WMO: George Will’s climate change denial column was a ‘misinterpretation’ of the facts.
WMO: George Will’s climate change denial column was a ‘misinterpretation’ of the facts.
In February, the Washington Post published a factually-challenged column by George Will that attacked the reality of climate change. One of Will’s claims was that “according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.” In a letter to the editor today, Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the WMO, explains how Will’s column was a “misinterpretation” of the organization’s data:
Evidence of global warming has been documented in widespread decreases in snow cover, sea ice and glaciers. The 11 warmest years on record occurred in the past 13 years.
While variations occur throughout the temperature record, shorter-term variations do not contradict the overwhelming long-term increase in global surface temperatures since 1850, when reliable meteorological recordkeeping began. Year to year, we may observe in some parts of the world colder or warmer episodes than in other parts, leading to record low or high temperatures. This regional climate variability does not disprove long-term climate change. While 2008 was slightly cooler than 2007, partially due to a La Niña event, it was nonetheless the 10th-warmest year on record.
Writing on the Post’s op-ed page, Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney calls Will’s WMO claim a “sleight of hand” that leads to the false “conclusion that ‘global cooling’ sets in immediately after every new record temperature year, no matter how frequently those hot years arrive or the hotness of the years surrounding them.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Brer Will, he lay low and the Tar Post, he don’t say nothin’!
March 21st, 2009 at 12:28 pmWhat blows my mind is how many people think the laws of physics are up for debate.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pmInstead of the terms Global Warming or Cooling being used, I think this should be argued from the simple standpoint of air pollution or clean air.
¶ AIO
March 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pmGeorge Will was the guy who convinced me that conservatives, even those of erudition and intelligence, carry something in their genes that makes them willing to bastardize their understanding of fact in order to make it serve their agenda.
“Fixing the facts around the policy” was not an accident, nor was it an isolated incident.
It is a bedrock principle of the Right.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:36 pmTell it like it is WMO — George Will is a liar.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:38 pmGeorge reminds me of the guy standing at the mouth of a train tunnel who says the light ain’t a train.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:44 pmthis posts just begs for
one of backup’s special,
spin cycle comments. the
kind where he links to out-
of-date, debunked articles
and poses irrelevant questions.
oh great troll god backup hear
our prayer and appear. spend the
rest of the day here commenting.
fold in your usual corn and fecal matter.
make your stink and feel sorry for yourself…
_-_
we could all use a good laugh
my friend.
:)
March 21st, 2009 at 12:46 pmwe’ll probably wind up with becky.
same thing, but shorter comments.
oh well.
:)
March 21st, 2009 at 12:47 pmAnd not as much concern.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:49 pmIt took the WP long enough to allow the other side to be heard. I wonder why that is?
March 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pmI really wish the meme “Global Warming” hadn’t caught on rather than what it really is “Global Climate Change”. Because people call it “Global Warming” idiots on the right can point to show in March and say “see, that’s proof that global warming is a myth”.
So, I have a suggestion. Let’s all stop calling it Global Warming and start calling it Global Climate Change.
BTW, a good argument to give to a denier is to ask them if they really think that pumping tons of pollutants into our atmosphere on a daily basis could possibly NOT have an affect on our climate. That usually shuts them up.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:57 pmBut BHB, they are speaking pretty quiet. The tide changes slowly.
March 21st, 2009 at 12:58 pmralph the wonder llama Says:
joe cantwell Says:
we’ll probably wind up with becky.
same thing, but shorter comments.
And not as much concern.
*
it oozes out of every pore
doesn’t it, my friend?
_-_
March 21st, 2009 at 1:04 pmAs the discussion has moved from “global warming” to “climate chance”, the force of greenhouse emissions is being dumbed down as well.
CO2 traps heat. NOAA observations from Mauna Loa show the upward trend towards 400 ppm. Obviously climate systems are complex and the particulates from burning coal are actually reducing the near term impact by “Global Dimming”.
