Hiatt said that he has invited both the World Meteorological Organization and the Arctic Ice Center at the University of Illinois to write a letter for publication taking issue with anything that George wrote, but neither organization has taken him up on the offer. Hiatt added that he doesn’t think Will has an obligation to point out, “in every column he writes about climate change,” that such organizations disagree with his interpretation of their data.
“If you’re concerned that readers of The Washington Post don’t get a sense that most of the world thinks climate change is real, I think that’s a misplaced concern,” he said. “And I can tell you: I don’t share George’s view. If you read our editorial pages you would know that we believe that the evidence of climate change is sufficiently alarming to justify major changes in public policy. But, you know what? I think it’s kind of healthy, given how, in so many areas—not just climatology, but medicine, and everything else—there is a tendency on the part of the lay public at times to ascribe certainty to things which are uncertain. I believe, and this me personally speaking, that there is a lot more we don’t know about climatology and there’s a lot more we have to learn in terms of our ability to predict climatological phenomena and how what’s happening in the oceans is going to interact with what’s happening in the atmosphere. And do I think it’s somehow dangerous to have one of our many columnists casting doubt on this consensus? No, I think it’s healthy. And let the other ones come in and slam him, if they think it’s irresponsible. That’s what an opinion page is for.”
Many would disagree with Hiatt, however. The Oregonian, for instance, declined to run Will’s column, which is widely syndicated. And, according to Talking Points Memo, which got a leaked copy, part of Will’s Friday column is expected to address an article by Andrew Revkin in The New York Times, which argued that Will had misrepresented scientific evidence in his first piece. Ironically, however, Revkin’s article, published Wednesday, has drawn a considerable amount of criticism from Will’s critics, too.
The piece’s central tenet was that there is an ever-present temptation to make exaggerated arguments, which either overplay or underplay the likely impacts of global warming, in an effort to influence public opinion. As case in point, Revkin cited both Will’s column and an overstatement about impacts made by Al Gore at the recent meeting American Association for the Advancement of Science.
During a presentation, Gore showed a slide that illustrated a sharp spike in weather-related disasters around the world and warned the audience that global warming was responsible. Gore removed the slide from his presentation after the Belgian research group had that assembled the disaster data said he had misrepresented their research, and that global warming’s relative contribution to the extreme events remains uncertain.
A few of the bloggers—most notably Joe Romm and Brad Johnson—who had been criticizing Will, along with a number of Revkin’s readers, immediately criticized the article for “lumping” Gore with Will, which they described as a “false equivalency.” And they have a point. Revkin’s Gore-vs-Will frame was certainly not the best choice for conveying his argument about the dangers of hyperbole. Though both men have committed the same mistake—misrepresenting scientific research—there is no question that Gore has demonstrated a far superior understanding of climate science than Will, and treated it much more accurately over many years of public discourse. In a response to readers’ complaints posted at his Dot Earth blog, Revkin wrote that:
In a longer story, I might have included some of the biographical background showing just how different these two men are on the issue … But the differences in the mens’ backgrounds, expertise and reputations were not at the heart of this piece. It was about the realities of climate science and long-term risk assessments and how they are a bad fit for the policy arena, no matter what your worldview or level of knowledge
Certainly a journalist could compile a long list of evidence that the Earth is flat and write a compelling opinion piece about it. One wonders whether the paper's editor would crankily defend their right to express a "minority view."
Some topics just don't merit "inference" on the part of journalists. By presenting global warming as if there is serious debate and dissenting opinions about it, the Post is communicating that such dissent is legitimate. They would presumably draw the line at flat Earthers, Holocaust denial, terracentrism...why not draw the line at global warming denial too? These are, in the end, of a piece.
#1 Posted by Anthony, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 08:27 PM
What Will did definitely deserves a correction. As an Earth scientist, I know that the amount of sea ice isn't directly correlated to global warming and that is exactly what the report he plucked his information out of says as well. Yet Will twisted the results to come to a conclusion that is not warranted by anything but his ideology; if Will has any other reason why this conclusion is warranted that is rooted in any sort of scientific or mathematical principles, he might want to mention them. From what I have seen of his vitae his grounding in science is not very good. Purposely misrepresenting findings without any good reason to do so is lying plain and simple.
#2 Posted by P Hughes, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 10:16 PM
George Will bluntly misinformed on Global Warming, and quoted material out of context. He misrepresented what has been going on for the past decade and the issue of Arctic Ice.
Now, as for Hiatt's offer, which of the people who have shredded Will's piece are going to be given column inches in The Washington Post and the 450 newspapers to which The Washington Post syndicates George Will.
In addition, Hiatt is disingenous on multiple levels. What about the questionable material that he has allowed on the pages from Samuelson, Krauthammer, and others? Fred "Faux and Balanced" Hiatt?
See: http://getenergysmartnow.com/2009/02/21/washpost-embraces-will-ful-deceit/ for a list of discussions re George Will ... and of those other columnists.
#3 Posted by A Siegel, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 10:32 PM
May I point out that the Skeptic's Ball is coming up, and that this flap serves as advance advertising. What I would give, to know who whispered what sweet nothings into Will's ear...
#4 Posted by Anna, CJR on Thu 26 Feb 2009 at 11:29 PM
It's so funny reading you global warmists defend your discredited religious beliefs. Unfortunately for you cultists, even Japanese scientists were smart enough to find the fraud in the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and then had the balls to publicly disagree with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about it.
The Japan Society of Energy and Resources issued a report that says global warming is related to solar activity, and the rise in global temperatures was primarily a recovery from the so-called Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1400 to 1800. Kanya Kusano, program director for the Earth simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology, says computer climate modeling used to support the manmade global warming theory is like "ancient astrology."
If you think fraudulent climate science doesn't affect the average person financially, you may wish to know that, according to The Politico, there are now four climate change lobbyists for every member of Congress. It's just a socialist scam powered by scientists willing to sell out for creature comforts, much like German scientists in the 1930s.
