By Dan Kennedy • The press, politics, technology, culture and other passions

George Will’s errors and arrogance

In my latest for the Guardian, I take a look at George Will’s error-riddled column on global warming — and at how his arrogance, combined with the Washington Post’s defensiveness, succeeded in turning a one-day story into a two-week (and counting) siege.

Previous

Attack of the comment spam

Next

On the road again

19 Comments

  1. Don, American

    Please don’t be a typical liberal, and label everything with which you disagree a lie.

  2. Steve

    Y’know, I really wish it *were* a scandal, but how much attention is this garnering, really? I haven’t been paying close attention, but it seems the hue and cry has been pretty much ignored.Despite your good work, Dan.

  3. Peter Porcupine

    DK – Really, there doesn’t seem to be anyone outside the fortress throwing rocks except you. Not much of a siege.

  4. mike_b1

    Don, American, if you had read what the University of Illinois said, the authors of the report cited by Will said he got it wrong.Please don’t be a typical reactionary, and label everything with which you disagree a lie.

  5. O-FISH-L

    Dan, 23F on March 3, 2009. A foot+ of snow on the ground. French toast warning just settling down. Bad timing for the global warming hysteria. I think Al Gore has a heated seated waiting for you on one of his private jets. ENOUGH!

  6. An Astute Observer

    >>Please don't be a typical liberal, and label everything with which you disagree a lie.<<He learned everything he knows from that crack journalist Al Franken…

  7. Steve

    Not very astute, are you? When did Al Franken ever label himself a journalist?

  8. Dot Lane

    “Dan, 23F on March 3, 2009. A foot+ of snow on the ground. French toast warning just settling down. Bad timing for the global warming hysteria. “So you see a one day spike in stock prices and assume they will go up forever? All the blather about how snow proves global warming is false is tiresome. This is about long range trends, not single data points. Honest to G-d, these are the people who claim they know how to fix our economy?George Will is a fraud.

  9. mike_b1

    O-Fish: You’re kidding, right? Global warming brings not just warmer summers but adds volatility to the temperature and climate, which can include more snow and harsher winters.Is ignorance a such a point of pride that it must be displayed at all times?

  10. Neil

    Fish please recite while shovelling snow: weather is not climate

  11. mike_b1

    PP, it’s likely because George Will is to politics what Muhammad Bakri is to documentaries — hopelessly out of touch and completely discredited. No one cares what he says, save for his accountant. One of these days, while sorting through his dictionary in mad pursuit of some esoteric term with which to browbeat his imagined foes, and he’ll see a picture of himself next to the word “Anachronism.”

  12. T

    Well guys, the thing is, Mr. Will could have just stuck a little note at the end of a column, alluding to a vague error of some kind in a previous column. But he didn’t. Nowadays there are blogs and blog readers who pay attention to these things, and hold any thing written in what is deemed the MSM to strict standards of accuracy. It’s not like George Will just posted it on the Internet, where you can say whatever you want, regardless of science.

  13. Middleboro Review

    Dan,Good Guardian article!Unlike Steve and others, I have been following the controversy and am disappointed that this has continued for too long without rectification.Your 2nd and 3rd from the last paragraphs regarding the damage accomplished by Will’s article is the significant issue because of his credibility until this point.”What’s more, Will is probably our most respected conservative pundit, someone liberals take seriously because …he has a reputation for getting his facts straight. 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 ….” What is particularly distressing about the ideology that adheres to Global Warming Denial is the increased CO2 and methane reported (among other things) that will create an uninhabitable planet. In a narrow minded focus, the facts and science are being ignored, to our detriment.The detractors of Chu seem to be restricted to those who are financially threatened by his science.

  14. Dan Kennedy

    Not so Astute: You wrote, “He learned everything he knows from that crack journalist Al Franken …” Just scroll up a bit. Even you’ll be able to find it.

  15. Tom-Tom

    >.from that crack journalist Al Franken<<The joke is he's not.And neither are you….just a partisan.

  16. Middleboro Review

    Although I faithfully read what Dan has posted and pay particular attention to the comments, I generally refrain from posting for reasons that are evident in this thread.What I find is that most pat themselves on the back for their great intellectual abilities, faithfully read and absorb right wing think tank rhetoric, and regurgitate same undigested. In a popular rhetoric tactic, unnoticed by most who have absorbed the technique without thought, the subject gets changed and muddied, as the current stream to introduce Al Franken’s incorrect label and Dan’s ideology.Most have so successfully absorbed the propaganda, that if challenged, they couldn’t explain or defend or define their beliefs.Those who profess these ‘beliefs’ need only consider the current economic catastrophe to determine the success of those ‘beliefs.’To your detriment, most have accepted anti-science, anti-fact information that you simplify with labels. As long as you can dismiss with the derrogatory term “liberal,” the information doesn’t have to be considered. That allows most to remain smug in their conviction of correctness.There was a study done some time ago that analyzed the loss of critical thinking among those who absorbed too much tv. The accuracy of that analysis is proven by most of these comments.Dan, I can fully appreciate it if you choose not to post this, or subsequently delete.

  17. An Astute Observer

    >>Most have so successfully absorbed the propaganda, that if challenged, they couldn't explain or defend or define their beliefs.<<That's mighty presumptuous. But apparently you like to throw around broad statement without any specifics. >>To your detriment, most have accepted anti-science, anti-fact information that you simplify with labels. <<I didn't realize that you were the only clear thinking unbiased unaffiliated person here…yet you "simplify with labels" anyone who disagrees with you.But yet, we are back to the original thought. Anyone who disagrees with you is "anti-fact" or "anti-science"…or as was discussed here, a "liar".Please don't flatter yourself.

  18. Middleboro Review

    Astute Observer,The article? Your facts? The science?I never used the term "liar." That's your word.Your previous post –>>Please don't be a typical liberal, and label everything with which you disagree a lie.<<He learned everything he knows from that crack journalist Al Franken…March 3, 2009 8:54:00 PM ESTAmusing? Not so!Simplistic? Yeah!Not enough substance. Too many important things to do and not enough time for airheads.You want to discuss Will's column or global warming or the science, fine. Cute rhetoric? Generally defines lack of substance.I've read your previous posts.

  19. An Astute Observer

    >>You want to discuss Will's column or global warming or the science, fine.No, I'm here to comment on the use of the word "lie" on his blog.>I never used the term "liar." That's your word.<No, it's a word others have alluded to.>>Cute rhetoric? Generally defines lack of substance.<<Yeah, but you're the one coming here complaining about other commenters..when you yourself made a wide reaching gerealized criticism without any specifics.Maybe you should go back to lurking that you do so well.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén