The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review decided to join The Will Affair by providing George Will yet another uncritical podium, beyond publishing his column, to spout off in this interview conducted by associate editor Bill Steigerwald.
Steigerwald's scientific credentials shine forth from the opening words.
After George F. Will wrote a column last month questioning the faulty premises and apocalyptic predictions of global-warming alarmists, he caught holy heck from America's "eco-pessimists."
Should anyone wonder that the interview that followed simply gave Will another podium for his Will-ful deception?
Staying with Steigerwald,
He and his editors at The Washington Post were blasted with thousands of angry e-mails, most of which challenged Will's assertion that global sea ice levels have not been dramatically reduced by man-made global warming, as environmentalists claim, but are essentially the same as they were in 1979. Will, who had used data from the Arctic Climate Research Center as his source, also was accused of multiple inaccuracies by The New York Times' Andrew Revkin. Will wrote a second column defending his data and returning fire at Revkin.
Please note, like Will, Steigerwald is quite happy to limit the discussion to ice, as if the argument is over a few words and a specific item of data, rather than the reality that there were mulitple issues with just that one Will column and that Will's columns are filled not just with inaccuracies but actual direct untruths (lies?).
All is calm now
Is it? Has Will escaped with simply the 'viciousness' of the blogosphere and Andy Revkin, able to go out and continue his Will-ful deceit with impunity?
Q: You have felt the righteous wrath of those who believe in man-made global warming. Are you still all there?
A: Oh, heavens. Yeah. The odd thing about these people is, normally when I write something that people disagree with they write letters to the editor or they write a responding op-ed piece. These people simply set out to try and get my editors to not publish my columns. Now I don't blame them, because I think if my arguments were as shaky as theirs are, I wouldn't want to engage in argument either.
"Believe" is not the question Steigerwald, it is a question of understanding the scientific method and giving any sort of credence/respect to science or pandering to suffering anti-science syndrome.
As for Will, what arrogance and deceit to assert that people were not ready to engage in arguments, that numerous people did not provide substantive material backing not just questioning, but utter debunking, of your columns.
In addition, where are the calls on "editors to not publish [your] columns"? Isn't the call for editors and publications to act professionally and ethically? To actuall fact check your pieces and demand that they comport to some degree of truthfulness and ethical reporting?
•Q: The big issue was about how much global sea ice there is now compared to 1979.
•A: And that of course was a tiny portion of the column. The critics completely ignored -- as again, understandably -- the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.
First, "global sea ice" was only one of the issues.
And, second, George Will is simply stating untruths: "The critics completely ignored ... global cooling." What arrogant dishonesty! There were newspaper columns written, formal letters to the editor (and George Will), and, probably literally, hundreds of blog posts that detailed how Will was utterly deceptic when it came to Global Cooling. (To be clear, the best academic investigation of the literature is 180 degrees away from Will's assertions, one of the authors send Will this study months ago, and, in any event, Will repeatedly took words out of context to represent people/articles as saying things that they hadn't.)
Q: They like to pretend that there really wasn't any hysteria back then.A: Since I quoted the hysteria, it's a little hard for them to deny it.
Again, the false bravado that you weren't challenged and the continued misrepresentation.
Q: What disturbs you most about this global warming consensus that seems to be pretty widespread and doesn't seem to be eroding?
Contemplate the wording: "this global warming consensus". "seems to be pretty widespread" ... nothing there about science, scientific method, about the concepts of knowledge.
A: Well, I think it is eroding, in the sense that people sign on to be alarmed because it's socially responsible ... (and because it makes them feel good). But once they get to the price tag, once they are asked to do something about it, like pay trillions of dollars, they begin to re-think.
These paragraphs (above and to come) are actually quite interesting as they state, even if obliquely, the key arguments that will be heard to forestall action to mitigate Global Warming and, as well, more truthfulness than much of Will's discussion.
Here is: it will cost too much and therefore people won't choose to act. Of course, Will won't admit to any risk to avert nor that there will be benefits such as better health and job creation.
I've never seen anything quite like this in my now 40 years in Washington. I've never seen anything like the enlistment of the mainstream media in a political crusade
Wow, George, never? Not in the attempt to end the "death tax"? Not in the effort to build momentum for war against Iraq? Not in the effort to impeach of Bill Clinton or the shallow-based undermining of Al Gore in 2000? Not in ... Never, George, never?
and this is a political crusade, because it's about how we should be governed and how we should live; those are the great questions of politics.
This is truthfulness, not the crusade, but that these "are the great questions of politics". There are serious questions of how to govern society and how we will live.
It is clearly for some people a surrogate religion.
Isn't George insulting both religion and science here? Thus, being a climate realist and giving credence to sicence is "a surrogate religion"?
