Opinion columnists are free to choose whatever facts bolster their arguments. But they aren't free to distort them. The question of whether that happened is at the core of an uproar over a recent George F. Will column and the Post's fact-checking process.

Will's Feb. 15 column [also published in the Star Tribune] ridiculed "eco-pessimists" and cited a string of "predicted planetary calamities" that Will said have never come to pass.

The column triggered e-mails from hundreds of angry environmental activists and a few scientists, many asserting that the center had said exactly the opposite.

The ruckus grew when I e-mailed readers who had inquired about the editing process for Will's column. My comments accurately conveyed what I had been told by editorial page editor Fred Hiatt -- that multiple editors had checked Will's sources, including a reference to the Arctic Climate Research Center. My response was understandably seen as an institutional defense and prompted an orchestrated e-mail campaign in which thousands demanded that the Post correct Will's "falsehoods." Like they say when the pro football rookie gets clobbered: "Welcome to the NFL."

As the debate continues, questions linger about the Post's editing process. My inquiry shows that there was fact-checking at multiple levels.

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. But that's where the Post could have helped, and can in the future.

On its news pages, it can recommit to reporting on climate change that is authoritative and deep. On the editorial pages, it can present a mix of respected and informed viewpoints.

ANDREW ALEXANDER, WASHINGTON POST OMBUDSMAN