George Will: A Man I Don’t Claim To Understand
My mom suggested that I check out George Will’s scathing remarks in his editorial: Pope Francis’ Fact Free Flamboyance. She notes: Read it and weep.
George Will doesn’t make me weep, though he does cause me to scratch my head. Why does anyone care what this man thinks on matters that lie entirely outside his field of expertise? There’s a reason I don’t write articles on baseball: I don’t know anything about the subject.
Here’s what I wrote back to Mom. I’m not normally sarcastic, but I somehow couldn’t help myself:
Thank the good Lord that we have George Will to save us from all those blasted Chicken Little scientists and their alarmist notions of climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, lung disease, sea-level rise, the desertification of previously arable land, growing potable water shortages, the proliferation of toxic waste, the increasing concentrations of heavy metals in our food supply, etc. It’s hard to imagine where we would be without a newspaper columnist who majored in religion to guide us through these turbulent times and help us make sense of all the physics, chemistry, mathematics and biology at play here.
Well Put, Craig. Another Disconnection between mouth and grey matter that is a self proclaimed “pundit’ of ALL things. Remember, he is remunerated by the key stroke, regardless of the content..
Thanks. I don’t attribute this kind of thinking to his being remunerated by the keystroke; rather, he’s pandering to his base of neocon intellectuals, a group whose numbers, fortunately, are dwindling.
I argue global warming with a few friends ,and I am tired of their ridiculous responses ,quoted from people who don’t know or have an agenda ,and worse, this issue that effects all of mankind has become politicized solely in the US. So I guess we have to fight the good fight wherever we have to . I can’t tell you how many times I have heard that we exhale co2 ,so shouldn’t that be regulated or the plants will grow better because the higher levels of co2. Now we have the hottest July on record .I certainly felt it ,but I have been told it’s normal El Nino behavior . So we must all keep on fighting .So your sarcasm is well appreciated and STAY CALM AND CARRY ON
A friend writes:
Craig
Simple one of two things
1. Brain tumor (unlikely)
2. Getting paid (likely)
There is no way a man like him could miss the weight of the evidence
Sad little man
I respond: Ha! Terrific. I guess you’re right. I’m so disappointed.
Craig well said about this worn out actor on the Pundit Stage He becomes more Irrelevant with each passing season sad but the Truth must be Spoken even though so many remain content to be just another Spinning Sheeple!
Keep Up the Good Voices of Reason
Another colleague writes:
How can anyone understand a climate change denier who disregards the majority of the world’s scientists; the evidence of worldwide increase in temperatures; this once every 100 year storms every five years or so and the global ‘weirding ‘ of weather…Shame.
Exactly. I really don’t understand what possesses an apparently intelligent person to take a stand on a matter of science, when that stand flies in the teeth of the consensus of the vast majority of the scientists who have made that area the subject of their life’s work. If I told you that I theorize that chewing gum causes Lyme disease, you’d (rightfully) look at me askance.
Graig,
What is today’s “consensus” may not be tomorrows. Only ten years ago, a “consensus” medical scientists agreed that gastric and duodenal ulsers were the result of lifestyle factors such as stress and diet. The concept that it was a simple, but undiscovered bacterium was ridiculed.
Today, it’s widely accepted that a bacteria Helicobacter pylor, is the cause of gastric and duodenal ulcers, although many medical practitioners still cling to “lifestyle” as a contributing factor.
Likewise evidence of any “consensus” among scientists, is also inaccurate. Even among scientists who have made a study of climate science, there is considerable variance and dispute as to the accuracy of modelling, data, and interpretation.
The notion of “consenus” has arisen as a result of the false reading of an announcement that about more than 90% of climate scientists supported mad-made global warming.
In fact that popularly repeated myth is a distortion of the actual quote which claimed that 93.7 % of peer reviewed articles supported a consensus view of global warming.
Any reasonable analysis shows even that to be a distortion. In fact the quote is derived from a study conducted by a division of Reuters, which covered 80% of “scientific journals”.
