Will is fabricating and deceiving. What is The Washington Post's standard for fact-checking Will? Other than, it seems, making him raise his right hand or something (with fingers crossed behind his back) to say that they can publish his material?
NOTE: For a strong, fact-filled indictment of Will's second column, see Joe Romm's In a journalistic blunder reminiscent of the Janet Cooke scandal, the senior editors of the Washington Post let George Will reassert several climate falsehoods plus some new ones. And, after this post was authored, Romm responded to Alexander's column with The Post ombudsman whitewashes George Will's columns, the editors, and his own role.
NOTE: I am trying to maintain a list of relevant blog posts re "The Will Affair" as an open reference. See Wash-Post Embraces Will-ful Deceit for tens of links. Feel free to add any missing/relevant items in the comments. (It is hard to keep up with the flood of discussions.) And, further, for those who are rejecting basic science, don't bother writing in the comments "you didn't prove Will wrong" in this discussion of Alexander's column, Will's work is dissected and, with great amounts of cited material, debunked thoroughly by the material / authors / scientists linked to in that post.
I have now been called a Flat Earther so many times that I finally googled "The Earth is flat." I found the Flat Earth Society web site, and took a look.
The condensed report: an absolutely fascinating experience that I highly recommend it to everyone.
change the subject and
sabotage coherent discourse.
"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve..."
Brilliant!!!
:-)
Thanks for your comments, though it seems you protest too much. Mr. Will does stumble around a bit, but he also makes a few points, and he is a great writer.
Persons interested in current Arctic Sea conditions can check the raw data out for themselves at www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews
Today's data indicates that the peak winter of 2008/2009 sea ice has already exceeded the peak winter sea ice for 2007/2008. How high will it go? Maybe George is planning to talk about this soon.
QUOTE
The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data.
ENDQUOTE
Perhaps you should turn your attention to basketball or somewhere things are so easily counted ...
Since Ice ages are presaged by CO2 and global warming,
Global cooling follows global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
This argument is a waste of time.
We need to get off fossil fuels for a million other reasons, global warming/cooling or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research
Apart from that I do agree that we need to get off fossil fuels, for a variety of reasons, one million or not.
:-)
Regarding George Will's global ice extent comparison:
Do you agree that the UIU comparison of February 1979/2009 was specious in context, as the starting point was December 2008/December 1979? If we move one point 2 months forward in time, we should move the corresponding comparison point two months forward too, right? As the comparison used February 1979, it moved that point 10 months back in time relative to the other.
I'm sure you have the data. What does the February 2009/February 1980 comparison look like?
Regarding his claim of "no warming in the last ten years";
Andrew Revkin, in his article “In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall," states that the last ten years "was just a pause in warming." So he seems to agree with George Will's claim.
Do you agree?
The new UIU comparison does not move the comparison point 10 months relative to the other, but 12—the current point two months forward, and the other ten months back. Makes sense?
He says that global ice volume in December 2008 and December 1979 was about the same. This is a fact if we cut him just a little slack. UIU then came beck with a rebuttal where they compared February 1979 with February 2009. This is specious. For the comparison to make sense in context we must compare February 2009 with February 1980.
He also said that there was a global cooling scare in the 1970s. I don't see how this can be so highly disputable or misleading. There was.
He then went on to say that there has been no warming for the last ten years. This is borne out by at least some of the temperature time series, like UAH and I think others. He may be cherrypicking his data, but so will anyone who wants to show a warming over the same period.
What is this firestorm all about?
That a man lied about facts to defend his ideology and didn't get away with it. That just has to hurt the ideology as much as the man.
But I'm not. I am a liberal Democrat.
I had pretty much bought off on AGW, started doing some more reading, and ended up skeptical. (The strongest reasons for my growing skepticism was probably the historical climate record, which made recent climate changes seem somewhat undramatic. Not to mention learning a little about extant computer climate models and their predictive power.)
And you have stated nothing of substance in your post. Would you please show me how he "lied about facts?"