#5 Posted by Frank St. Marseille, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 09:47 AM
I love the quote from Nisbet. "...the false narrative that liberals and the mainstream press are seeking to censor rival scientific evidence and views." False narrative? The entire article is about liberals seeking to censor rival views and justifying their conduct with Orwellian jingo. The most dangerous people in world today are not people with opinions like George Will, but the rising fascist left, who look to intimidate and censor any opposition or potential opposition. The warmists' complete and total intolerance of opposing views is alarming. I'm not sure they all understand how close minded and single purposed they've become, or indeed, how they are being used to promote a larger political agenda. They should relax. Obama won. He's one of them. He is busy appointing the most fervert radicals he can to implement what will be his largest and most disasterous social engineering policies. These policies will make our country weaker and poorer. He knows it. His policy heads know it. No matter the level of hard sell from the footsoldiers, most Americans know, or will know, that these policies are totally unnecessary and not required "to save the world." These policies are meant to assist some gooey utopian vision of global socialism. The adherents of these views, including Obama, know that their vision of the world cannot withstand reasoned debate or study. This is why they seek to silence debate, destroy inquiry, and indeed, censor anyone who even suggests a point of order is called for. The saddest part of the article is what the article demonstrates. Acquiesence of the free press to self censor the free press. As if the free press cannot get it wrong. A true scientist and true intellectual always questions whether he is right, whether the foundations of his theories are sound, and questions those things all the way to the end. Why? Because he's interested in the truth and what is best. The warmists are driven by the policies they want to implement. Facism rising.
#6 Posted by Trialdog, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 11:04 AM
Frank St. Marseille,
This is not even about whether global warming is real or not. It is an ethics issue.
In essence, Will and Hiatt have turned this into someone without any recognizable academic or educational credentials taking a scientific finding and claiming it is the opposite of what the people who took the time to make the finding say it is without issuing a single reason why this should be so, except for a ideological belief.
Now there are arguments all the time similar to this at conferences, or the letters section of 'Nature' where people argue over how to interpret data, but the difference is that the people arguing generally rely on scientific principles to do so. Will has not done that; he has not said why the data should be interpreted differently, he has only taken one statement out of context in one paper and wrote a column on it.
#7 Posted by P Hughes, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 11:09 AM
Fairness in journalism does not mean giving equal space to, on the one hand, those with scientific evidence and, on the other hand, those with ideologies contrary to scientific fact.
#8 Posted by L Gates, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 12:27 PM
P Hughes - wait so now I have to have academic and educational credentials to review the findings of a study? How convenient that I must spend my days being indoctrinated to give an opinion. You are wrong on every point of your post. The criticism is squarely on Wills view point and Hiatts inability to be sold on censoring.
#9 Posted by Robert, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 01:28 PM
Robert (and others),
The criticism of Mr. Will (and to a much lessor extent Mr. Revkin) is not just that he lacks credentails to read and form opinions. Each and every citizen has the right to do that under the Constitution. The criticism is rather a two part issue:
1) Mr. Will has pantently and provably lied about what conclusions have been drawn by a very few scientists regarding global climate change and the impacts of that change in sea ice. It is not acceptable to say (as but one example) that the World Meteorlogical Organization taakes one position on sea ice and global warming when, in fact, they take another. Whether writing for the Opinion page, or the news page, journalists are supposed to be bound by an ethical coad that prevents them from lying. Mr Will has eggregiously violated that code, but has not, to date, issued a retraction nor been sanctioned by the Post.
2) WHen it comes to the science, Mr Will has also inject scientific controversy where there is none. I'm an oceanographer by both training and employment. I've read the peer-reviewed literature on climate change for over a decade. I have checked sources against another, and I have reached the conclusion the global warming is occuring and it is in part natural and in part caused byhuman actions. I welcome opposing scientific views. but in science, unlike in Opinion pieces, when you publish a paper opposing someone's views or results, you use their names. You extensively cite the literature you are drawing from. Mr. Will has done neither, instead drawing on the "Many experts say" strawman that should be so familiar to you - MR. Bush used similar strawmen often in his eight years in the White House.
So, if Mr. Will believe the science says something that I do not, he needs to do two things. First, he needs to accurately tell us what scientists say, instead of telling us the opposite, and he needs to cite his sources. And for the record, published scientists do not cite blog posts in peer-reviewed literature.
#10 Posted by Philip H., CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 01:49 PM
You should read John Pooley's essay on this topic: http://www.stoweboyd.com/ground/2009/01/the-media-and-the-climate-crisis-how-are-they-framing-the-story.html. He argues that the media has failed in their role of serving as a referee in the climate debate. And Hiatt, and the Post, by suggesting that they are supporting open social discourse by letting Will bloviate, are failing again.
This is not some debate about protecting the snail darter, or the pros and cons of congestion pricing, this is about the entire Earth. If the Post believes the science, they should not give Will a pulpit to spread doubt. Do they support columnists that suggest Black people are inferior to Whites, just because it is a belief that some group holds? Will they let columnists argue that the Sun circles the Earth?
It suggests that the Post likes the controversy since if generates traffic: which is low, at the best, and deeply immoral when examined closely.
Pooley suggests that we lost a decade because the energy companies lobbied hard, and obscured the science. Now they want to talk up the cost of countering global warming, to get us to say we can't afford to clean up the air. Will is a tool -- directly or indirectly -- of the same folks who would bring us to the brink of ecological catastrophe for the sake of a few billion dollars in profits.
#11 Posted by Stowe Boyd, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 01:59 PM
Are we saying George Will was bought and sold, paid to say what he said, or that his inability to make proper inferences from data is a function of an ideologically limited brain?
Is there another possibility?
Remember, his inability to draw a logical conclusion doesn't mean the rest of the world is wrong. Everybody keeps carrying on like he matters; he's irrelevant.
#12 Posted by cherrybomb, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 02:03 PM
Agnotology, formerly agnatology, is a neologism for the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data. The term was coined by Robert N. Proctor,[1][2] a Stanford University professor specializing in the history of science and technology.[3] Its name derives from the Greek word ἀγνῶσις, agnōsis, "not knowing"; and -λογία, -logia.[4] More generally, the term also highlights the increasingly common condition where more knowledge of a subject leaves one more uncertain than before.