But even then, the study was further distorted by the methodology of those who qualified as climate scientists, and further distorted by …etc etc…
Analysis is a bitch when it dispels convenient myths, isn’t it ?
Scientists, and science is in a perpetual state of challenge, and dispute, or it wouldn’t be science.
I’m not a scientist, but I am an analyst. An analyst must continually challenge the methodology of beliefs and theories. “True believers” hate analysis and analysts. It’s hard to admit that something you believe should be right, may have no real basis for belief, other than belief itself.
Journalists like Dr George Will challenge popular belief, he even challenges the legitimacy of things he supports. George Will supports a woman’s right to termination of pregnancy. Yet, he is opposed to Roe v Wade !
George Will argues that the US Supreme Court can’t usurp the role of the legislative process to make law. This is a valid stand with complex argument debate with sincere people on both sides.
marcopolo,
I myself am a retired analyst, i.e., a retired computer programmer / analyst. I think that that profession enhanced my ability to think clearly, analytically (of course), objectively, and to consider all possibilities however remote since failure to do so would cause a failure of some sort. My degree is in business administration which included courses in understanding risk and risk management, economics, evaluating investments, statistics, marketing, etc. My tertiary one year of zoology, chemistry, and two years of physics has also been helpful. You also seem to have good qualifications.
You have made some good points. Although I am 99.44% sure that global warming is real and that we are either causing or exacerbating it, I do not believe that we can accurately predict its effects. It could be far worse than the majority of scientists predict, or it could be less worse. But when one considers the number of people who could be adversly affected by global warming, even a 25% probability that it is real would be unacceptable. Measures to limit global warming will probably have additional benefits.
Regarding the U.S. Supreme Court, and courts in general, it is an essential function of a democratic government to protect minorities from being unduly dominated by majorities. Thus, contrary to what some people (not you obviously) think, it is important for courts not to be unduly influenced by popular opinion. That’s why we have constitutions and courts to prevent legislative bodies from causing harm by enacting legislation which would oppress minorities or which has not been adequately thought out. Unfortunately, many people do not understand that.
When the U.S. Supreme Court in 1954 reversed the 1896 Plessy vs Ferguson decision which had ruled that racial segregation was legal, probably the majority of Americans would have disagreed with the decision. And, if the Court had ruled according to popular opinion, the injustice of racial segregation would still exist.
The difficulty of responding adequately to global warming is more of a marketing problem than a technical problem. It would be helpful for scientists to work with marketing experts and psychologists to formulate a way to get people to accept reality. Having focus groups to test different approaches would be helpful. Then, when an effective approach is found, it could be implemented on a large scale although that too would be a challenge.
While it has always been a political tactic the last couple of decades have seen a tremendous rise of the “red herring” in media. Here is George Will making a lot of noise about the Pope’s opinions but I only see the real bombshell that the Republican party does not want to be a media sensation. It is the admission beyond all doubt that house Republicans have attempted a political assassination using taxpayer money. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-new-mccarthyism-is-dead-on-arrival/2015/10/02/a7615972-6949-11e5-9ef3-fde182507eac_story.html?tid=trending_strip_3 It is in the very nature of a secret government and a conspiracy admitted by one who should know.
As I see it, George Will greatly exaggerates what the Bishop of Rome is saying. Francis is not saying that capitalism is always bad, but he does point out the evils which result from considering only profit. He is not saying that subsistence farming should replace all other types of farming but rather is saying that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with subsistence farming. He does not seem to be saying that we should all have the same income but rather that the gap between rich and poor is excessive.
However, there are things that the Bishop of Rome wrote in his encyclical with which I disagree. In item 50 draws a false dichotomy between limiting population growth and using resources responsibly clearly assuming that population growth has nothing to do with environmental problems and that irresponsible use of resources is the only cause of environmental problems. Clearly BOTH population growth AND irresponsible use of resources are the cause of our environmental problems, including global warming. Regardless of how responsibly we use resources and what technologies we employ, there is some limit to how large global population growth could become without causing environmental problems which could not be prevented as well as causing starvation. His failure to recognize that is typical Roman Catholic doctrine.
