The Washington Post versus George Will
In my latest for The Guardian, I take a look at the insurrection with the ranks of the Washington Post over George Will's repeated mischaracterizations of the scientific evidence for human-caused global warming.
Labels: George Will, global warming, Guardian, Washington Post
posted by Dan Kennedy @ 3:34 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Not believing in global warming wouldn't hardly be a problem or concern if global technology and industry had an inexpensive and affordable, very efficient solution should such an event occur.
Otherwise, this would be as dumb as being middle class without homeowner's and health insurance. Risk is not so bad when properly prepared for the downside. I'd like to know George's solution if he is wrong.
NewsHound: There was another, more important point that I was trying to make, although I'm not sure if I succeeded.
Will doesn't have to "believe in" global warming. But as a responsible journalist, he has no right not to believe that the Arctic ice cap is melting, or that human activity has brought atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide to levels not seen in millions of years.
Dan - yes, you are correct. And I had thought about it before reading your comment. But hesitated or at least wondered about elevating him from political activist (with writing skills) to "responsible" journalist.
I'm still wondering. I know that Will has written many interesting and thought filled columns over the years and perhaps even if he has a tendency to lean in one direction is still legitimately a journalist, and if so your point is well received.
And, I wonder, if George Will arrives at his scientific conclusion because the viewpoint might be similar to the previous Administration and is counter to Obama's point of view. If so, what kind of independent thought and science is that? Worse, how is that worthy of publication?
Does anyone know if George Will smokes cigarettes because that won't do any harm either and all the warnings are a false smokescreen?
"perhaps even if he has a tendency to lean in one direction is still legitimately a journalist". Sounds like it depends on which direction.
Post a Comment
<< Home