Comments on: Washington Post reporters take unprecedented step of contradicting columnist George Will in a news article

By: papertiger

papertiger — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:17:07 +0000

The new evidence — including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s — contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979.

So Nasa has invented a satellite that can “see” through 9 feet of ice?
The way I heard it the cryosphere today uses old military satellites designed to detect Soviet missile launchs and they are stymied by as little as a millimeter of surface water on an ice field, reading it as open water rather then as a film of surface melt.

Then there was Fat Albert’s movie where he said they had to involk the freedom of information act to get sonar soundings of the Arctic ice pack from the Navy in order to guestimate how thick the ice was that way.

Wonder why they didn’t tell the Catlin Arctic Survey group? As you know they are on a five year mission to the pole (at the rate they are going – ) drilling ice cores in the multi year ice as they go to find out how thick it is. Kind of mean letting those people freeze to death for no good reason.

And now we find out of the blue from a couple of newsettes that satellites can “see” through 9 ft of solid ice. Interesting.

Could it be Mary & Juliet are just making stuff up? Sounds likely.
I’d put it at the 95% confidence level.

By: David Raikow

David Raikow — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:02:28 +0000

Speaking of George Will and the arctic, I recently posted a piece examining Mr. Will’s statement: “The warming that is reasonably projected might be problematic, although not devastating, for the much-fretted-about polar bears, but it will be beneficial for other species. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment anticipates increasing species richness.” It’s from a piece he wrote two years ago, but problematic nonetheless. I think it stems from the misconception that the goal of envrionmentalism is to always maximize diversity.

By: jorleh

jorleh — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 05:34:57 +0000

When speaking of Arctic ice there must be two stories to tell: the area and the thickness of ice. The volume of ice is the point. Of course we must have some more technology for precise measurement of thickness, but I think we have all tools for that too.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 04:02:47 +0000

Deep Sixer, the one year old ice is also quite vulnerable to melting, the point being that overall vulnerability has increased.

By: Steve Bloom

Steve Bloom — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:59:38 +0000

Joe, Toles also has a cartoon (h/t Kit Stolz).

By: Deep Sixer

Deep Sixer — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 03:55:50 +0000

The Post’s science editor Nils Bruzelius who chose to chide George Will has some explaining to do. This is last year’s low-ice story recycled, as the 2+ year old ice is the same ice which was being reported last year as a minimum 1+ year old ice.

If that science editor looked at the article he should have noticed the one-year-old ice number was missing. That number is an increase by 25%. Why aren’t they making a fuss about a huge increase in ice which is one year old?

By: Deep Climate

Deep Climate — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:42:46 +0000

This is a wlecome development. But the Post still doesn’t have it quite right.

“.. contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will.”

This implies that the “data” cited by Will was valid, but has been contradicted by more recent or complete findings. But then again it is probably too much to ask the Post to print as fact that Will presented misleading information, taken from sources known to be purveyors of disinformation.

The Freedman column is very interesting, not the least because of the example he discusses. For me, the “global warming stopped in 1998″ meme is a litmus test. Any scientist or analyst who ascribes to it, or even acknowledges its plausibility (like “honest broker” Pielke Jr), is simply not credible.

By: SecularAnimist

SecularAnimist — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:52:15 +0000

It is clear that Fred Hiatt has decided it is “good business” for the Washington Post editorial page to join the Wall Street Journal editorial page as an aggressive purveyor of ExxonMobil-funded denialist propaganda — no matter what some lowly reporters write in their news pages.

By: John Mashey

John Mashey — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 22:06:19 +0000

So, people, especially WaPo subscribers should make sure to write to the reporters and/or their editors expressing Appreciation, see A2 and A3. And speaking of appreciation, for JM: "Preview" really helps...

By: MarkB

MarkB — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 19:18:07 +0000

“…contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will”

If I could nitpick a bit, the wording here is misleading. It leaves readers with the impression that there is a controversy over the Arctic sea ice trends. One piece of data says but contradicts another piece of data that says something else. In fact, it is the false claims by George Will and other propagandists that are being contradicted, not the data.