A prime example of the deliberate production of ignorance cited by Proctor is the tobacco industry's conspiracy to manufacture doubt about the cancer risks of tobacco use. Under the banner of science, the industry produced research about everything except tobacco hazards to exploit public uncertainty.[4][5] Some of the root causes for culturally-induced ignorance are media neglect, corporate or governmental secrecy and suppression, document destruction, and myriad forms of inherent or avoidable culturopolitical selectivity, inattention, and forgetfulness.[6]
Agnotology also focuses on how and why diverse forms of knowledge do not "come to be," or are ignored or delayed. For example, knowledge about plate tectonics was delayed for at least a decade because key evidence was classified military information related to underseas warfare.[
#13 Posted by Mike, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 02:46 PM
Ah yes, the Japan Society of Energy and Resources. The one with all the energy scientists, most of whom have financial ties to the energy industry. Yeah, that report where 3 scientists took issue with IPCC (and the vast majority of the world's scientists).
It is disturbing to read the comments by the denialists. They are living in a seriously deluded version of reality. The plain and simple fact is, there is no debate. There hasn't been one for many years. The scientific consensus has been clear on man-made climate change (and global warming is but one symptom of that change) for a long time. There is no "fear" that man-made climate change cannot stand up to scrutiny. It has stood up to scientific scrutiny. Over and over and over.
#14 Posted by Danno, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 03:00 PM
Stories that twist truth to promulgate AGW alarmism are a common, daily occurrence. It used to be the same for mainstream media, although this type of coverage has lost its MSM glitter. Few of the Alarmist's schemes hve received the attention George Will received for what he wrote.
Have any of Will's critics of this one commentary ever condemned a Warmer whose alarmist cries went off the deep end? I doubt it.
#15 Posted by Jeff, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 06:54 PM
I don't understand how Hiatt can rationalize allowing a columnist (even one with the readership and ego of Will) to create an alternate bizzaro universe where the stated conclusions of prominent scientists and organizations can be twisted by Will into the opposite, and cited by Will as authority for his errant conclusions. It's not that Will is dissing science (he frequently does that) - it's the fact that it's so blatant in this case, that there is such abundant documentary evidence regarding the evidence that he's twisting, and that the Post seems so unconcerned about the whole affair. If Haitt is saying "there should be a debate", how do you have a "debate" with somebody who just gets to make stuff up, refuses to acknowledge proof of his lying and gets away with it because he's a "commentator" (though he refers to his work as reporting)?
#16 Posted by L. Carey, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 07:15 PM
Hiatt does know, by instinct, how to react to criticism of lying - by framing it as censorship. That is sweet. Running a conservative op ed page for Donald Graham has atrophied his instincts to the point that he simply babbles. There's no censorship involved in getting George Will to fairly contextualize his facts. It shojuld be second nature to the editors.
D.C. has long deserved better than the papers that it has - The Washington Times and Times-lite. Hiatt seems determined to destroy that paper's credibility and its audience. Is it worth it? I understand the Kaplan testing people made out like bandits under Bush, which is the Post's single moneymaker. But the WP has to understand that the neocon sharks aren't coming back. .
#17 Posted by roger, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 07:23 PM
You are completely wrong. You assert that the criticism of Will is criticism of inference not of evidence. This is simply false as can be shown by a comparison of Will's original totally false claim about the evidence and the document he cited in his absurd assertion that his claim, which was proven false by the document, was confirmed by the document.
Will "According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
The document cited by Will in his follow up column is
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf
it includes the following words and numbers in the following order
""However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.Hemisphere reduction."
Will asserts that one million equals 0.5 million. This is not a question of inference. This is a matter of evidence.
Now Will can argue that the pdf document which he cites is invalid because it reports estimates as if they were exactly accurate. However, it is absolutely impossible for anyone who is able to read and understands that one million is not equal to 0.5 million to claim that Will's original assertion is true, or false inference based on accurate evidence, or probably false or anything but a totally false claim about the evidence.
The fact that Hiatt claims the disagreement is a disagreement about interpretation and evidence does not mean that Hiatt's claim is true. In fact, since the disputed document is one page long and, I'm sure, Hiatt's mathematical ability is up to telling the difference between one million and 0.5 million I think the only thing we can conclude is that Will and Hiatt have chosen to lie about the evidence.
If the question of whether minus one million square miles plus 0.5 million square miles equals zero square miles is a matter of inference not evidence what could possible be a matter of evidence not inference ?
Oh one last question, and I want an answer. Did you read the cited pdf file ?
#18 Posted by Robert Waldmann, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 09:04 PM
Today (Feb 18th 2009) NSIDC announced they had discovered the reason why. The sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite they use had degraded and now apparently failed to the point of being unusable. Compounding the bad news they discovered it had been in slow decline for almost two months, which caused a bias in the arctic sea ice data that underestimated the total sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers. This will likely affect the January NSIDC sea ice totals.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Where is it that cryosphere gets their data?
I think it's directly from nsidc.
That's vindication baby. Sweet.
#19 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 09:51 PM
"Cherrybomb" ,I believe there was a controversy about Will taking money for speeches he made at conventions. There is information at Harpers. Check out what Ken. S and Scott H. have to say at the .org site.
#20 Posted by GP, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 10:21 PM
Comparison of ice extent between Dec 1979 and Dec 2008 by cryosphere, using the faulty, less accurate, SSMI sensor.
Notice the Sea of Okhotsk which is represented as ice free. Also note that pack ice ends well short of Bristol Bay, on the Alaskan coast.
Now see the ice extent from the fully functioning, more accurate, AMSR-E sensor.
With the good equipment we see the Sea of Okhotsk and Bristol Bay completely iced in, as well as the Eastern seaboard of Canada down to the mouth of the St Laurence River
, the White Sea of Finland, and parts of the Baltic.
Vindication.
#21 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 10:53 PM
Robert , Will would have no problem with me if he had said: "sea ice levels are similar to what they were in 1979, although there is more ice in the Southern Hemisphere and less in the North, which the ACRC interprets as supporting global warming hypothesis. I disagree, because [insert Will's totally awesome science based hypothesis why this doesn't fit models]."
Will didn't do anything of this sort. He took a statement, separated it from the context in which it was made, without any sort of scientific validation for doing such a thing, and made a huge contrarian leap with it. We are used to seeing that with Creationist as well, but they don't normally get prime space in the Washington Post. No, he lied and knew he was doing it.
#22 Posted by P Hughes, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 11:01 PM
Sorry friend.
Is this one of those issues where the truth doesn't matter?
Will would have no problem with me if he had said:"sea ice levels are similar to what they were in 1979, although there is more ice in the Southern Hemisphere and less in the North, which the ACRC interprets as supporting global warming hypothesis..."