Francis, the new Bishop of Rome, is like a badly needed breath of fresh air. But, until or unless the Roman Church abandons its doctrine on contraception, it will remain part of the problem.
The Pope is speaking from a moral perspective. I don’t accept George Will’s explanation that His Holiness is unduly influenced by Peronist political ideology. It’s far more likely that Peron, like Franco, was influenced by his Jesuit and Franciscan education.
The key factors to control population growth are 1) advanced education for women 2) alleviation of poverty 3) increase life expectancy.
Roman Catholic populations in first world nations show little difference from the rest of the populace. Detrimental impacts on the environment created by expanding human populations are restricted to poorer nations, where environmental regulations either don’t exist or are ignored.
Industrialization actually assists rural environments by restricting a large percentage of the human population to highly concentrated urbanized areas. The planet could easily support twice it’s existing population, but only with better planning and expanded economic wealth.
Human wealth is largely an esoteric concept. The planet provides is abundantly able to meet the ‘basic’ needs for humans to merely survive. However, wealth and the distribution of wealth, is a more complex and difficult concept that takes time (and pain) to evolve in populations organized into nations states or tribes.
Human progress does not proceed smoothly or even rationally ! Humans progress reflects the mercurial nature of human beings, who enjoy leaping into endeavors without much thought, and then try to figure out how to solve the mess of their own creation ! (Perhaps that’s the true ” Spirit of mankind” ! The love of adventure that will one day take mankind to the stars and beyond.
The evidence certainly suggests that improved health, education, and prosperity would greatly reduce the birth rate and that the Roman Church and the Bishop of Rome are not solely responsible for the rate of population growth. It may also be that, with new technologies, the earth could support far more people than we now have. Even so, a greatly increased population would complicate things and if the current population were one half of what it is now we would not be experiencing some of the problems we are facing.
Back in the late 1960s, I knew a family which had eight children which was far more than they could support. As a result, even though the father was doing his very best and the mother was taking care of the children as well as she could, the family lived in subsidized public housing and was also dependent on other assistance programs. Here is what the mother said to me:
“I hear it’s a great life if you don’t weaken.”
“I’m a fallen away Catholic.”
“I won’t be having any more children.”
The parents were also rightly concerned about the influence the neighborhood was having on the children, but their income was insufficient to move to a better neighborhood. From what the mother said, it was clear why they had so many children.
So, I do believe that religious doctrine contributes to global problems even though it is not the sole cause.
We shouldn’t believe to much of what politicians, Prime Ministers and Presidents say for the same reason!
Craig,
Now you obviously don’t like George Will, or his opinions, but I notice you don’t refute any of his facts, instead sneer at his qualifications to express an opinion contrary to your own.
George Will expresses the frustration many people share when dealing with well-meaning people uttering populist platitudes. Most “true believers” acquire their convictions, not from intelligent analysis, but to suit personal philosophy, ideology or circumstances.
Very few popular “Climate Change” advocates understand the complexity of the scientific disciplines required to understand the actual scientific analysis, even fewer understand the incredibly small, marginal differences in the dynamics that can led to widely different conclusions.
The media has done a great disservice to both the scientific community, and the public by politicizing sensationalizing, and distorting complex, often incomplete scientific investigation. Due to politicization vast new special vested interest groups have been created, each with their own bureaucracies, to service not scientific investigation, but feed a growing industry around the assumed consequences of Climate Change.
I say assumed, because the actual consequences remain a matter of scientific debate and investigation.
It’s hard to remain objectively analytical when so many have become passionate crusaders, for ill-defined causes. ( Stephen Stills lyric’s “Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, “hooray for our side”, remain valid ) .
It’s difficult when ancient morality, and political ideology clash with modern industrial economics. Yet the two are not so incompatible as is popularly believed. Dissemination of wealth and distribution of opportunity, is at the heart of modern free enterprise, consumerist economics.
Free enterprise, consumerist economics requires a society with a democratic (representative) .political system that encourages free thought and dissemination of opinion, equality of opportunity, freedom of capital, and a well regulated, but flexible social structure.
