It’s worthwhile calling out his manifold errors of fact, and reasoning, and I find the definition of ‘fact checking’ as supplied by the WaPo ombudsman to be appalling, really no better than junior high-school level.

But to me the worst aspect of his argument is the underlying proposition that science has been wrong before and therefore must be assumed to be wrong on every issue for the rest of time. What else is he trying to say if not that?

This is really just Will playing to his crowd, because I would bet a significant number of his fans are serious Christians who find science in general to be tiresomely opposed to most of their dearly-held beliefs.

These people would be thrilled to have someone like Will telling them that Science is incapable of reaching the correct conclusion most of the time and should be tolerated only to the extent necessary to get new iPod models on a regular basis.

It really is staggering to me that someone like Will would tell people that Science is almost certainly wrong on global warming… not because of any particular evidence, but simply because they were wrong 35 years ago. If you really take him seriously, there seems to be little choice but to close all universities and research organisations, and return to getting all scientific information from the Bible.

That’s what Will is suggesting, as far as I can tell. What an idiot.

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.

Does that mean that Will should also shut up until he “gets his hands dirty in the issue,” or does comment that only apply to people you don’t agree with?

News today that the dead-zone layer attributed to the Permian Extinction event may not be what they thought it was…

Now for chapter two, the great permian extinction hoax. I can’t wait to read it. In fact I’ll start writing it myself, no need for facts, just toss out some names and begin trashing.

Getting serious about climate for a second, how can I prepare my crops for a sustained 80mph wind that runs for 7 hours? The windbreaks are breaking apart. Never seen so many branches on the forest floor with dead leaves on them. (That means the tree was doing just fine when the wind broke them off.)

Adapting to the mess we already created is critical or this George Willian Hoax will turn into a surrealistic nightmare.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

1. From a report described on the IPY (International Polar Year) site dated 2/25/09: “Snow and ice are declining in both polar regions, affecting human livelihoods as well as local plant and animal life in the Arctic, as well as global ocean and atmospheric circulation and sea level.” Will Will (not a typo) read this report and comment on it in his column? I will be surprised. He is interested in discrediting scientists and science itself, not in maintaining an accurate record. That leads to:

2. What I find most important about this is that Will and other skeptics are in effect saying that scientists have been and are wrong and the skeptics are right. How could that be possible? The skeptics could be saying that they are smarter not only than individual scientists but all of us collectively. We are so dumb that we missed evidence so obvious that they can unmask it with a stroke of the pen. Since this strains credulity beyond the breaking point, the alternative is that scientists have deliberately misled the public about global warming. To accomplish this, given the IPCC, there would have be a perfectly managed global conspiracy. Anyone who believes that to be possible has never attended a faculty meeting. But even if such a conspiracy could be managed, why would the vast majority of us join it? Not to get research grants, since in America (until now?) espouse global warming and you were more likely to have your grant funding cut. Not because we are all liberals, because that term does not apply in many of the countries that are members of the IPCC. Thus the idea that Will is right and the nearly unanimous opinion of the international scientific community is wrong, is false on its face. But not to Will, obviously.

3. Finally, the really interesting point is how and why global warming has become such a thoroughly politicized scientific issue. Can you imagine Will announcing that science has been wrong about, say, photosynthesis?

[Carl: Indeed. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I've fixed the post.]

Since this “ice age coming” junk keeps being repeated, I’ll point out what is factual. Orbital forcings are well understood. The next chance, only a chance mind you, at forming a stade (massive ice sheets) is not for at least 20,000 years. The certainly will be a stade about 50,000 years from now.

Nothing sooner.