Comments on: Action Alert: George Will's Climate Change Baloney http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/18/action-alert-george-wills-climate-change-baloney/ The national media watch group Sat, 20 Mar 2010 12:47:02 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2 hourly 1 By: takvar http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/18/action-alert-george-wills-climate-change-baloney/comment-page-1/#comment-2947 takvar Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:33:47 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=5956#comment-2947 Mr. Alexander, Thank you for your response to recent criticisms of negligent fact-checking regarding George Will's 2/15 column. I am writing to take issue with that response. You specifically support one portion of the column that makes reference to global sea ice levels by quoting from the original University of Illinois source. However, that statement from the University of Illinois was written to specifically refute the very point that Will is making in his column. That is, it has been long known that global sea ice levels are not the most relevant measure for understanding the effects of climate change. How can you use this source to support your claim that Will's column was sufficiently fact-checked? Clearly, Will is misrepresenting this source. Now, you do the same in his defense. Further, there are other issue regarding fact-checking in the Feb. 15 column that you did not address. Specifically, that there has been no global warming in the past 10 years, and that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the earth was entering a period of global cooling. Both of these statements are facts that can be easily refuted by referencing the relevant peer-reviewed climate science literature. I look forward to a future correction/retraction from the Washington Post to ensure that the ombudsman fulfills the duty to protect the Washington Post's journalistic reputation. Sincerely, Mr. Alexander,
Thank you for your response to recent criticisms of negligent fact-checking regarding George Will's 2/15 column. I am writing to take issue with that response.

You specifically support one portion of the column that makes reference to global sea ice levels by quoting from the original University of Illinois source. However, that statement from the University of Illinois was written to specifically refute the very point that Will is making in his column. That is, it has been long known that global sea ice levels are not the most relevant measure for understanding the effects of climate change. How can you use this source to support your claim that Will's column was sufficiently fact-checked? Clearly, Will is misrepresenting this source. Now, you do the same in his defense.

Further, there are other issue regarding fact-checking in the Feb. 15 column that you did not address. Specifically, that there has been no global warming in the past 10 years, and that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970's that the earth was entering a period of global cooling. Both of these statements are facts that can be easily refuted by referencing the relevant peer-reviewed climate science literature.

I look forward to a future correction/retraction from the Washington Post to ensure that the ombudsman fulfills the duty to protect the Washington Post's journalistic reputation.

Sincerely,

]]> By: yendorhillen http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/18/action-alert-george-wills-climate-change-baloney/comment-page-1/#comment-2943 yendorhillen Wed, 25 Feb 2009 07:13:44 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=5956#comment-2943 Dear Sir, In your response to observations of inacuracies to George Will's recent refutation of the facts regarding man made climate change, you cited posession of information corroborating as well as refuting Will's claims as an argument not to print a retraction. Perhaps a sentence or two citing various sources in a correction could help readers make up their own minds: ie; "While numerous nobel laureates and repected scientists conclude climate change is real and man made, employees of Exxon/mobile are paid to disagree." sincerely, Rod Hillen, laguna Niguel, CA Dear Sir,
In your response to observations of inacuracies to George Will's recent refutation of the facts regarding man made climate change, you cited posession of information corroborating as well as refuting Will's claims as an argument not to print a retraction. Perhaps a sentence or two citing various sources in a correction could help readers make up their own minds: ie; "While numerous nobel laureates and repected scientists conclude climate change is real and man made, employees of Exxon/mobile are paid to disagree."
sincerely,
Rod Hillen, laguna Niguel, CA

]]> By: jps http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/18/action-alert-george-wills-climate-change-baloney/comment-page-1/#comment-2935 jps Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:20:27 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=5956#comment-2935 Andy Alexander Ombudsman Washington Post Dear Mr. Alexander, Thank you for your recent explanation of how George Will's falsification of the sea ice data was hidden from Post fact checkers. I eagerly await your determination of how his misrepresentation of UN climate change researchers found "no recorded global warming for more than a decade" also escaped the scrutiny of your fact checkers. Do you also intend to determine how he was also able to claim that there was a prevailing view of global cooling in the 1970s, when in fact the cooling claims in the peer reviewed researchers amounted to only a tiny fraction of climatology papers, with small confidences? The difference between that and today's widespread consensus of global warming at "very likely" and "likely" strong confidences endorsed by the secondary (literature review and meta analysis) peer reviewed sources is like night and day. Please do not allow Will's politically-motivated scientific falsehoods to besmirch the Post's reputation any further. Sincerely, James Salsman Mountain View, California Andy Alexander
Ombudsman
Washington Post

Dear Mr. Alexander,

Thank you for your recent explanation of how George Will's falsification of the sea ice data was hidden from Post fact checkers.

I eagerly await your determination of how his misrepresentation of UN climate change researchers found "no recorded global warming for more than a decade" also escaped the scrutiny of your fact checkers.

Do you also intend to determine how he was also able to claim that there was a prevailing view of global cooling in the 1970s, when in fact the cooling claims in the peer reviewed researchers amounted to only a tiny fraction of climatology papers, with small confidences? The difference between that and today's widespread consensus of global warming at "very likely" and "likely" strong confidences endorsed by the secondary (literature review and meta analysis) peer reviewed sources is like night and day.

Please do not allow Will's politically-motivated scientific falsehoods to besmirch the Post's reputation any further.

Sincerely,

James Salsman

Mountain View, California

]]> By: djmatt http://www.fair.org/blog/2009/02/18/action-alert-george-wills-climate-change-baloney/comment-page-1/#comment-2884 djmatt Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:27:14 +0000 http://www.fair.org/blog/?p=5956#comment-2884 Here is what I wrote: I am writing to ask you to do a better job of fact checking George Will's columns. He has misstated facts about global warming in his February 15, 2009 column. He cited a few periodicals that claimed in the 1970's that the earth was cooling, but that was not the prevailing consensus at the time. He misnamed the University of Illinois' Polar Research Group and misrepresented their research. They deny the facts he claims they stated. I understand that George Will and any columnist can come up with their own opinions, but doesn't your paper have a responsibility to check the facts? Here is what I wrote:

I am writing to ask you to do a better job of fact checking George Will's columns. He has misstated facts about global warming in his February 15, 2009 column.
He cited a few periodicals that claimed in the 1970's that the earth was cooling, but that was not the prevailing consensus at the time.
He misnamed the University of Illinois' Polar Research Group and misrepresented their research. They deny the facts he claims they stated.
I understand that George Will and any columnist can come up with their own opinions, but doesn't your paper have a responsibility to check the facts?

]]>