Saying something makes it true!
This guy got paid to write a weird rant about how wrong scientists have been about global climate change. His major evidence? Well, 30 years ago a bunch of newspapers published stories about supposed global cooling, which turned out to be false. A scientist failed to predict the decline in price of 5 metals. And global sea ice levels have returned to their 1979 levels.
Hm.
The first two are kind of (by which I mean completely) irrelevant. Media outlets like the New York Times aren't actually involved in research science and are perfectly free to make stuff up based on nothing when it comes to science reporting--and they often do. This page has a brief summary of an actual scientific report from the same time period, in which scientists working on studying climate change essentially concluded that something seemed to be going on, but much more research needed to be done to figure out what. Not exactly the far-fetched and baseless conclusion George Will seems to be reaching for.
And why a scientist's prediction of future market prices for various minerals has anything to do with how we should judge the general consensus on climate change, I have no idea. It's entirely possible for someone to have a very good understanding of his own specialty (say, climate change) without having specialist knowledge of a completely different field (say, market economics).
Will's third point sounds the best. . . but turns out to simply be a lie.
I might write him to find out how I could get hired for making $%*t up.
Actually, screw that. Inspired by Mr. Will's logic, I can now demonstrate that I am Empress of the Universe.
Model:
1. Scientists say that global climate change is happening.
2. One scientist was wrong about something.
3. Climate change is a lie!
1. Some people say I am not the Empress.
2. George Will was wrong about something.
3. I rule the universe!
Hm.
The first two are kind of (by which I mean completely) irrelevant. Media outlets like the New York Times aren't actually involved in research science and are perfectly free to make stuff up based on nothing when it comes to science reporting--and they often do. This page has a brief summary of an actual scientific report from the same time period, in which scientists working on studying climate change essentially concluded that something seemed to be going on, but much more research needed to be done to figure out what. Not exactly the far-fetched and baseless conclusion George Will seems to be reaching for.
And why a scientist's prediction of future market prices for various minerals has anything to do with how we should judge the general consensus on climate change, I have no idea. It's entirely possible for someone to have a very good understanding of his own specialty (say, climate change) without having specialist knowledge of a completely different field (say, market economics).
Will's third point sounds the best. . . but turns out to simply be a lie.
I might write him to find out how I could get hired for making $%*t up.
Actually, screw that. Inspired by Mr. Will's logic, I can now demonstrate that I am Empress of the Universe.
Model:
1. Scientists say that global climate change is happening.
2. One scientist was wrong about something.
3. Climate change is a lie!
1. Some people say I am not the Empress.
2. George Will was wrong about something.
3. I rule the universe!