It's a spiritual quest. It offers redemption. But what it also always offers, whether it is global cooling or global warming, is a rationale for the government to radically increase its supervision of our life and our choices. Whether the globe is cooling, whether it's warming, the government's going to be the winner and the governing class will be the winner.
Will is anti-government, anti-regulation. Is his real fear that acknowledging the threat we face will require his admitting that this problem is too big for the individual to solve, that 'libertarian' solutions won't solve this challenge, and that there is a role for government in solving problems?
He is quite willing, it seems, to allow ideology to overwhelm any affiliation with truth and truthful reporting.
Now, it seems to me there is a 100 percent certainty that at any moment the planet is warming or it is cooling. That's what it does. There are cycles well-recorded through history. The climate was once warm enough for Greenland to be called "Greenland" for a reason -- the Vikings farmed there. There was a time when the planet was so cold that Eskimos landed in Scotland in their kayaks. There was "The Little Ice Age." There were warm periods -- we've been through this before. What's different now is that we have a media addicted to hysteria and we have enormous political and financial stakes in convincing people that vast shifts of power and resources should be given to the government to combat climate change. The prudent people in this refer to "climate change" so whatever happens they can say, "See, we told you."
Oh, this is the "its all natural" argument and it is all cycles. Don't worry, be happy, no matter what science and the data tell you, this is all part of a set of natural cycles which is only different because there are journalists talking about the situation .... Sadly, the real problem is that "journalists" are seeking to be faux and balanced, thus the nation is not receiving truth from its media outlets on this critical issue area.
•Q: Will you dare to do any more on global warming?
•A: Well of course! It doesn't take daring. Seriously, I don't understand what there is to worry about. In fact, the global warming "caucus," if you will, seems to me singularly toothless. They can't even get the globe to cooperate. It stubbornly refuses to warm at the moment.
AHHHHH!!!! Surprised that he didn't mention snow in DC? (Or, well, 70+ degree weather the eighth day of March, less than a week after an icy storm?)
Sadly, he will still be writing on Global Warming and if the Post's and Tribune-Review's behavior is any indication, he will be allowed to continue his Will-ful deceit without serious review.
Q: Is there any big lesson that you've learned from this encounter with the global-warming people?
A: This is not a life-changing experience. This is just another encounter with another interest group doing interest-group politics. This strikes me as a very minor event.
Just "interest-group politics" rather than calling for factual and truthful reporting on the issue that might be the most important one facing US in the 21st century.
Q: In your career or ... ?
A: In the week! In the week! This is just not a big deal. I've written 5,000 columns and a lot of them have caused ruckuses bigger than this.
Well, how many columns have led to Columbia School of Journalism reviews (The Will Affair) and the Post's Ombudsman having to write on them? How many led to criticism in The New York Times? How many have led you to write a second, snippy column repeated and expanding on your falsehoods?
Q: But Andrew Revkin and The New York Times? They don't usually pick on you, do they?
A: No, but they no doubt have their reasons.
Poor, poor George. "Picked on"? And, well, how about this as a reason: George Will peddled deceit on one of the key issues of the 21st century, the blogosphere erupted in substantive outrage, and the substantive shredding of Will became known to Revkin who, sadly, balanced restrained comments about Will with over-the-top comments re Al Gore.
In any event, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review should be embarassed to have published this interview without fact checking as, well, no truthful researcher could spend 10 minutes on the web with this material and be satisfied with Will's falsehoods.
Tom Yulsman has a reasonable discussion of this in George Will unmasked. Sadly, Yulman concludes:
Many argue that the Washington Post should censor Will. This is a profoundly bad idea. It would raise Will's standing among the public, and the chilling effect of suppressing free speech would be a much bigger evil than whatever harm Will is doing to public understanding of climate change. (And I sincerely doubt that he's doing much damage to that.) Even so, it sure would be nice to see a detailed article in the Washington Post analyzing everything Will got wrong -- and continues to get wrong.
Many problems and issues in so few words:
1. Who is talking "censor"? Is fact checking and demanding that reporting (and, yes, columnists conduct 'reporting') abide by some legitimate definition of truthfulness censoring or simply professionalism?
2. "doubt that he's doing much damage" simply rejects that a columnist reaching millions of people has any impact, that his words don't influence anyone's thinking. Seems like an odd perspective from a journalist blogging to be suggesting that journalists have no impact on the public discussion.
3. And, again, the issue is not just The Washington Post, but the 450 newspapers that Will reportably reaches throught The Washington Post Writers' Group.
Back to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, for a moment. Should it shock anyone, considering the anti-science syndrome promoting tone of this piece, that this is a Scaife newspaper?
