Today, Andrew Alexander, the WaPo's brand new ombudsman took on Will's instantly infamous global warming denial column.  Now Alexander is a big improvement over Deborah Howell.  (Despite his prior involvement in the story, somehow, I didn't really get that Howell had been replaced until today.)  In his column, Alexander distinguished between what he did before--pass on Fred Hiatt's horsedookie about the many layers of fact checking that WaPo editorials are subjected to--and what he was supposed to do as an ombudsman--check the facts and make a call.  At least he got that, which is more than Debbie ever would have done--and then he did the craziest thing.  He read Will's putative sources and, amazingly, came to the conclusion that George either misunderstood or willfully misrepresentated them and that there were any number of points at which it should have been obvious to Fred's "fact checkers" that they needed to call an expert.  (Although, evidently, the idea that an expert might be needed in all cases involving the interpretation of complex scientific studies was too big a leap for him.) 

Of course, we didn't get this without the obligatory MSM whine about how dirty fucking hippies were bombarding the WaPo in an "orchestrated" campaign or emails and letters, many (pass me my smelling salts) using the exact same words.

Still, he administered a mild, ineffectual, spanking to George, which was good. Was was bad, however, was his failure to identify the fundemental problem with both the column and the supposed fact-checking: both adhered to the the conservative theory of citation.  In Conservative Lorld, if you state a proposition and footnote it and the footnote identifies a publication, then the propostion is valid because you have a  source.  In Conservative Land, however, whether that publication actually supports the proposition for which it is cited is irrelevant.  The only relevant thing is that a source was cited: it is the citation that makes it true, not the content of the source.   

Ann Coulter's entire career is built on this little trick.  It is symptomatic of the post-modern intellectual nihilism that has pushed both conservatism and the United States to the brink of disaster.  And its exactly what both Will, Will's assistant and Fred Hiatt's purported fact checkers work was based upon.  It is a sad comment on the state of journalism that the ombudsman of the second most important paper in America failed to even notice it. 

Instead, he had to go and ruin whatever good he'd done by saying this in his penultimate graph:

There is a disturbing if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you're-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that's where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.

And that's the part where I grabbed a double handful of my own hair and went "gaaaahhhh!"  

I do not understand why this is so hard for people who call themselves journalists to understand.  I really don't.  I'd love for someone to explain it to me. 

The Earth is round and revolves around the sun along with the other planets,  There is no room for "debate" about that.  If you, instead, believe that the Earth is flat and heavenly bodies are attached to crystalline spheres, some revolving in little epicycles as they move with their spheres, then you are, in fact, an idiot.

Regardless of whether you acknowledge the Copernican and Newtonian theories or whether you still cling to the Ptolomaic order, If you believe that the future can be predicted by studying heavenly bodies, you are an idiot.  There is no room for debate about that. 

If you do not agree with me that combustion is the result of rapid oxidation and, instead, believe that burning is the result of the release of a mysterious "fifth element" called "phlogiston," you are an idiot.  No debate.  Ditto evolution. Ditto the theory that the speed of light is constant. 

All scientific truth is conditional and subject to change, but scientific truths are not subject to "debate" by laymen.  It's not about what you "believe."  The results of a dial-in instant poll on the germ theory of disease are quite irrelevant to the cause of illness.  That's not how it works.  If you think otherwise, well, you're an idiot.   The "beliefs" of some guy on a barstool or of an oil executive who's worried about carbon caps are, quite literally, utterly irrelevant. And, for that matter, so are the "beliefs" of a handful of more or less credentialed kooks and whores who are paid to have different opinions.  Even if I have a Ph.D in chemistry and a full professorship at Liberty University, there is no "debate" even though I insist that the phlogiston theory of burning has not been disproved. 

In lay terms, scientific truth is debatable if, and only if, there are significant observed data, or reproducible experimental results, that cannot possibly be explained by the prevailing theory.   However, only other experts get to have a piece of that debate.   Whether the Higgs bosun really exists is open to debate, but if you think George Will's opinion on this topic, or  "thoughtful discourse" by people with no training in quantum physics, is meaningful and needful, well, you are an idiot.   

The same principle applies to history and policy. 

 If you want to argue that we should let the economy collapse and recover on its own, rather than expand government spending and try to stop it, that's a legitimately debatable point.  It's an argument about competing norms rather than one about facts.  However, if you choose to bolster your argument by contending that the New Deal made the Depression worse, or, claiming that the fundementals of our economy are sound, then you are an either lying to yourself, and therefore an idiot, or lying to me and therefore unworthy of being heard. 

If you want to argue that the economic cost of doing anything about global warming is so high that we should just run the risk that the most dire outcomes within the range of outcomes predicted by our current models will occur, that's a legitimate debate.  I will question your common sense, and maybe your motives, but I will not say you' are not entitled to make the argument, if only because the argument will sharpen our understanding of our options.  However, if you want to say we shouldn't risk doing anything because you don't believe anything bad is going to happen, well, you're an idiot.  There is no debate, no reason to listen to you and, in particular, no reason to print your "side" in the paper so that the readers can make up their own minds.  None.  

I really don't get what's so hard about that for them.