Does it matter at all that the statement "sea ice levels are similar to what they were in 1979" is totally true, regardless of qualifiers about Antarctica or if it conforms to GCM's and AGW theory, and that in fact the Arctic sea ice extent today must surely exceed 1979?
What is wrong with you?
#23 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 11:14 PM
Will was pimping ACRC's reputation and using their words, taken out of context, to give some credibility to his column, even though they were in essence making the completely opposite point that he was. What is wrong with me is that I see how unethical that is.
#24 Posted by P Hughes, CJR on Fri 27 Feb 2009 at 11:30 PM
If you people were bent out of shape before, you will really be off your rocker when you see GW's rebuttal. You people are your own worse enemies. Red flags wave everywhere when you try to silence people and crush any dissent. I was around in the 70's and the I remember well the global cooling scare. The evidence is on the pages of the beloved NYT and several Science and news publications. You protesteth WAY too much! Remember it's not near as important to end up on the right side as it is to NOT end up on the INSANE side. It's apparent the AGW scam is unraveling like a bad sweater. Don't be telling people about global warming when they are freezing to death while watching their life savings dwindle to nothing. It could be dangerous. Don't get depressed just because doomsday isn't coming via the weather. It will be here soon enough courtesty of your local jihad.
Enjoy George's column and stop embarrassing yourselves.
#25 Posted by gofer, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 12:02 AM
Take this, George Will!
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/commentary/the-china-post/special-to-the-china-post/2009/02/28/198067/Graduation%2Dspeech.htm
#26 Posted by danny bloom, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 12:37 AM
Another basic difference between Gore and Will that Revkin and you apparently missed is that, when told that his position was not scientifically well-supported, Gore withdrew the claim, whereas Will and his critics have stood by his claims, and pretended his critics are political censors. And, no, it is not censorship for the readership of the Washington Post to pressure it to hold to certain editorial standards; it is merely the voice of the customer demanding a better product.
#27 Posted by Martin Bento, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 01:28 AM
"Along that line, Revkin quoted American University communications professor Matthew Nisbet, who argues that the wave of criticism of Will “only serves to draw attention to his claims while reinforcing a larger false narrative that liberals and the mainstream press are seeking to censor rival scientific evidence and views.”"
This is profoundly disingenuous. Of course the wave of criticism draws attention to Will's claims -- it draws attention to their FALSITY. What would Nisbet do, have people who know that Will is lying stifle themselves? And how would he achieve this universally? And how about Nisbet himself? By criticizing the critics, isn't he drawing attention to them? And what about the false narrative that he's seeking to censor them? Or perhaps it's not so false. The hypocrisy reeks. Will's critics have a legitimate complaint and strong social and ethical reasons for responding to him; Nisbet has nothing.
#28 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:15 AM
Just now catching up on this issue after largely tuning it out for the past couple of weeks.
P. Hughes said it: "Will was pimping ACRC's reputation and using their words, taken out of context, to give some credibility to his column"
Darned right. Just like bloggers, reporters and comment-writers of all persuasions have flocked to the controversy like flies to honey.
George Will's name hasn't flash across my computer screen for months until this flap. He's boosted his readership numbers and that's great for him, and great for the Post at a time when newspapers are suffering.
Fact issues aside, Will's point is decent. We tend to get our feathers ruffled over fleeting data, whether it indicates short-term warming OR cooling.
The meat is in the longer-term trend: slow, consistent warming that spans decades, despite shorter-term fluctuations. That's not worth arguing over, and it's not particularly newsworthy in the day-to-day because it's boring.
My own bent is one of responsibility, I guess - a sense of stewardship for this planet on which we're lucky enough to live. I feel a responsibility to eat less red meat, buy organic and local foods, drive less, turn off the water while brushing my teeth and avoid excess packaging because these things (to varying degrees) show respect for my environment and resources. As a nice indirect benefit, many of these choices are also good for my health. I don't particularly care to argue. That's beginning to seem like an awful waste of time.
#29 Posted by Anne Minard, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:18 AM
"I was around in the 70's and the I remember well the global cooling scare."
What part of "a long-debunked argument about a scientific consensus on prolonged global cooling in the mid-20th century" don't you understand? "the pages of the beloved NYT and several Science and news publications" is not SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS. In the case of AGW we're talking about hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles that support AGW and virtually nothing that refutes it.
#30 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:23 AM
"Fact issues aside, Will's point is decent."
Fact issues aside? George Will has recycled the same lies for years; his only point is to misinform people about climate science.
That's not worth arguing over, and it's not particularly newsworthy in the day-to-day because it's boring.
You might not be bored if you weren't so profoundly ignorant of the consequences. It is worth arguing over because the outcome of the argument has a huge effect on policy.
#31 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:30 AM
Does it matter at all that the statement "sea ice levels are similar to what they were in 1979" is totally true, regardless of qualifiers about Antarctica or if it conforms to GCM's and AGW theory, and that in fact the Arctic sea ice extent today must surely exceed 1979?
It only matters in the Will deliberately used an irrelevant fact to intentionally mislead people; the global extent of sea ice is not a GW indicator.
What is wrong with you?
That question is more properly asked of you.
#32 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:35 AM
Vindication.
I suppose it's vindication for someone unable to understand the difference betweeb surface area and volume.
#33 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:38 AM
Stories that twist truth to promulgate AGW alarmism are a common, daily occurrence.
Then you should be able to cite several, with proof that your characterization is accurate.
#34 Posted by Jay Ballou, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 08:41 AM
Jay Ballou: "... so profoundly ignorant of the consequences. "
Wow, straight to an uniformed ad hominem attack? You came in swinging at all kinds of people. Oh! I see. That's just what you do. You wrote: "silly article. ... absurd. ... blather" on a post elsewhere about the game of chess. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/expected-creati.html?cid=148595019)
My point is sound: Will is right to point out the kneejerk reactions to short-term trends in climate change, and I am right to question the value in fighting about the issue (especially at the expense of action).
I am ignorant neither about science nor the daily rhythms of newspaper coverage, which is why I wrote that a short-term temperature rise is not "newsworthy." Indeed, I was unclear in my meaning. I should have said the long-term trend gets less coverage than it should. But it is, and should be, the story.
Still, I repeat: action, not argument, is the reasonable way to proceed.