It's a worthless newspaper anyway, as their war drum banging on Iraq proved. I wish people - including Huffpo - would link to McClatchy instead of to those wolves in sheep's clothing.
''Temperatures, sea levels, acid levels in oceans and ice sheets were already moving "beyond the patterns of natural variability within which our society and economy have developed and thrived," scientists said in a report released Thursday.''
wait.. that can't be right.. acid levels in oceans? there are no acidic oceans.. never have been. hmm..
There are acids capable of rusting metals, even though the overall PH is greater than 7.
"Acid levels" is correct, they did not say Acidic, you did.
Like here. It's embarrassing, Fumes, I almost had respect for you for a while. Acidic oceans? You keep harping on this silly strawman of terminology. Never have been acidic oceans? Well, you're the only person positing the existence of acidic oceans, so it's kind of you to demolish yourself for us. Whether the pH is below 7 or not has no bearing on whether pH levels are within normal limits that will sustain marine life.
Your arguments are fundamentally bankrupt. I can tell because while you pay inordinate attention to small details, you never look up. You never address the broader picture. You never say whether or not you truly believe that humans can input exponentially increasing amounts of any substance into any closed system, forever, without some sort of crash. Do you?
''world faces irreversible climate change researchers warn!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/12/irreversible.climate/index.html
(in response to the link...)
"To be clear, the best academic investigation of the literature is 180 degrees away from Will's assertions"
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/definitive-evidence-for-global-cooling-consensus-in-the-1970s-1/
I guess the best academic investigations of the literature are a bit biased... go figure.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/environment/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Try reading the actual study: http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf
You must be a young feller. When I was growing up global cooling was a hot topic and discussed very very often.
Mr. Will is correct in his colum. I have not found any evidence of what he wrote to be false. Can you?
Will has stated direct falsehoods, in this interview and elsewhere, that have been thoroughly documented (check the links). Would suggest that if you want to be challenging the science, there are far better paths to do so than standing up with tasteless attacks on me to defend Will's deceit.
Monopoly is the enemy of humanity.
Monopolies, wherever they exist, must be broken up.
Whether they be in evil Quorporations... or in altruistic government institutions... they present the same problems for humans. Distribute this structural flaw over the broadest amount of humans, and you'll preserve humanity in the best means possible.
History will respect you for doing this...
Progressivism, 20th century Socialism, Central Plannerism, (US) Liberalism are antithetical to this goal. You invite the worst of humanity (arrogance) to preside over humanity. Your altruism hurts humans... because it allows the worst of humanity to gain influential power. Look at your policies implemented over the last 100 years...
We can do better. Be more critical of Progressivism... there's a long track record for you to objectively evaluate.
This applies to the human effort to address climate change.
Hrmm... it still works here, though. Yeah, objectively review the social democrats' track record before advocating for similarly structured solutions to the world's problems.
"Climate science, on the other hand, is based on empirical evidence"
doriath22 is like the Catholic church telling Copernicus that the Sun revolves around the Earth... "Your heliocentric world is nonsense"
Eventually the Catholic church had to face up to the facts and adjust their dogma.
Classical economics is, more or less, the last gasp of Cartesian thinking, the worldview that posits a separation between the world of perception and cogitation and the world of experience and sensation. "Je pense, donc je suis," but thinking is no longer enough to assure continued existence. We humans and our fancy thoughts are embedded in the earth. We can't live without sunshine, water, soil, food. We alter the environment; the environment alters us. Our perception changes; our actions change; the world changes. We have that power. Yet we aren't powerful enough to untether ourselves from the natural laws of the systems that sustain our lives.
and their tails got real big and they ran like hail in opposite directions!!
the last time this happened.. the climate changed.
so i'm thinking that the climate is going to change again!!
in the 1400's temps became to cold for grape production in England and the vineyards declined
I would attribute this to climate change, human induced - not a chance.
I bet England would like to be growing grapes again on a large scale.
Was it warmer, colder or unknown and the facts that we do know remain - that it was much warmer in England from 1100 to 1300,
By the way Greenland and Iceland were warmer during the same period.
Now all three are much colder than they were and possibly getting warmer, as has happened before.
By the way China, Iceland, France, Greenland, England, and Iceland were all warmer during the same period aprox. 1100-1300
Global enough for you?
Or would you like more data on a little thing called the Medieval Warm Period.
have taken over that role now?
roflmao
133 yrs ago the internal combustion engine was invented
48 yrs ago first human in space
On a planet that is 4.5 billion yrs old (or you pick a number - point is it is old)
We are still in our infancy and our knowledge is very limited so there are things we do not know.
We do know that our planet has been very much hotter and very much colder while also supporting life.
