Global heat and chill over George Will’s sea ice

The arguing continues. Was George Will totally wrong to say recent expert reports indicate global sea ice today is the same as it was in 1979? Should he have said it’s the same as it was in 1980? Does it make a difference?

Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander now is describing, in detail, the process that went into editing Will’s Feb. 15 column.

The Will piece is controversial because he quoted the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, which then responded that Will, the center’s opinion, had misused its data showing sea ice today is 8 percent lower than it was in 1979.

8% ‘slight’? To Will, that 8 percent difference is about the same. Ombudsman Alexander found that, in fact, the Research Center, in January, had used the words “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979” to describe today’s ice. But now, the Research Center says that 8 percent is not “slightly lower”; it’s ice equal in area to Texas, California and Oklahoma combined.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that today’s sea ice area is greater than it was in 1980, just a year after the year everyone else is fighting about. Choose your baseline. If it’s 1979, today’s ice is down. If it’s 1980, today’s ice is up.

Says Alexander:

[Washington Post] editors also missed opportunities to move the debate to washingtonpost.com. Will’s column attracted hundreds of comments online, and the three-day cutoff period for comments could have been extended to allow more. Experts could have been quickly engaged to debate Will’s assertions. Clarifications from the Arctic Climate Research Center could have been posted.

There is a disturbing if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that’s where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.

Debate goes on. That’s the great thing about Will’s column. It actually started a global warming debate. I finally can see what each side (Really, there are at least two sides) is arguing about global warming and, with the back and forth, we’re all learning something. Let’s have more of this.

The debate is not over.

If those who warn of a manmade global warming catastrophe were totally confident in their position, they’d be calling for massive nuclear power expansion right now. Few are. The doubt is evident.

Frank Warner

Comments

[Neo]

I know George Will well, I respect his intellect and his powers of persuasion -- but I'd happily debate him any day on this question so critical to our survival.

[David Holliday]

The debate has been ongoing for some time on blogs like RealClimate or WattsUpWithThat. On those sites you will find in-depth articles on current events, links to ongoing research, guest posts, and lively debate in the comments sections. While some of the commentators are simply opinionated average people some are incredibly knowledgeable in the areas they comment on. After a little while you can figure out which is which.

[Frank Warner]

I've seen many of the written arguments, and you're right, they have their place. In fact, they should reign supreme.

But I want to see experts, a few from each side, debate this on C-SPAN, for a series of days, maybe weeks. I want them confronted with one another's arguments. I want to see how they handle the debate when they have to deal with some of the big contradictions, back up weak assumptions or explain errors.

In addition, such a public debate -- again involving scientists -- would let everyone evaluate the facts and theories and extrapolations involved. The debate should be moderated by three nonpartisan statisticians, who occasionally toss in mathematical questions.