#35 Posted by Anne Minard, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 09:54 AM
Oops, meant to write LONG-term temperature rise is not "newsworthy." ...
#36 Posted by Anne Minard, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 09:59 AM
Someone has made this point above, but I'd like to repeat that the distinction between fact and inference as you have it here is ridiculous. One these grounds one can say just about anything on the op-ed page--for instance, Barack Obama spoke to the nation the other night, outlining his economic plans, etc. After his speech, three people were murdered in Chicago. I infer the former caused the latter! Both facts are true aren't they?
#37 Posted by jcasey, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 10:22 AM
Obama is the second coming of Christ and man-made global warming: the new orthodoxy.
Woe be to anyone who dare question or challenge these precepts.
I suspect many of the egg heads calling for Will's column to be expunged under the pretext of "editorial standards" etc. are currently the political activists playing "journalist" currently employed in the dying daily newspaper industry.
The standard response to differing opinions and debates in most dailies is to first claim objectivity and authority and then fallback on ad hominem and finally call for silencing of contrary opinions.
We see this in all its ugly, ragged glory in this forum and in the preamble set up by the CJR.
#38 Posted by queeno_the_howler_monkey, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 01:46 PM
Fred Hiatt said: "And do I think it’s somehow dangerous to have one of our many columnists casting doubt on this consensus? No, I think it’s healthy."
My question for Mr. Hiatt is this: why does he think it is "healthy" to have a second-rate sports writer who analyzes politics from an openly partisan Republican point of view, who has absolutely no scientific credentials whatsoever, "cast doubt on the consensus" of hundreds of scientists from all over the world who have studied global warming diligently for decades, using deliberate distortions and misrepresentations of the scientific facts?
In particular, when this same columnist has published at least two previous columns in the Post, in 2004 and 2006, in which he used some of the same falsehoods, which he recycled verbatim in his recent column, which were thoroughly debunked at the time?
Why does Mr. Hiatt think it is "healthy" to publish the deliberate lies of a columnist whose only "qualification" is that he is a right-wing Republican partisan spouting scripted, blatantly dishonest fossil fuel industry-funded talking points?
#39 Posted by SecularAnimist, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 02:58 PM
I do not think it is a crime to be skeptical, nor do I feel I should be pilloried for being so. Yet somehow this discussion has devolved into a "with us or against us" chorus where anyone not in full cry for global warming is demonized.
This is not journalism, and not debate. It's name calling and idiocy. Check out the links that "refute" Will - they include a Harvard undergrad and numerous bloggers with no credentials whatsoever.
If you want to convince a skeptic, offer evidence not slogans. If you just want to let off steam (and increase global warming) continue what you're doing.
#40 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 03:46 PM
JLD underscores by his burden shifting the pernicious effect of publishing pieces like Will's. If the Post actually gave a rats about advancing that discussion, they would find a qualified climate scientist with credentials, research and a facts to make the skeptical case. Now we all have the duty to refute Will's transparently bad argument. This pointless activity sucks air out of the effort getting the climate science right in the first place--in the same way that constantly battling creationists takes away time from doing biology.
#41 Posted by jcasey, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 04:56 PM
If find it very interesting, and a bit hypocritical, to view all of the outrage at the Post and Will regarding his column. The Post was so biased for Obama during the election that its ombudsman had to come out after the election and admit they were biased for Obama. I don't recall a similar outcry during the campaign from Liberals that the Post be more biased. Why now?
#42 Posted by D&C, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 10:57 PM
@ JLD
You have every right to be a skeptic. However, at this stage in the scientific debate, the burden of proof is on you. The evidence is out there, and it's overwhelming when you really get into it. The onus is on you is to provide some scientific evidence to justify your skepticism.
#43 Posted by Valkyrie607, CJR on Sat 28 Feb 2009 at 11:42 PM
Did any of you read Will's response Friday? It's pretty convincing... you should check it out. He's not stupid.
#44 Posted by calpolyjeff, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 01:14 AM
George Will has exactly the same status as a denier of the Nazi Holocaust, except that catastrophic destruction of the biosphere continues.
Mr. Will isn't just a liar... his lies have a predictable effect on the well-being and even survival of future generations, and his lies about catastrophic climate change deserve the status of a crime against humanity.
The mainstream media have lulled the public into a false sense of security about the future, and it's long past time for the public to exact a price for the damage that has already been done by so many lies.
#45 Posted by Jacob Freeze, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 01:47 AM
NSIDC, the people who bring you the data base for Cryosphere, have announce that they are back online with near real-time data available.
"We have switched to the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F13 satellite following the sensor drift problem described in our February 18 post."
Unfortunately they went right back to using a defence satellite rather then the more accurate sensor made specially for the collection of ice data. So who's the winner?
"On February 18, we reported that the F15 sensor malfunction started out having a negligible impact on computed ice extent, which gradually increased as the sensor degraded further."
What is negligible impact for a GISS scientist who depends on a steady decline in sea ice for a living?
"At the end of January, the F15 sensor underestimated ice extent by 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) compared to F13. That is still within the margin of error for daily data."
I'm having a trouble here. This guy just said that an ice area bigger then Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey combined could go missing on any given day, and this would still be within the error margin? Nobody would even notice? I guess when your grant money depends on it, your tolerance for ice loss increases a bit.
"By mid-February, the difference had grown to 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), which is outside of expected error."
They'll notice if Texas sized chunks disappear. New Jersey is still screwed though.
"However, that amount represents less than 4% of Arctic sea ice extent at this time of year."
Only 4%? The entire thirty year record of sea ice loss from "global warming" comes to ...
that's right, 4%.
#46 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 12:03 PM
It only matters in the Will deliberately used an irrelevant fact to intentionally mislead people; the global extent of sea ice is not a GW indicator.
Not an indicator? Shrinking sea ice due to sensor manipulation has been the only thing keeping the global warming balloon inflated.
Jay, isn't it time for you to go pick up Al Gore's dry cleaning? Hop to.
#47 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 12:13 PM
If I was somewhat skeptical before, I'm very skeptical now. Do people honesty believe that questioning GW is akin to Holocaust denial? And that sea ice is no indicator of GW? What is an indicator, then?
Or it is possible that I've just dropped in on a bunch of far-left loons who have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't think the way they do?
And this represents our media? Crikey!