Human kind is the most adaptable life form known
We have experienced extended stints in space, and underwater, in the deserts and on the poles. We will manage if it is warmer
Some places worse - sure
Some places better - also yes (forests and farming on Greenland)
and another thing the charts that are thrown up for the CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the global temp warming trend are very similar to the chart of the DOW from 1933 to 2005
I think the global warming is more closely related to the Dow Jones Industrial Average than CO2 levels in the atmosphere because the charts look the same.
2 charts looking the same and overlapping well does not make a fact.
Water vapor, solar flares, volcanic activity, etc... all play a role in what the global temp is.
The point is we know some things and we do not know a whole lot of things.
The earth is warming or it is not
People are causing the warming or they are not
People can stop causing the warming or they cannot
If people can stop the warming, it will be worth spending the money on that rather than healthcare or whatever
If we put the effort into population control we could stop arguing about the above. In CA, per capital energy use has been flat for years, but the total has gone up every year due to increases in population.
We would have the added benefit of less pollution and crowding.
for national security, cost, pollution, environmental damage, energy wars etc..
Global warming or Not.
I enjoy nuclear and unleaded gas for the cost per amount of energy gotten fits within my budget.
Before anyone says most of electricity is derived from coal - most of mine is from nuclear I live in Illinois where nuclear is the majority.
The point is, is that you can do what you would like, for whatever reason, and I'll do what I would like, for whatever reason.
Since you're so in love with markets, why don't you check out the emerging field of Ecological Economics?
"Ecological economics is a growing transdisciplinary field that aims to improve and expand economic theory to integrate the earth’s natural systems, human values and human health and well-being. In conventional economics, the primary goal is to increase goods and services produced by human industries (built capital), and the gross domestic product (GDP) is a national measure of the total value of goods and services produced annually. Conventional economics assumes that ever-increasing GDP is desirable, possible, and that everyone benefits.
Ecological economics takes a broader perspective and recognizes that there are more things that contribute to human well-being than just the amount of stuff, such as health and education (human capital), friends and family (social capital) and the contribution of the earth and its biological and physical systems (natural capital). Its goal is to develop a deeper scientific understanding of the complex linkages between human and natural systems, and to use that understanding to develop effective policies that will lead to a world which is ecologically sustainable, has a fair distribution of resources (both between groups and generations of humans and between humans and other species), and efficiently allocates scarce resources including “natural” and “social” capital."
That is, unless you think ecological sustainability and fair distribution of resources are BAD things.
"... ecological sustainability and fair distribution of resources..."
... who get's to define "fair"? A political class perhaps?
And, what is appropriate (if any) regulation of markets?
I thought as much.
Only a free market fundamentalist would see red flags at the word "fair."
If you're going to go there, who gets to define "sustainable?" Or "resources?" Those are concepts that are complex and fraught with political and social landmines as well.
How do you define "political class," anyway?
The earth is warming or cooling
It is caused by man or not
We can do something about it or we can't
If we can do something, it will be worth spending the money on the climate rather than health or whatever
If we agreed to work on reducing population growth we wouldn't have to argue about any of the above. Man's impact on the climate would be less, and the world would be a nicer place for our children due to less pollution and less crowding.
We know that CO2 emmissions have increased over time. Yet the scientific instruments that measure temperatures at the two poles, and the earth's temperature, don't show the correlation with CO2. Scientists expected the oceans to warm because of the CO2. So instruments were placed in the north Pacific to measure the warming. The instruments found that the north Pacific is cooling. There are similar problems with sea level readings, sea ice readings, and so on.
The supporters of catstrophic global warming want the world to spend huge sums of money to deal with this single potential problem. Yet, there are other dangers in the world. The recent major earthquake in Indonesia, which spawned a huge tsunami, killed over a quarter million people. If some of the U.N. money spent on global warming research had been used to fund tsunami warning systems, thousands of people's lives could have been saved. We can't predict all natural disasters.
If the world cools rather than heats, we need some resources to deal with whatever crisis nature throws up to us. That is the point of the climate realists.
Your so-called "point," that "if the world cools rather than heats, we need some resources to deal with whatever crisis nature throws at us," is mistaken on two levels:
1.) If we want to be prepared for whatever crisis is coming, the first step is understanding the exact nature of that crisis. Is it going to be warming or cooling? That was a valid question 30 years ago. Since then the question has been answered. I can't imagine why you would want to pretend otherwise, if you're really concerned about being able to deal effectively with any crisis that's coming down the pike.
2.) This is a crisis that we are throwing at ourselves, really. Nature wouldn't be throwing anything at us if we hadn't already tossed several large and problematic balls into her court, i.e. a 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the beginning of the industrial revolution, a rapidly dropping oceanic pH level, depleted worldwide fish stocks, topsoil eroding faster than the replacement rate, etc.