This guest post from Colt45 is an excellent addition to the discussion of George Will’s serial deceits. (Re The George Will Affair see annotated discussions of dissections of George will-ful deceit Will with my struggling to keep up or Greenfyre’s George Will goes platinum.)
A new report by the UN confirms what many other studies have already suggested. The decade 2000-2009 will “very likely” be the warmest decade on record.
In fact, “the ten warmest years on record have all occurred in the eleven years since 1997.” And with this latest report, which predicts 2009 to be the fifth warmest ever, it will now be that the eleven warmest years on record will have all occured since 1997. That is, the eleven warmest years on record will all have occurred in the last thirteen years.
But cheer up everyone concerned about Global Warming. It’s not occurring.
How do we know this? Because, 2009 is only the 5th warmest year on record.
Don’t you see what that means? 1998 was warmer than 2009! This means that, if anything, the earth is cooling. And it certainly is not warming. If it was warming, wouldn’t each year be successively warmer? (Heck, wouldn’t each month be warmer? Each day? Each hour?)
Expert scientists like George Will know the answer to this question, and the answer is “Yes.” Therefore we know the earth is not warming.
For example, one of Will’s claims therein was that there has been “no global warming” because 1998 was the “warmest year” on record (which, as noted here, he has creatively, and much more recently, morphed into a thinly veiled accusation of “bias” against the NY Times because the Times did not suggest 1998 was climate change’s “apogee” — a fantastically uninformed assertion regardless of temperature data). This is particularly interesting, given that the ten warmest years on record have all occurred since 1997, and that NASA cites both 2005 and 2007 as warmer than 1998. And that the head of the organization that ranks 1998 as slightly warmer, very nicely called Will’s’ claim a “misinterpretation.”
It is good to have expert climate scientists like George Will helping to inform and shape the public opinion.
Even if throughout the geologic record, climate is closely tied to atmospheric greenhouse gas levels; and even if atmospheric greenhouse gas levels have risen sharply the past 150 years, and in particular the past several decades; even if current greenhouse gas levels are well above any level over the past 650,000 years; and even if we have observed an increasingly steeper upward sloping global temperature curve since about 130 years ago when record keeping began, the earth is not warming, and “has not since 1998.” Just Ask George Will.
Who would you believe — Scientist par excellence George Will, or some stupid 130 year temperature chart from NASA? (Along with, essentially, every other non partisan scientific and metereological body the world over).
According to Washington insiders, The Washington Post is one of the two or three most influential editorial pages in the country. (Or see this list by the Atlantic Wire. According to it, 9 of the 33 most influential commentators in America — over one quarter — are all on that one Washington Post editorial page. Will is among them. He’s listed at number 3.)
So, an overly influential George Will is propagating blatant misinformation on what is one of the most influential editorial pages in the country.
No problem. Fred Hiatt: Just “debate him.” Thus, simply call up the Post or Hiatt tomorrow — he’ll put your editorial, and yours, and yours and yours, and yours too, right there on that page tomorrow, on top of Will’s. Or anybody else’s.
And heck, since Will was able to blatantly misinform, you don’t even have to present correct information either. And people can debate you! Then Hiatt can add a few dozen more of those pieces to tomorrow’s editorial page, as well.
Isn’t it obvious what a genius Hiatt is? It doesn’t matter if George Will is one of the most influential commentators in America. It doesn’t matter if the Washington Post has one of the most influential editorial pages in the country. It doesn’t matter if space on that editorial page is among the most valuable, and selective, in the country. It doesn’t matter if the information presented is highly misleading. Just “debate him.”
Such misinformation couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that our society is extremely misinformed. Why, look at this highly informed comment to NY Times environmental reporter Andy Revkin’s popular dot earth blog. (To put that comment into sharp focus, see here, here,or here). So what if it only got 30 recommends, more than most of the other early comments. It’s chock full of accurate and well informed analysis. Just like Will, but more so! (Or see this one that got 32. Or see this one that got 42! And the response to it, by a University of Chicago geophysics science professor, which got 4).
If comments are checked elsewhere at non partisan (and thus not as self selecting), news related sites, one will see that this is not an aberration. Even polls show a wide disparity between people’s perceptions, and the actual facts, on wide variety of critical, basic, issues; including Global Warming. (And that’s not even including Fox’s “special brand” of polling.)
Could the fact that one of the most respected newspapers — among Washington insiders that shape the debate and formulate policy –puts out misleading and even erroneous information have anything do with this?
No. Of course not. At least, not according to Fred Hiatt, who confuses misinformation, with adding to the debate. And who oversees what is one of the most important editorial pages in the country.
So cheer up. Global Warming is probably a hoax. Or, if not, at least we know it’s not occurring. Thanks to leading informed writers like George Will. And thanks to editorial page editors like Fred Hiatt, who keep printing their misinformation, while often leaving real debate, off of the page.
So remember to call Hiatt or write Hiatt tomorrow. He said it himself. You can “debate” him. And you can’t very reasonably debate him if Hiatt does not give you the same unique opportunity to be heard that he gave Will, right?