That would be "ad New York Times" I suppose. I take as a matter or religious faith that global warming is a scientific issue, and that arguments concerning its reality or unreality should start and end there. So when one frames the argument about global warming either in response to a Newsweek headline many years … Continue reading Argumentum ad Novi Eboraci Tempora
Apparently, John's latest foray into the entangling brambles of Will's global warming denial struck a chord. In particular, his questioning the expertise of Will and Mark Steyn to one, deny global warming, and two, to properly adjudicate what qualifies as adequate evidence for their denials seemed to have aroused the ire of none less than … Continue reading Dubious is as dubious does
In order further to induce skepticism about global warming, George Will now invokes the words of Mark Steyn, a man with no apparent education or expertise on climate science, who in turn rests his global warming denialism on someone who who has no education or expertise on climate science. Will writes: The costs of weaning … Continue reading The stain of ignorance
Once again someone needs to explain to Fred Hiatt, editorial page editor of the Washington Post, the importance of making "inferences." Yesterday in an online chat session (courtesy of TPM) there was the following exchange between Hiatt and a reader: Boston: This doesn't relate to Obama but would you care to address the whole George … Continue reading Shut him down
Now this is really baffling. The Washington Post publishes another George Will column containing global warming denial. Ok, to be fair, the article only contains that charge as the set up to the claim that flourescent bulbs won't stop global warming anyway. No one believes George Will about the former, and no one believes the … Continue reading Supposedly, allegedly, naturally
While I was away the Washington Post finally got around to posting responses to the two factually and logically challenged George Will pieces on global climate warming change (discussed by us here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). One of these, a letter from the World Meteorological … Continue reading Practice with scientists
Everyone has heard the expression, "you can choose your own something or other, but not your own facts." Well, in a way, no. Here's the way, according to Washington Post's Ombudsman, Andrew Alexander: Opinion columnists are free to choose whatever facts bolster their arguments. But they aren't free to distort them. The question of whether … Continue reading Choose your own facts
The following line from the Columbia Journalism Review strikes me as an extremely odd position to take. But his point about the wiggly, lawyerly language is especially germane because this is a classic case of evidence versus inference. The Post can argue that, technically, all of the evidence Will presents passed fact-checking; and Will can … Continue reading Evidence versus inference
We certainly pick on George Will a lot. This is because he is a recidivist. Now despite his having been roundly and decisively refuted in his ridiculous global warming denialism, he has returned to the scene of the crime, to repeat his errors and once again to tout the virtues of his skepticism. His skepticism … Continue reading Recidivism
In the category of sloppy pseudo-balance-driven reporting today, we have the following comparison between George Will's making stuff up and Al Gore's exaggerating a consequence of a well-established phenomenon. The New York Times' Andrew Revkin writes: In the effort to shape the public’s views on global climate change, hyperbole is an ever-present temptation on all … Continue reading Bicameral poxism