The gamble of a policy to stabilize CO2 between 450-500 ppm is a guaranteed loser. For everyone.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:05 pmAdd George Will to the long list of republican liars.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:08 pmGeorge Will is trying to fill the void left by ‘climate primate’ Michael Crichton:
George wants some of those petro-bucks…
March 21st, 2009 at 1:17 pm17. blistex11 Says: Add George Will to the long list of republican liars.
“Republican liars” is redundant…
March 21st, 2009 at 1:18 pmTo paraphrase Stephen Colbert, the laws of physics have a well-known liberal bias.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:25 pmHe has been on that list for some time. You may not have noticed because the list is so incredibly long.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:29 pmDr. Hussein Matt:
You might have mis-read hanshiro’s post.
By redundant he means Republicans = liars.
It was an insult.
¶ AIO
March 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pmI watched a program recently about an iceberg that cut loose from Antarctica that is some 350 by 50 kilometers and about 110 stories thick.
I think that constitutes real estate and George should be given first choice as to what lot he wants on it.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:42 pmIf the R’s are currently in the “Denial” phase of…well, whatever, is “Rage” next? Will they finally accept the reality of Global Climate Change, and start shrieking and howling and saying its all the Liberal’s fault, get the tumbrils!?
March 21st, 2009 at 1:47 pmKeep in mind, these are people who will pay someone to cook the stats, rather than face the truth. Cooked stats, phony science, bogus news–that’s the whole story of the Right.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:48 pmMaybe we could bundle up these toxic extra degrees and sell them to investors for more than they are worth.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:50 pmO.K. Matt, I misinterpreted your italics and quotes at the end.
¶ AIO
March 21st, 2009 at 1:56 pmC-span previewed a new documentary titled “Sea Change”.
http://www.aseachange.net/barbara_ettinger/
…the film brings a crucial and little-known issue to the attention of filmgoers. The movie… brings to surprisingly absorbing life the subject of ocean acidification. That’s what happens when carbon dioxide — released by cars and other fossil-fuel-burning culprits — ends up in the sea, thereby fatally changing its chemistry. . . .
This is as Serious as Hot Weather. If the oceans become more acidic (Lower Ph) then Shell fish can’t make Shells.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:02 pmThey’ll blame it on Bill Clinton.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pmThe industries that are financing the “global warming denial campaign” share the same unethical “profit at all costs” philosophy that has dominated the decision-making process of the tobacco industry as it repeatedly denied any health-related consequences of using their products.
Economic impact cannot be the sole factor in every regulatory policy of the U.S. government. Those that do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We can no longer afford to be so short-sighted when the long-term consequences of our inaction are so great.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:32 pmshoeless Says:
WillowOrchid Says:
If the R’s are currently in the “Denial” phase of…well, whatever, is “Rage” next? Will they finally accept the reality of Global Climate Change, and start shrieking and howling and saying its all the Liberal’s fault, get the tumbrils!?
They’ll blame it on Bill Clinton.
I figure they’ll claim Al Gore invented it.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:46 pmGeorge Will once loudly derided global warming concerns on TeeVee with a sophomoric “objectivist fallacy” canard, arguing that no one could point to an “ideal” climate over the course of our planet’s history.
This has become a Denier staple, and is easily refuted by simply pointing out that an “ideal climate” is that which can sustain our current and projected world population. To the extent humans can help engineer that, it’s a worthy effort. Period.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:48 pmThat’s so 2008.
It’s all Obama’s fault now.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pmCurrent interpretation of Taoist philosophy…sh*t happens.
Current Republican philosophy..we don’t know sh*t.
Current state of affairs:Sh*t is happening and Republicans haven’t a clue.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:16 pmI’m not surprised that Will has been called out. I believe it would have been more appropriate if his last name had started with an Sh instead of the W.
March 21st, 2009 at 3:42 pmQuestion…can you make faux Oysters Rockefeller with tofu so people like George can continue to live in Fantasy Land?
March 21st, 2009 at 3:53 pmThis may be a dishonest column for an obvious purpose, but it’s actually kind of sobering.
