Kerry to flat-earth mouthpiece George Will: I'll debate you on global warming

[blm]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-kerry/facts-are-stubborn-things_b_170657.html

>>>>>
George Will has been one of my favorite intellectual sparring partners for a long time, a favorite more recently because he had the guts to publicly recognize the disaster that was George W. Bush's presidency.

But in his latest Washington Post column, George and I have a pretty big loud disagreement.

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to see Will embracing the idea of recycling, but I'm very troubled that he is recycling errors of fact to challenge the science on global warming.

I'm even more troubled that Will used his February 15th column not only to cast doubt on sound science, but also to denigrate the work of two fine scientists.

Lets be very clear: Stephen Chu does not make predictions to further an agenda. He does so to inform the public. He is no Cassandra. If his predictions about the effects of our climate crisis are scary, it's because our climate is scary.

Likewise, John Holdren is a friend of mine and one of the best scientific minds we have in our country. Pulling out one minor prediction that he had some unknown role in formulating nearly three decades ago, as Will did in his February 15th column, and then using that to try to undo his credibility as a scientist may be a fancy debating trick, but it's just plain wrong when it comes to a debate we can't afford to see dissolve into reducto ad absurdum hijinx. (A side note: The incident in question occurred in 1980, which, as I recall, was just about the time Ronald Reagan made the claim that approximately 80 percent of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation and that, consequently, we should "not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources.")

Dragging up long-discredited myths about some non-existent scientific consensus about global cooling from the 1970s does no one any good. Except perhaps a bankrupt flat earth crowd. I hate to review the record and see that someone as smart as George Will has been doing exactly that as far back as 1992. And it's especially troubling when the very sources that Will cites in his February 15th column draw the exact opposite conclusions and paint very different pictures than Will provides, as the good folks at ThinkProgress and Media Matters for America have demonstrated so thoroughly.

This has to stop. A highly organized, well-funded movement to deny the reality of global climate change has been up and running for a long time, but it doesn't change the verdict: the problem is real, it's accelerating, and we have to act. Now. Not years from now.
≥≥≥≥≥≥≥


What are the chances Will accepts Kerry's challenge to debate global warming? About the same as when Kerry challenged Bush in Aug2004 to stop hiding behind the Swiftliars and publicly debate their Vietnam-era services.

A debate will never happen. Will knows he is wrong, but still needs to make his nut by delivering corporate propaganda.

[wtmusic]

1. Will would defend the existence of Sasquatch

if it kept his gig alive. He is a mediocre columnist, and may have the most boring persona in broadcasting.

:hi:

[Bounty_full]

7. Link to referred article

Relevant link -->Will

[karynnj]

9. Thanks - and welcome to DU

[blm]

10. Thank you....

.

[gratuitous]

2. Will is not interested in "debate"

Because, you see, there's no "debate" between the facts (Will's version) and anything that isn't 100% lined up with the facts. All Will and his editors care about is that you're reading his bunk, not that his bunk is demonstrably false. You read his column, you found errors in it, and you're concerned about the disinformation spreading in the public mind. All that Will and the Post care about is everything before the first comma in the preceding sentence. The rest is just "blah, blah, blah" in the words of that inestimable philosopher Chester Cheetah.

Will doesn't care about anything except drawing his numerous paychecks. He doesn't care about facts, or the truth, or the consequences of ignoring the truth, he cares about getting paid. That's where his concerns begin and end.

[Old and In the Way]

3. We really need more of these high profile challengers. I'd welcome televised debates

on these subjects. Global warming, torture, the bailout, the stimulus, evolution, energy policy, healthcare. Let both sides put up their best and brightest and lets see who has the facts, science, and the best logical argument to win these debates. Doubtful that Will or any of these RW propagandists will ever accept such a challenge. They know better.

[karynnj]

5. I agree - here's a link to the climate change debate Kerry and Gingrich had

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/index.php?main_page=product_video_info&products_id=197538-1

They were both good - but the winner was easily Kerry.

[karynnj]

4. That would be aless interesting debate on global warming

than the one Kerry had with Gingrich. Gingrich tried a novel technique - the first thing he said was that he accepted the science on global warming and said he agreed with 60% of the Kerry's This moment on earth book.

Years ago in his twenties, Kerry debated William F Buckley, then the reigning conservative intellectual - in 2004, a link to that debate existed. In the 1970s, it was clear Kerry held his own, looked at in hindsight - Kerry was brilliant where Buckley really wasn't.

Maybe George Will should remember that in 2006, after the London originating flights were said to have been targeted - the Kerry was fight in 2004 on how to deal with non-state terrorism. Kerry actually was recommending teh same course even in 2001. In 2004, Will was among the people who mocked his ideas.

Like the Buckley debate, a Kerry/Will debate will sound like it is between two articulate people - but, erudition aside, one of them has been right far more often - and it isn't Will. Having seen Gingrich, who is smart, come off second best in a debate on global warming, Will is unlikely to want to debate Kerry.

[TayTay]

6. I hope Will takes him up on it.

George Will has no defense of his views. His defense is that the very act of challenging him is some sort of PC plot to silence free speech. This calls him on that punchless defense.

This would be fun to watch.

[ProSense]

8. John Kerry Challenges George Will: Let’s Debate Your Recycled ‘Errors Of Fact’

John Kerry Challenges George Will: Let’s Debate Your Recycled ‘Errors Of Fact’

[SpiralHawk]

11. Setting the record straigh: Cassandra was accurate

Anyone who attempts to undercut someone predicting the future should note that calling them a 'Cassandra' is a bonehead move. Cassandra was right. The Trojans would have been wise to 'beware Greeks bearing gifts' -- The Trojan Horse.

Likewise, the people of Planet Earth should beware of reality-denying Republicon-brained 'debunkers' of global climate change.

[blm]

12. yeah - where DO they get off using that? It never made sense.

.

[SpiralHawk]

13. "never made sense' - That's the Republicon state of mind, for sure

...never makes sense when republicons claim they are 'conservatives' then radically trash the economy with debt and the environment with greed. Never makes sense when they claim they are morally superior to everyone else, then prance around in diapers having sex with hookers or hooking up with strangers in public bathroom stalls. Never makes sense when they claim they are against Nation Building, then ship all our tax money far overseas to build schools, roads, hospitals, etc, while letting America crumble into FAIL.

Republicon hypocrisy is so thorough that, finally, almost every American has seen through them...Thank heavens for that.