However things then changed very abruptly. As had been presumed by many who were tracking sea ice extent, the data posted by the Arctic Research Climate Center was significantly wrong. Correspondingly the comments made by Will in relation to ice extent were indeed correct and are easily verifiable.

The logical thing to do at this point would be to concede this obvious fact. You steadfastly refuse to do this. Instead you attempt to grab every straw around you to deflect from the painfully obvious. The most glaring example of this is your discussion with Bill Chapman of the Center in question as some type of vindication of your original position. First, have you considered how poorly Bill Chapman looks in all of this when the website ran a very unprofessional comment calling out Will about ice extent and then had to admit two short days later that they, the data keepers were actually the ones out to lunch on their numbers? Second, why is it not acceptable to use historical information posted? Do you call the authors of a paper or do you quote the paper like everyone else?

Your first post was a gotcha that went wrong. Hardly your fault. The following posts are because you have abandoned scientific inquiry and are embracing scientific tribalism. You are wrong to challenge Will on fact checking because his facts were right, whether from solid investigation or from dumb luck.

My view is you have pretty much written Will’s column for him in six months. The odds are in his favor ice extent will be up over last year for the arctic minimum even if the trend is lowering arctic ice. One year’s trend doesn’t mean much – just as only 30 years of ice data doesn’t mean much – but your inability to state you were wrong when you are clearly wrong will nullify your other tangible arguments.

I have no idea why this global warming issue makes usually intelligent people put themselves on such intellectually “thin ice.”

[Carl: Andy, things did not change abruptly, and therefore I am not wrong. Please see this post for an explanation. And as for whether I would call a scientist I was writing about for a national newspaper? Of course I would. I do it all the time. That's just basic journalism. George Will, on the other hand, did not rely on a paper for his claim. He relied on a blog, as he admitted himself.]

ABSTRACT: The factual errors in George Will’s OpEd denial of global warming titled “Dark Green Doomsayers” have been discussed by e.g., James Hrynsyshyn, Pat Keefe, RealClimate, Nate Silver, and Carl Zimmer. Even the Washington Post’s ombudsman Andrew Alexander has acknowledged the Post’s failure to properly fact check Will’s OpEd, stating that the Post will “recommit to reporting on climate change that is authoritative and deep. On the editorial pages, it can present a mix of respected and informed viewpoint.” So will the Washington Post now finally discontinue Will’s uninformed editorials on climate change?

To access the complete 12 kB post please click on http://tinyurl.com/cdlpah

REFERENCES
Hake, R.R. 2009. “George Will’s Uninformed Denial of Global Warming,” AERA-L post of 3 March 14:18:04-0800, online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://tinyurl.com/cdlpah
The abstract only was sent to many discussion lists, and is also online with provision for comments at
http://hakesedstuff.blogspot.com/2009/03/george-wills-uninformed-denial-of.html

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-02.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29469287/

[Carl: Just FYI, the article does not support George Will:

"It is possible that a fraction of the most recent rapid warming since the 1970s was due to a free variation in climate," Isaac Held of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Princeton, New Jersey wrote in an email to Discovery News. "Suggesting that the warming might possibly slow down or even stagnate for a few years before rapid warming commences again."

"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."]

How about Mr. Hoax given a source for this information. Two bits says it comes from a global warming denialist site.