All societies require a balance between the private freedom of the individual, and the needs of the collective.
But, I digress 🙂
Back to George Will, you claim he is commenting on ” matters that lie entirely outside his field of expertise ” . !
Really ? Dr George Will Phd. acquired qualifications in Economics, Political Philosophy, and is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist. He’s not a scientist. However, you don’t challenge the right of such ardent climate change advocates like George Monbiot, to ” comment on matters entirely outside their expertise ” . ( Monbiot has a degree in zoology).
Nor did George Will mention :-
” climate change, ocean acidification, loss of biodiversity, lung disease, sea-level rise, the desertification of previously arable land, growing potable water shortages, the proliferation of toxic waste, the increasing concentrations of heavy metals in our food supply, etc. ”
You appear to have some insight into George Will’s opinions, without bothering to find out what he actually thinks !
The last person who accused George Will of a lack of integrity was Pres Carter. ( Carter was gracious enough to later unreservedly apologize ). ( George Monbiot never apologizes, because he believes (sic) “even if I make factual errors, I’m completely justified by the important spirit of what I’m conveying.. ! “).
So, in all honesty Craig, which among George Will’s many examples do you find inaccurate, or disingenuous ? It’s undeniable that technology and the energy supplied by fossil fuels have done more to alleviate human misery, contribute to economic and political progress while combating poverty than pious philosophy.
It also equally true that technology and fossil fuel energy has produced new problems that need to be addressed, not by rejecting the benefits, but by embracing alternatives in the same spirit of progress and adventure that dragged the world out of the dark ages.
From a reader “John” –
Craig —
I read the George Will article and it seems to me that he IS promoting science … as he goes into how petroleum is even used to increase natural fiber farming efficiency, reduced levels of poverty, and longer lifespans.
Certainly the study of religion does not a scientist make. Sadly a lot of religious scholars do indeed overstep their practical knowledge limitations. As a scientist … I find the least adulterated religious doctrines to be perfectly harmonious with modern science.
Perhaps you read Will’s article a bit predisposed towards him being anti-science? Or perhaps I missed the boat as your sometimes sarcasm does sometimes confuse? Or behind door #3: that because Pulitzer prize winning George contributes to The Fox Network … he is thus evil and objectivity of his views is undeserved.
Overall … your outreach on issues is very admirable and I appreciate the insights from your views which often cause me pause and demand some exploratory research.
Give your mom a well deserved ^5. When the progress of sciences fails to sustain its trend of advances … the population density increases that it has brought about will lead to Biblical levels of pain and suffering.
Perhaps the moral decline of America has produced some sort of negative karma? Is China morally superior considering that we are so indebted to them?
— John
This all he has. He a chicken hawk paid hack! The more lies and propaganda that oozes from his writing the more the GREEDY evil empire pays him!
Lowell Bears sums things up quite well. He exposes G Will for we he evolved into just another Cheerleader for the continuation of failed approaches, lack of policy self interest over the collective good, and I would agree he has chicken hawk like tendencies . He is by no means solo in that activity as the majority of the cheerleaders for the reactionary and control leaning crowd were collectively missing in action from all the Tragic Bloody Non Winnable Conflicts and in many cases Immoral Actions that have created strong Blowback and tragic consequences for so many around the world.
Yes Chicken hawks is a good label and common describer for G Will and other peddlers of the worn out False Narratives that under serve us to this day. Conveniently they are Silent over the fact that they let the common person do the fighting ( check out our demographics in our own services – the majority are poor with few other opportunities to climb out of their low economic position in our society) Despite mountains of evidence peddlers of the false narrative like Will don’t not evolve and accept changes until it promotes their position or continues their position on the Stage. It is up to us to discern their relevance or truth or credibility. In my case I turned him off or stop taking him seriously years ago as his positions continued to be discredited by events and reality. A Singular limited trick ‘s pony.
But his impact remains as some very Intelligent and Thoughtful People have stopped what ever they were doing to comment on this. So one could say he is still effective ??? in some sort of way ??
