Wow, that was an impressively ignorant article.  I think this is my favorite part:

"Because a massive study, just released by the Russian Government, contains overwhelming evidence that earth is on the verge of another Ice Age."

It takes some serious idiocy to think that an article written by an American blogger on the website of a Russian newspaper constitutes a massive study released by the Russian government containing overwhelming scientific evidence about anything.

What a freaking tool.

What is John supposed to tell his autoworker readers?  They are about to become unemployed because their union was too greedy and their managers were too incompetent and oh yes, the product they produced was killing the planet?  Check back in 5 years when those workers are building parts for wind farms. John will switch his message, but still get it wrong.

Oh my word....have you looked at any of John Tomlinson's other articles?  Those are some gems too....

I hope he takes the Guardian up on the one way kayak trip.

I just did, and immediately came upon this gem...

"...as a man of science myself..."

"The god of global warming, Gore...his scientific views are worshiped"

"John Coleman, on the other hand, who founded the Weather Channel, has produced reams of scientific material"

"many famous scientists such as Francis Crick, who discovered DNA, agree with Wallace. They've presented irrefutable evidence that life on earth was unquestionably created by an intelligent entity."

Hah!  This guy would make a great comedy act.

Well that's the issue really.  People in the media speak from a position of authority.  Their audience assumes that TV, radio, newspaper, and even blog articles have been researched and are accurate.  Otherwise why would these guys be so angry?

There used to be a sense of journalistic integrity where you were actually expected to get your facts straight.  Now people just don't seem to care.  The media regularly gets the facts totally wrong, and sometimes issues corrections, but nobody really notices those anyway.  I mean, how often do we see somebody reference some totally wrong article written by some blogger with no idea what he's talking about?  The sad thing is, thisTomlinson idiot isn't even that unusual.

Haha that article was featured on Climate Progress too.

Is George Will the most ignorant national columnist?

I LOVE my dog!  We adopted her from a local rescue organization last March.  She's a senior already but loves camping and tolerates the cats and rabbit.  Anything else you want to know?  How about the grandkid?  He's four now, and the reason I began researching global climate change, which is, after all, what this forum is about. 

I'm still recovering from weeding yesterday at work.  I think I tried to weed the whole place!  The ground is still wonderfully soft from last weeks rains, and the mustard and cockleburr just pops right out!  But my back is reminding me today that I overdid it.  Tomorrow I've got 2 volunteers coming in, and I'll be getting to work an hour early so we can work together to put the weeds on the run where we can. 

Back to the dog: my family owned a dog when I was young, and Leila is our 2nd.  We were blessed to have our first dog for 16 years.  Leila, a German-Australian Shepherd mix, is only 8, so we should be able to enjoy a few good years together before she starts to slow down.

That sounds like a cool mix.  We've got a pit bull/german shepherd/lab and a fox/bull terrier mix.  The former is an awesome dog.  The latter is very cute but kind of a spaz, as terriers tend to be.  We just had to put some metallic mesh on our backyard fence yesterday because she manages to jump over this 6-foot-tall fencing.

Oh yeah he's one of those dogs who's always aiming to please.  Great dog.  It's the other one who's the troublemaker. 

Oversweeping generalizations can get you into trouble every time.  When referring to pit bulls, I have two individuals I can refer to at polar opposite sides of the spectrum.  One was owned by a longtime friend, and was the sweetest animal you'd ever care to meet.  Never any problem with that dog ever, God rest her soul.

The 2nd was owned by now-former neighbors, the ones that lost their house despite the fact they had a greenhouse full of pot.  Their pit pull would bark and growl anytime you were out in the yard, and would chew on (eat) the fence in an attempt to attack.  Animal control couldn't/wouldn't do anything unless the dog was in our yard.

So like anything else in life, there are many shades of gray.  Every pet we've ever had has taught me something about life.  It took us 2 years before we were ready to get another dog.  She'd been owned since she was a pup, and returned after 6 years for snapping.  Obviously a point of concern for us because of our grandson.  But you know?  Once we got her bad tooth taken care of, once we got to know her, and her us, we no longer worry about her snapping.  That said, when my grandson is over, I keep a close eye on his contact with Leila.

