Here’s Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan writing in The Washington Post:
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.
This is very good to see, and kudos for the writers are deserved.
That said, I can already see the Post‘s editors concocting a self-serving history here. In this history, Will published a controversial and widely-discussed column. Will’s ideological antagonists criticized the column viciously, but the Post did the right thing and stood by Will. They also published some different takes on the issue. And when new information came to light, it was duly reported in the news pages. What’s missing from this story is the fact that Will was misrepresenting the evidence all along. It’s true that the new data contradicts Will, but the old data never supported Will’s inclusion in the first place. Running the column was sloppy, and failing to respond in a substantive way when the problems were brought to the Post‘s attention was unethical and irresponsible.
In other good news, here’s Post weather blogger Andrew Freeman taking Will on.