#48 Posted by JLD, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 01:54 PM
@the pseudo skeptics:
The substantial burden of proof is on you to go beyond the few mishandled facts (sea ice!!!) in George Will's work to meet head on the mountain of evidence for anthropogenic GW.
One further point, confusing matters of science with politics is silly. It's like disbelieving your doctor's diagnosis because of his political views.
#49 Posted by jcasey, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 08:19 PM
Show me the mountain, JCasey, and I'll show you where they're wrong.
This is a better deal then any science should get because contrary to your assertion, climate change due to anthropogenic gases is the proposition. It falls on the proposer to prove his theory with evidence, not the other way around.
#50 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 09:18 PM
@James Mayeau
I think the burden in this instance is clearly on the skeptic--especially the one who has no relevant knowledge and therefore no basis for his skepticism. If you don't get that, you don't get how science works.
#51 Posted by jcasey, CJR on Sun 1 Mar 2009 at 11:43 PM
James Mayeu
Will did not claim that global ice levels were similar to those of late 1979. He claimed that the U of Illinois Arctic Research Institute found the were "equal."
The pdf which, he claims, supports his says they were 1 m sq km lower in the N Hemisphere and 0.5 million sq km greater in the S. Hemisphere which adds up to -0.5 milliion sq km not zero. His claim was false (totally aside from the fact, stressed by the UIARC that at the time his claim was published -- Feb 15 -- the decrease was much greater than 0.5 million sq km).
The innnaccurate sensor which caused some scientists to underestimate Sea ice cover by 5,000 sq km has nothing to do with the estimates of the UIARC. Their measurements are made using an older satellite. This is clearly explained here http://tinyurl.com/at7ztv (as a p.s. so search for p.s. if you don't want to read the whole article).
#52 Posted by Robert Waldmann, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 03:50 AM
Now that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are no longer around to run the Executive Branch as a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil, and now that the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress are moving to take action -- however belated and inadequate -- to reduce carbon pollution, the giant fossil fuel corporations will kick their campaign of deceit and denial into overdrive, in an effort to undermine public support for any such measures. Climate change denialist propaganda will become more aggressive and more pervasive, not less so.
This can be seen not only in high-profile cases, like The Washington Post's publication of George Will's deliberate and long-ago debunked lies, but in every online venue where the issue of anthropogenic global warming is reported or discussed.
On this very thread, for example, we can see multiple commenters slavishly regurgitating their verbatim, scripted, "Climate Science According To Rush Limbaugh" talking points: climate science is a "religion"; Al Gore is a "liberal" therefore climate change is a hoax; hundreds of dedicated scientists who have studied this issue diligently for decades are a "leftist conspiracy" and we should trust ExxonMobil and Chevron to tell us the truth (through their paid mouthpieces on Fox News, of course).
It's really quite funny to see these people proclaiming themselves "skeptics" when in fact, they are about the least skeptical people on Earth, since they are more than willing to unskeptically swallow and regurgitate whatever idiotic, lunatic-fringe, politically-motivated, pseudo-scientific denialist bunk the corporate-funded right-wing propaganda machine wants to spoon-feed them.
#53 Posted by SecularAnimist, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 09:43 AM
James Mayeau wrote: "... climate change due to anthropogenic gases is the proposition. It falls on the proposer to prove his theory with evidence, not the other way around."
Climate change due to global warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is an empirically observed reality. It has been "proved with evidence" -- in fact it has been proved many times over, with multiple independent lines of evidence.
On the other hand, the ONLY argument you have offered here is to claim that your ignorance proves the science is wrong.
#54 Posted by SecularAnimist, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 09:49 AM
Jcasey
Where's that "mountain" of evidence? All I see is a lot of harumphing and bloviating. Maybe it was too heavy to carry?
How about this. Just show me a mole hill of evidence. You can manage that much for "the most pressing challenge of our times."
#55 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 04:12 PM
Robert Waldmann,
Why do you suppose they stopped using that older sensor in the first place?
About your PS that was written by Mark Serreze, a fellow who used to be a semi respectable scientist back in the day. Nature 361, 335 - 337 (28 January 1993); doi:10.1038/361335a0
Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years
Most of the trends are not statistically significant. In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions.
That's Serreze back in 1993. Then he met Al Gore. There was a distinct change in his tone.
Some skeptics of global warming have also suggested that the melt is part of a cyclical process. Flat out wrong, says Serreze. He explains, "It's not cyclical at this point. I think we understand the physics behind this pretty well. We've known for at least 30 years, from our earliest climate models, that it's the Arctic where we'd see the first signs of global warming."
Not above a bit of scolding of global warming skeptical, Serreze says, "It's a situation where we hate to say we told you so, but we told you so."
Now he is a flaming nutcase, telling the NYSun that "The Arctic is screaming!" on Dec. 12th, 2007.
#56 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 04:52 PM
Climate change due to global warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is an empirically observed reality. It has been "proved with evidence" -- in fact it has been proved many times over, with multiple independent lines of evidence.
Wonderful. So you won't have any trouble showing me one, Mr. SecularAnimist.
#57 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 05:00 PM
James Mayeau wrote: "So you won't have any trouble showing me one, Mr. SecularAnimist."
Actually, I do have trouble with dishonest people who want to deliberately waste my time. You are not interested in the facts of climate science. You are interested in spouting fake, phony, scripted, ExxonMobil-funded, pseudoscientific bunk, and wasting people's time with malicious trolling.
If you are really interested in learning about climate science, then you won't have any "trouble" doing so. Just stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and start listening to scientists. Stop reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page, and start reading actual scientific journals. But you are not really interested. You are a phony, and a troll, and you know it, and I know it.
#58 Posted by SecularAnimist, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 06:49 PM
Actually, I do have trouble with dishonest people who want to deliberately waste my time. You are not interested in the facts of climate science. You are interested in spouting fake, phony, scripted, ExxonMobil-funded, pseudoscientific bunk, and wasting people's time with malicious trolling.
That's a punt. Dude you had the opportunity to educate the masses. Think of all the ignorant yokels out there in the hinderlands, thirsting for a bit of your superior knowledge, gleened from actual scientific journals. All of them are going away thirsty, because instead of throwing the ball, you decided to play it safe and punt.
You are great at name calling I'll give you that. But someday, Mr. Secular, you are going to find out that the game is not won by the team with the best cheerleading squad.