He motivated Marco Polo to share a Pearl of an Observation
Human progress does not proceed smoothly or even rationally ! Humans progress reflects the mercurial nature of human beings, who enjoy leaping into endeavors without much thought, and then try to figure out how to solve the mess of their own creation ! (Perhaps that’s the true ” Spirit of mankind” ! The love of adventure that will one day take mankind to the stars and beyond.
So it goes , but one Truism remains the same. The Greedy Evil Empire most likely does pay him and influence him to try and influence us. Well said Dennis Paul
” The Greedy Evil Empire ” ? Ah, …yes, this would be the Washington Post, or the Emperor Rupert Murdoch ?
Obviously, George Will is a paid journalist, that’s what he does for living (before that he was an academic)
Let me ask you a question ? Do you ever do just a modicum of research before you post comments?
George Will has; :
Supported the US withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Attacked the Bush administration for involvement in Iraq and supported trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees.
George Will opposes the death penalty
Argues for immediate gun restriction, and repeal of the second amendment
Argues for the controlled legalization of drugs.
Yet he supports higher rates of incarceration.
Dr George Will is not an adherent of any particular ideology. It’s would be wrong to define his opinions within any particular political segment or ‘ism’ .
Marco thanks for the info that shows that George Will is on the right side of some Issues. Good to know. Those positions are positive if he has come to the right side of a few things. Good serious people can Evolve towards Enlightenment ,There is Hope perhaps but not worth my time to monitor.
I remain turned off to him as I see him as a part of the old false narrative pundit class that perpetuates the same ol same broken worn out policies on issues that rank most important. His record on various issues years back drove me away.
Thanks for your objectivity on this as you state that he is still on wrong side of some things. Cameron says it in a more articulate manner than me perhaps.
Keep me informed if George Will has more Epiphany Moments that justify his place on the stages of public opinion going forward .
Later on
@ stjoseph09
Like Cameron, you seem to be a “true believer”. That’s not intended as a derogatory remark, just an observation.
True believers tend to judge all issues through the prism of a chosen philosophy or belief system, dividing everything into the righteous or unrighteous. Every issue becomes a battlefield for the crusade of their chosen ideology or political philosophy.
This makes it difficult for the true believer to be pragmatic, objective or even flexible. True Believers are often well meaning, and convinced convinced their ideology is righteous and in the common good. They often claim to be acting in the best interest of they “people” against the evil “elite” (without understanding the irony that they are a self-appointed elite).
Unfortunately, for the true believer, humans and human society is highly complex, with all sorts of dynamics, often contradictory. Pragmatism, objectivity, and tolerance are better skills to achieving change than rigid ideologies, not matter how pure or well meaning.
Aside from his attendent sarcasm and belittlement, George seems to follow the familiar mantra that existing tech and policy has been judged good and therefore must remain without regard to options.
FYI: “true believer” is a derogatory remark, whether intended or not.
Craig,
Do you think so ? I certainly don’t think of the term “true believer” as derogatory, in some circumstances it’s a compliment.
I would define a “true believer” as any adherent to any particular ideology or political philosophy who is loyal and faithful to it’s precepts and principles despite adversity or the dictates of fashion or convenience. I admire sincere “true believers” for their steadfast loyalty.
However, the term “true believer” also describes a person who sees the world through the prism of their convictions. To those who may not adhere to that particular outlook, this presents a problem.
As an analyst, much as I may admire those with firm convictions, I find seeing the world through any prism, no matter how worthy, lacks the objectivity required to fully investigate and analyze all aspects without partisan bias.
But to digress, I would be very interested to read your opinion of the scandal developing around the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES).
I ask because the subject was brought to my attention by a fellow passenger on a flight to Japan. My fellow passenger is an outspoken critic of Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell,
and was indignant at the way mainstream media seemed to be avoiding any investigative reportage of the growing scandal surrounding the integrity and funding of the IGES.
I lack any in depth knowledge of the affair, but it appears that the group of “Climate Scientists ” and academics who sent a letter to President Barack Obama asking him to prosecute global warming skeptics, may be in danger of being prosecuted themselves.