A staunch climate-change advocate (?) recently pointed out that the ice age is the natural state of climate for this earth. The climate you enjoy today is an anomaly. This is not the norm.
There’s also a great little climate change documentary called “A Global Warning” that points out temperature and CO2 variations far in excess of Al Gore’s graphs have occurred many, many times over.
It does this while otherwise concurring with his conclusions about current trends.
So, while there may be a dedicated BS campaign to undermine IPCC forecasts et al, the fact remains that large climate changes aren’t well understood. If they were, you wouldn’t have to find out about them by accident and they wouldn’t appear to contradict everything you’ve been told when they do.
The fact that Antarctica used to be covered in tropical rainforest doesn’t make the conclusions of the IPCC any less valid, so why is the climate that gave rise to that ignored unless you’re being provided with an edited argument.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:28 pmAccording to Google, you can actually buy An Inconvenient Truth and A Global Warning as a 2 pack from some outlets. Which should provide an interesting comparison for those who are less interested in Al Gore’s tobacco farm stories than they are in being informed.
It is also available on the net from less uh… costly sources. keyword: xvid.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:32 pmGeorge Will is a misinterpretation! George Will is a blathering fool.
March 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pmThe global warming, climate change detractors have escalated their noise and rhetoric, because the conservatives and right wing politicians have to have SOMETHING to talk about that takes the focus off the fact that their party is fast becoming a dinasaur. Things have been pretty quiet for the past eight years under the Bush/Cheney regime, but now a new sheriff is in town and President Obama believes that too much time has already been wasted sitting by the sidelines, while the rest of the world has been moving forward on climate change advancements.
Here is an article that asks the basic question: what’s the worst that could happen if we take steps to reduce c02 emissions, man made or not?
http://www.examiner.com/x-5266-Seattle-Environmental-Policy-Examiner
March 21st, 2009 at 11:54 pmThe noise level is getting to high. If the babble is high enough even reasonable people have a hard time sorting through the facts. George Wills in no dummy. I am sure he understands the implications of the scientific observations.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:13 amThe knee jerk response of some Republicans is if they are for it we are against it. Global warming is a huge Liberal, Commey conspiracy so they are against it in principle, even if the data suggests otherwise. Were do reasonable people end up at?
One of many valid counter arguments to global warming is found in the following link. It is a reasonably short read with solid science based information.
http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/108731.html
Apparently there is not much correlation being found between atm CO2 levels and climate changes. Causes other than CO2 level are majority factors and CO2 level is a very small factor. This point of view is becoming much more prevalent in peer reviewed writings. It maybe a matter of time before the warming argument collapses due to the heightened public awareness of climate science.
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 amI feel that the chemtrails being sprayed over our cities almost on a daily basis may be contributing to the climate changes. I have seen long spiderlike silk falling from the sky more than enough times to know that no spider was responsible for them. Does anyone really know why our skies are being sprayed or what we are being sprayed with? Look up at the sky sometime and see the eerie halo around our sun. When I was a kid, the sun did not have that eerie halo about it. Anyhow, that’s my 2 cents.
March 22nd, 2009 at 12:14 pmIt’s over.
A Scientific Body Blow to Anthropomorpic Global Warming
A new peer-reviewed paper has just delivered a major blow to the “greenhouse gas” assumptions that are central to the arguments of most climate alarmists. The paper, published in the International Journal of Modern Physics, is entitled Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects within the Frame of Physics. Both the abstract and a pdf of the full 115-page paper are available to the public.
Here are a few central points from this paper, done by two German physicists who understand that we have witnessed the erosion of the scientific method in order to support a political agenda.
The CO2 greenhouse effect … is a “mirage.” The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanism as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornadoes cannot be predicted by climate models because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2 greenhouse gas defenders seems to [be to] hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training…
http://www.scsuscholars.com/2009/03/scientific-body-blow-to-anthropomorpic.html
March 22nd, 2009 at 8:50 pmNo, you are, since you clearly understood nothing I wrote.
March 25th, 2009 at 7:43 amOr because you’re part of the climate-change denial crowd. I don’t care which.