Good day sir.
#59 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 10:36 PM
The POST and other papers regularly make the case that a democracy needs responsible journalism, which cannot be replaced by the blogosphere. And I agree. But when the biggest and presumably most responsible papers become simply opinion blogs in their own right, they risk losing their best argument.
#60 Posted by Tom Benson, CJR on Mon 2 Mar 2009 at 10:52 PM
James Mayeau wrote: "Dude you had the opportunity to educate the masses."
Dude, you are a phony, a fraud and a troll who has nothing better to do than maliciously waste people's time. And I have no interest in that "opportunity".
If you want to learn about and understand the actual science of climate change, you already know where to find the information. But you are not interested in that. You are interested in reciting the scripted lies that you are spoon-fed by "scientists" like sports writer George Will and "on-air personality" Rush Limbaugh, and in deliberately wasting people's time.
#61 Posted by SecularAnimist, CJR on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 08:56 AM
Science schmience... what this movement has is Saint Albgore who has a grilled cheese sandwich with the face of Jesus on it that PROVES the world is coming to an end! Plus we've got all you religious zealots streaming in to kneel at the altar for a peek into the toaster oven. God help us now that you crackpots are in charge of public policy.
#62 Posted by Ventura Capitalist, CJR on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 01:12 PM
Mr SecularAnimist
For a guy whose time is so valuable you sure spend alot of it hanging out at realclimatedot org. According to this change log you have made at least thirty comments since 2008, which means you have had over a year to absorb climate changing knowledge (sort of interesting that even the guys whose side you're on find you a bit much to take, and edit your diatribes to make them comport with basic standards of decency).
You have the time and the study material. So why can't you articulate even one of those lines of evidence you spoke of? Could it be some defect of understanding? Does rage fill your head so full that your fingers won't type? Are you dyslexic? It's a mystery.
Ah well, I really don't have anymore desire to waste time on you. That change logger for comments was a neat discovery though.
#63 Posted by James Mayeau, CJR on Tue 3 Mar 2009 at 09:25 PM
Curtis, what's very interesting is that neither you nor anyone else seems to have noticed that George Will has completely misunderstood the implications of the famous bet between Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon in 1980:
- Erhlich lost, and badly, to Simon when prices of a range of commodities fell, as a result of market forces and incentives (pricing signals) and institutions (property rights) that encouraged and enabled investors to bring more supplies to markets (and also encouraged users to lower their own demands).
But no such market forces, pricing signals or property rights exist with respect to the global atmosphere (or for other problems that concern the so-called "Malthusians").
The reason why there is a problem and why people are concerned about it is precisely because it is one that markets are NOT working and can't self-evidently cure on their own.
#64 Posted by TokyoTom, CJR on Wed 4 Mar 2009 at 03:41 AM
Further to my preceding post, I've blogged about how George Will is wrong as a basic matter of market principles here:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/02/18/poor-thing-why-george-will-won-t-be-consistent-on-climate-change.aspx
#65 Posted by TokyoTom, CJR on Wed 4 Mar 2009 at 03:44 AM
The proponents of the man made global warming ruse are not altruistic. Their total involvement is for self agrandizement and personal enrichment. Follow the money and you will see all of the conmen, scoundrels, cheats,flim-flammers,lawyered up promoters and Nobel laureat sellouts. If you repeat a lie often enough it becomes a movement and then the movement becomes a tool for the unscrupulous to use for their religious experience. Now congress and government has taken up the drumbeat with aid of the purposely misinformed media. Many people sense that this is bovine excrement and the shills for the movement are skirming because they are being exposed. With righteous indignation they are trying to use models, figures and junk science to support a feeling. Well, figures don't lie but liars do figure. One statistic is very telling though $50,000,000.000.00 have been spent by the fed to study global warming (conveniently called climate change now) and the scientists are looking for more. They wouldn't get very much more if they all concurred that this is the way the planet works naturally and now that Washington and Al have declared it a "crisis" well the pump is primed.
Unfortunatly these folks have no shame. They are going to tax us for breathing soon. We'll have to figure out how to not exhale or have cattle flatuate. PT Barnum was right.
#66 Posted by paul, CJR on Wed 11 Mar 2009 at 09:50 AM
Mr. Will's trademark is to sound like the voice of reason, but he has a closet-full of skeletons and, being so reasonable, it is a wonder he does not learn from his past mistakes. Here is one that is quite reminiscent of his present stoicism regarding climate change. Quoting from the Columbia Journalism Review:
"In a 1979 Newsweek column, George Will denounced the movie "The China Syndrome" - which dramatized a nuclear reactor accident - as hysterical Hollywood propaganda. "Nuclear plants," Will scoffed, "like color-TV sets, give off minute amounts of radiation, but there is more cancer risk in sitting next to a smoker than next to a nuclear plant." Will's column was still on newsstands when the real-life Three Mile Island nuclear nightmare began."
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19920606&slug=1495781
#67 Posted by Gerald Kaiser, CJR on Fri 13 Mar 2009 at 03:40 PM
Journalism is the accurate reporting of stories and their underlying facts. I think this is what this school and website are all about.
And George Will and his editorial minions are not going to take a hit on journalism here. They accurately reported what their sources printed. Period.
The particular quotes, sources, ordering, and editorializing were at the discretion of George Will. Which I believe is allowed on an opinion page at a newspaper. But the quotes were accurate, and the sources plausible and germane.
The Post's Ombudsman confirmed the Arctic Research Climate Center's statement that global sea ice areas are "near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979".
George Will's column stated:
"According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."
George Will changed "near or slightly lower" to "equal". Because sea ice estimation is full of caveats about comparisons across years, and apparently 500,000 sq km can go missing before anyone notices, there is no reason to believe global sea ice amount is any different in 2009 than 1979. Within the limits of precision and accuracy stated in Will's column (there were none) the years are indeed "equal".
The Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center subsequently chose two precise dates of comparison and precise amounts of ice, to four significant figures of precision and compared northern and southern hemisphere amounts.
That the Arctic Climate Research Center decided to change its mind about what "near or slightly lower" meant is not George Will's issue to defend. In fact George Will never said sea ice had anything to do with global warming, only that "many experts said this was evidence".
Folks can take issue with him about his opinion, but as far as journalism, fact-checking, and CYA, there is no problem with his column.