It would appear that these “Climate Scientists” may be required to answer allegations of substantial fraud, embellishment and misappropriation of government and private funding.
The allegations don’t stop at the almost entirely government funded IGES members drawing up a Nixon style enemies list , to attack by dubious means (including subterfuge and illegal hacking).
The accusations include over $ 63 million of government “research” funding diverted to member of the ICES for person purposes, or diverted to political lobby groups, and campaign funding. In addition some substantial funds seem to have been diverted to fund a “dirty tricks” campaign against “climate skeptic’s”.
The UK and Australian media haven’t covered these events, except for the Guardian who defended the IGES by saying the story wasn’t newsworthy because the IGES currently received no grants from government agencies and had closed down their website. The fact that IGES is being dissolved should end the matter.
So that’s it ? All is forgiven because they got caught ?
As I say, I would appreciate your take on this potential scandal involving one of the most vociferous group of climate change advocates. Should the activities and misappropriations be allowed to quietly be buried, for fear of providing climate skeptics with ammunition ?
Doesn’t such conduct require a reappraisal of the integrity of the more than 2600 “peer reviewed” studied and articles published by the members of this group ? (especially when it appears most of the “peer reviews ” were incestuously reviews by fellow members, or the product of any orchestrated campaign ?)
What is the wider implication do these revelations have for the integrity of all government funded “peer reviewed” climate change studies ?
Is the IGES, just one extreme rogue group, or is it just a more extreme example of how massive government funding and vested interests have created a climate where honest scientific inquiry has been overwhelmed by propaganda ?
I would be very interested in your opinion .
.
Greetings Craig, thank you for your words of Clarity and Levity .
You create a platform for a Forum for those that choose to participate and exchange some facts and enlightened positions on complex subjects. Hopefully to raise the level of debate or create a inspiration in others to see things or do things that lead to collective Betterment for their society where ever they may be from.
Given that the participants most likely come from a diverse mix of Humanity it is normal for differences in views or positions to develop. Thanks for creating the platform and In this Case it is a Badge of Honor to be labeled a true believer. This is because it has required much more than ability and connections, money and class connections or position in society , education to pursue the Roads Less Traveled in a work Journey Mission to try to make situations better and collaborate with others to bring Solutions or Improvements to energy and environmental challenges. Sometimes my Colleagues and myself laugh at ourselves for the sense of Blind Faith that endures no matter how things turn. Many times we had to beat retreat and critique and laugh at ourselves because the systems we challenged were too big to move so we had to settle for progress on the margins but returned when the tide would turn and that we did!.
We find Comfort in trying to Stand Tall , Lean in to the Mission and Deliver Value and remain open to Learning more. Our hope that in the aggregate the collective efforts of like minded souls Globally makes enough of a impact that the Big Ship Earth makes the much needed turn away from the many Challenging and Problematic Cliffs that loom ahead and there will be more Hope for other generations.
Be well, you are right about the pundit George Will, I used to listen to every one of his words many years ago with friends and thought him wise at times but drifted away for reasons that parallel the way you began this conversation.
If he has evolved into new positions and got on the right side of history for a change ,, that is good. I am sure Pope Francis would be kind to him regardless of what George said about Francis. So there is a lesson in that called Forgiveness and Acceptance..
You and all the Rest Be Well
@ stjoseph09
As I replied to Craig, you have every right to be proud of being considered a “true believer”.
The term is not necessarily derogatory. . The term is famous in Australia for a speech made by a moderate left politician attempting to reform his parties old fashioned socialist-left stance.
He referred to those in his party who congratulated themselves on their steadfast adherence to increasingly unpopular principles and policies. The faction described themselves as “true believers”. He pointed out that their attitudes were causing the Labour Party to lose membership and electoral support. He shrewdly opined that the very loss of popularity and reduction of adherents, far from persuading “true believers” that they might be wrong, only reinforced the belief that they alone were an elite in possession of the truth, and eventually everyone would come round to their way of thinking.
So a firm belief (or Blind Faith) can be both admirable and negative depending on the occasion and circumstances.
For most educated people, it’s profoundly negative.