If I read something from George Will, which is not very often, I expect a conservative point of view. I also expect that he will use whatever facts he puts forward to his advantage. This does not mean that he necessarily is lying. In this case I simply can't see that there is much mendacity going on.
George WIll is put into the homes of 10s of millions with a 'seal of approval' of The Washington Post Writers' Group. And, he is putting out misleading disinformation and, frequently, simply falsehoods.
He does not say "some people were concerned about Global Cooling" or "scientists debated" but very clearly is trying to make it seem as if it was a scientific consensus. The AMS published a study last fall which examined, in detail, this issue and provided a clear statement that there was no such consensus. The study authors sent it to Will who acknowledged receiving it. (Who knows if he read it ...)
We can cherry pick lots of data. George Will provided the Post 20 web citations. I can provide you 20 web citations proving The Earth is Flat. Will doesn't just "cherry pick", but he misrepresents.
I won't get into the specifics of weather conditions other than to point out that Will clearly misrepresented the ice material in multiple ways: (1) conflating global ice situation with the discussions that focused on Arctic Ice, (2) stating "now" for several month old information, (3) claiming ice extent was the same, rather than "nearly", etc ...
1998 was a hot year -- amid Global Warming, we had natural events that help drive warming. Okay, 1998 was a hot year, the hottest year. This does not stop the trend line, 5/10/15 year trendlines showing warming.
Thank you for your courteous reply.
As to the 1970s cooling scare, I refer to the chapter from Newsweek 1975 quoted below. It seems a little excessive to claim that George Will was trying to prove "a consensus." HIs collage of quotes did not come across as a blatant attempt to mislead. There is a fairly obvious satirical bent to the paragraph, although it is clear that you did not appreciate Mr. Will's humor.
And Mr. Siegel, nobody needs to see your 20 web quotations claiming the Earth is flat. Disagreement on AGW is not in the same category.
George Will did not conflate global ice extent with Arctic ice extent. It was the UIU rebuttal that made the point that Arctic sea ice was more important. This may be so, but Mr. Will never argued this point. I understand that you think he should have made the distinction.
Also, when Mr. Will is speaking in decadal increments (1979 to 2008) I am not particularly offended by a "now" that is a two months off.
I am still interested in the UIU making the correct comparison by the way (Feb 2009/1980.) Would you happen to have those numbers?
I am satisfied that you agree that global warming has not taken place since 1998. I also agree that 1998 saw a major El Nino event.
I am sure that both of us will follow climate developments with interest going forwards.
"Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends -- and not to such anthropogenic effects as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted."
So they are saying that if it wasn't for AGW, then the Earth would cool over the next 20,000 years. Will and the other deniers claim the study says that AGW doesn't exist which is just a big fat absolute lie.
do you agree that the UIU comparison of February 1979/2009 was specious in context, as the starting point was December 2008/December 1979. If we move one point 2 months forward in time, we should move the same two months forward too, right? As the comparison used February 1979, it moved that point 10 months back in time.
I'm sure you have the data. What does the February 2009/February 1980 look like?
"To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic."
Seems like a cooling scare to me.
I feel bad for those journalists that work there who live in denial about it.
The responses to your challenges are embarrassing.
You can only say they are incompetant or intentionally misleading.
Fact checking skills are supposed to be near the top of every journalist/editor resume... aren't they?
George Will needs to be fired, and like a corrupt CEO banned from holding further officer positions, Will should be barred from working in the media.
The Washington Times, on the other hand, caters to the area's conservative audience.
But when a news reporting service fails to "fact check" appropriately, but only reads what GW uses to base his arguments then they are irresponsible. The best analogy is when the news media failed to fact check GWBush's assertions about WMD's in Iraq. These failures allowed the Bush Administration to take America to war.
Being the optomist, I hoped that media had learned their lesson...obviously the WP editorial fact check group is still in the group think mode and will allow individuals to spread falsehoods with equally disasterous results.