The whole point, and understand George Will has no stake in climate change one way or another, is to poke fun at sactimonious newspapers and their bleating about the next end of the world catastrophe. Back in the 1970's the media (when they were more powerful) were completely cocksure the earth was cooling, evidence and science were cited, and that was that. But it was completely wrong. Now the media is completely cocksure the earth is warming, evidence and science are cited, and that is that. So the question is, can it be wrong again?
The Arctic Climate Research Center was completely cocksure its numbers were precise to four figures. And a sensor error evidently missed 500,000 sq km of ice. That bother anyone? The Center could have stood behind their original statement, said there was a lot of variability, George Will's statement was loosey-goosey enough to be correct, looking deeper there were some differences in the hemispheres suggestive of global warming that was being studied, and let the nut cases take it from there. But nooooooooo. The Center ended up looking stupid. Really stupid. If global warming ever goes to court (aka Scopes Monkey Trial), the lawyers would have a field day with it.
#68 Posted by oracle2world, CJR on Tue 24 Mar 2009 at 01:47 PM
"Wow, straight to an uniformed ad hominem attack? You came in swinging at all kinds of people. Oh! I see. That's just what you do. You wrote: "silly article. ... absurd. ... blather" on a post elsewhere about the game of chess. (http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/10/expected-creati.html?cid=148595019)"
HYPOCRITICAL much, Ms. Minnard?
#69 Posted by Marcel Kincaid, CJR on Mon 27 Apr 2009 at 09:18 PM
"understand George Will has no stake in climate change one way or another"
Rubbish.
#70 Posted by Marcel Kincaid, CJR on Mon 27 Apr 2009 at 09:21 PM
will is real, Common sense tells you that with the money and political policy to be won the devil is in the woodwork, no one I mean no one in there right mind can believe in Global warming
#71 Posted by Don Romrell, CJR on Sat 6 Jun 2009 at 05:37 PM
will is real, Common sense tells you that with the money and political policy to be won the devil is in the woodwork, no one I mean no one in there right mind can believe in Global warming
#72 Posted by Don Romrell, CJR on Sat 6 Jun 2009 at 05:38 PM
will is real, Common sense tells you that with the money and political policy to be won the devil is in the woodwork, no one I mean no one in there right mind can believe in Global warming
#73 Posted by Don Romrell, CJR on Sat 6 Jun 2009 at 05:40 PM
will is real, Common sense tells you that with the money and political policy to be won the devil is in the woodwork, no one I mean no one in there right mind can believe in Global warming
#74 Posted by Don Romrell, CJR on Sat 6 Jun 2009 at 05:41 PM
The upper classes (which are the promoters of environmental issues offering solutions that invariably offer more political control to the upper classes as a solution) have always used 'science' as a cover for attempts at control structures. One hundred years ago the 'science' was brain-measuring and theories of race that were not restricted to the broad category of 'black vs. white', but differentiated between eastern vs. western Europeans. As an engineer who has some modest familiarity with the scientific method and environmental science, I would advise anyone of good will to be automatically skeptical of a 'scientific' theory which (a) was most popular among affluent persons, in this case from Malibu to Martha's Vineyard, and (b) prescribed a solution which involved giving the upper classes (more politically wired and active than most of us) more authority over mass production and consumption. Stripped of its 'scientific' fig leaves, the climate-change movement is asserting that politicians can change the weather by passing laws, regardless of little matters like solar activity and non-human contributors to fossil fuel output. I'm sorry, but it's not flat-earth thinking to be amused and sardonic about such assertions.
#75 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Sun 7 Jun 2009 at 03:51 PM
Many comments wish to correct Will. Were any of these voices as strident in wishing to correct Gore?
#76 Posted by Filby, CJR on Fri 13 Nov 2009 at 11:37 PM
IF we look at the historical context of AGW, we find somewhat of a muddled background. It did not start with a hapless paper of 1937-38 in JRMS; the idea goes back to the late 19th century: It was proposed as a clue to why the ice was melting. Look at the picture of our Founding Father on the Delaware River, XMas 1777 as imagined by an artist 75 years later. That river in the 1960-70 decade was never so clogged with ice; glaciers were retreating back into the mountains; Rivers were flowing full tilt -- The ice in the mountains was melting.
These facts did not escape the interest of scientists of that day. Aristotle's element, Air, was found to contain a mixture of even more elements, And components composed of elements. To add to this enigma, travelers to the Levant and the Middle East were reporting remains of huge Wine and Olive presses hundreds of miles from the nearest vine or tree then growing. Could the earth be warming and turning to desert? If so, why?
About this time Newton's work with visible radiation was being extended into invisible regimes. It was found that some components of air would absorb energy in some long wave lengths and a Swedish scientist, among others, proposed this as a mechanism for the signs of warming. In another venue of science, people were proposing that 'energy,' as a concept, would allow the investigation of our observations. This concept came down to us as 'Thermodynamics' which some were using to investigate the basis of our findings in Nature as well as the Laboratory. By shortly before the First World War, a Johns Hopkins Physics professor was investigating this idea in another realm; the Greenhouse. Professor R. W. Wood found by experiment that such an effect did not exist. And the reasoning was the conservation of energy. When a molecule near the planet's surface radiates energy skyward, that molecule has to cool and any molecule intercepting that radiation would warm: The net result result is Zero. And this is where the Perps in this go-round of AGW run aground of Physics.
The December, last, issue of National Geographic, p. 27 has an illustration of, what I call the Noncept of the greenhouse effect. By ignoring the Physics of their contention the Perps have given us the biggest hoax of all time. When someone, someday updates "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Maddening of Crowds" this, along with Maddoff, will certainly garner chapters of their own.
Enjoy the Wintry Weather -- if you're in the Northern Hemisphere. . .
Dr Robert L Hamilton, Engineer
#77 Posted by Robert L Hamilton, Engineer, CJR on Tue 12 Jan 2010 at 02:35 PM
A tecnologia da Tv Digital via internet chegou para lhe proporcionar assistir canais ao vivo em seu computador.
452 canais de Tv Digital transmitidos 24h por dia Ao Vivo, sem taxas de assinatura ou mensalidades
www.tvdigitalnopc.com.br
#78 Posted by new, CJR on Tue 17 Aug 2010 at 10:45 AM