Dana, my husband had a dog that was a jumper when he was a kid.  He wishes you good luck in keeping yours put!

Thanks.  Fortunately every time she's jumped the fence she's jumped back.  Apparently she landed on one of our neighbors' cacti a couple of times, and managed to come out of it no worse for wear.  But I think we've got the problem solved, although my wife thinks our backyard looks a bit like a prison yard now.

As for pitbulls, as long as they're not raised poorly (i.e. by dog fighters), they're great dogs.  Similar to dobermans they've gotten a really bad rap because of people who have raised them to fight (in the doberman case, to guard), but they're extremely human-friendly.  In fact, they were bred so that their owners could reach into the dog fighting ring and grab them without being bitten.

It ticks me off when certain states outlaw particular breeds, or when people are scared of all dogs of a certain breed because of a few bad apples (and by that I mean people like Michael Vick).  Really any dog can be nasty if raised that way.  It's not pitbulls' fault that they've been the target of dog fighters.  Personally they're one of my favorite breeds.  Terrific dogs (and very cute).

Yeah my wife adores bull terriers, and I like them too.  That's going to be our next dog, in fact.  I prefer just getting dogs from the pound, but she really wants a bull terrier.

This weekend we watched this French movie called Baxster because it was centered around a bull terrier.  Messed up movie though!

Back to the original subject, the Washington Post allowed George Will to rebut his critics.  In doing so, they allowed him to claim that only one of his original assertions was challenged (a laughable, bold-faced lie), and that the lone challenge was incorrect.  He also repeated some of the many false claims in his original article, like the 1970s global cooling myth.

Apparently the Washington Post editorial staff is utterly incompetent.

So the entire Washington Post editorial staff is "utterly incompetent?"  Doubtful. 

I have and will always have a tremendous amount of respect for this newspaper. Why?  You're too young to remember Watergate first hand.  For your generation, it's just a story, a movie, a chapter in American history.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/

Flashforward to 2009 and the George Will columns.  The fact that newspapers in general are between a rock and a hard place in general.  That a weak economy has impacts there, too.  That George Will is a man whose reputation includes a Pulitzer Prize, and visibility in other mediums.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/will.htm

I'm not a fan of Will, but let me play devil's advocate here.  This is an Op-Ed column.  It is held against a different standard than that which appears in news sections of a paper.  It is clearly put forth as the opinion of the writer, and doesn't necessarily represent the feelings of the paper in general.  What kind of contract Will has, who knows, who cares.  What kind of clout does he carry?  An enormous amount.  Does he help sell newspapers? As Sarah said, "You betcha."  Is he full of it?  On this issue, you and I both know he most definitely is.

And the awesome thing about this is the publicity it generates, the opportunity it provides for other, better informed individuals to set the record straight.  It generates controversy -- which benefits all involved in a number of ways -- and it keeps people talking about a topic which needs discussion.  A topic which yes, is still deeply misunderstood by many.

I heard Janeane Garofalo on Jon Stewart the other day, talking about Rush Limbaugh.  It was a crackup, hearing her uninhibited assessment of this ... person.  Will spewing forth on global warming may be well received by a specific audience, but again, it provides a platform for others to take it apart.  Which they did, and will again.

Back before my time there was Edward Murrow.  He was followed by people like Walter Cronkite, a name you should at least be familiar with.  There are many, many journalists in many aspects of what we now refer to as "the media" who still possess the kinds of standards that once carried the day.  Before that, in the early 20th century, there was the Hearst era, not journalisms finest hour.  But not long before that was the era of the muckraker. 

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h920.html

I guess the reason I'm venting here is because you, Dana, have repeatedly taken it upon yourself to hammer the media for this that and the other.  I ended up taking another path in life, but I've met journalists who went to jail rather than revealing a source, and I know what it takes in a good many fields to sometimes get the truth out there.  And it saddens me whenever you generalize in this fashion about the media. 

The Washington Post is not the same institution it was in the 1970's, when Ben Bradlee and Kathleen Graham ran the show.  But hey, lighten up, and use this as the opportunity it is to put the facts straight without jumping on the media-bashing bandwagon that the conservatives in this country love to ride.  Will's ride is almost over, and almost guaranteed there will be another of his ilk to take his place.  That's life.  LIve with it, but do it without tarnishing the reputations of those in the media who work hard and long to do it right.

This part may post twice -- once more than he deserves, if it does -- but following the 4th paragraph I included this link, which shows for me when I pull it up to edit text but doesn't show when I look at the thread:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/opinions/will.htm

The American media is a shell of what it was in the days of Murrow and Cronkite.  Certainly there are still good journalists, and I would never claim otherwise.  When I generalize about the media it's just that - a generalization, and not a statement about every journalist.

Certainly there must be many competent editors at the Washington Post.  Nevertheless, those who saw the two George Will articles are incompetent.  It's difficult to argue otherwise considering the fact that anyone with the ability to perform a Google search could have found any number of factual errors in the article in just a few seconds.

Even in an opinion article it's important to get facts right.  And if you don't, that's what editors are supposed to be for.  For the Post editors to miss the errors not just once, but a second time after many people had pointed them out, is simply incompetent.  Even worse is to allow Will to claim that only one of his claims had been criticized.  That's just a flat-out lie, which the editors know, because I'm sure they received a lot of mail about the article detailing its many factual errors.

I'm sure the paper enjoyed the attention it got from the article, but they're running a big risk by allowing false information to be published in their paper repeatedly.  Personally I've lost quite a bit of respect for the Post for their reaction to the article criticism.  Maybe I'm being unfair and the half-dozen people involved don't represent the quality of the other Post employees, but they're all part of a team.  Personally if I was in charge, I'd fire the people involved with these article.  It sullied the paper's name.

See that's what the media should focus on - how bad the warming will be and what to do about it.  That's a valuable discussion.  It shouldn't be a forum for spreading misinformation and long-debunked myths.  The Brits know how it's done.

I don't think you see the irony in answering the way you did.  Obviously I'm not getting through, so never mind, but you've obviously got a problem with the media that isn't healthy considering what the media can and does do for any given issue, including this one, including the Washington Post. 

This site keeps track of how many views a thread gets.  What someone just popping in sees in your first answer sees is a slam against the media.  That you tried to clarify it with a 2nd response is moot. 

It's not for Dana to decide how the media should conduct it's business.  I don't think overall they're doing a bad job regarding global climate change in the last few years.  Where the media failed was in its ability to step up to the plate post 9-11, when the administration portrayed anyone who questioned their policy as being un-American.  For years they were strangely distant.  On that issue I would not only join you in criticizing the American media, I would use much stronger language, much stronger.

That said, it's becoming obvious that this forum is more than an exchange of facts,  not what I thought it would it would be or truly need.  I'm the sort that needs to bounce thoughts and ideas on a given subject off of others, but I'm spending time trying to get you to be more careful in how you present yourself since you've carved out a niche for yourself as a spokesperson for the cause.  I can't even begin to express all the nuances a complicated and morphing subject like global climate change entails.  But the media gets a passing grade from me. I haven't read the March issue of National Geographic yet, but the cover story is "Saving energy: It starts at home," with another article on the Canadian oil boom.  I can't think of a great way to wrap this up, so signing off for now feeling rather frustrated regarding this forum.

Good responses by RealClimate, Monbiot, and Climate Progress.  There have been many to choose from, as a matter of fact.  It's good to see that so many aren't willing to let Will and the Post's repeated trampling of the truth go by unchallenged.

Suddenly other journalists at the Washington Post are taking George Will to task for sullying the paper's reputation.

Will Misleads Readers on Climate Science - Again

Now that's more like it!

Monbiot puts up prize for best online denial rubbish