Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review decided to ask George Will a few questions about his recent column. I respect Steigerwald, precisely because he goes to the trouble of calling up people and asking questions directly. As many WUWT readers know, Will was recently villified for his column and for his printing of his interpretation on arctic sea ice. in particular. The excerpt below gives a window into Will’s thinking. – Anthony
Will on warming: The cold facts
By Bill Steigerwald
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, March 7, 2009
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.” 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.
All is calm now and Will is getting ready for the start of his favorite season — baseball season. I talked to him by phone on Thursday from his office in Washington.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Q: What disturbs you most about this global warming consensus that seems to be pretty widespread and doesn’t seem to be eroding?
- 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.
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 — 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. It is clearly for some people 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.
read the entire column at the Pittsburg Tribune-Review
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very dangerous to point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Even worse to quote what someone said 5,10,30 years ago. Students have been expelled from college just for reprinting (word for word) what their instructor said in class. At least Will has the courage to try.
“Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.”
Excellent article!
It’s good to hear someone in the mainstream media finally telling the truth.
A breath of fresh air for sure. I wonder that the warmist behave like an old watch dog with a large deep bark but no teeth. It seems that our friend Gore has had another invite to debate and this time it is being well publicized. Perhaps he will have to defend his position and explain how he is making millions off the hysteria he has been chief in promoting.
Times are a changing,
Bill Derryberry
The best part of the column is the second half, in which Will puts the whole issue in perspective and describes the repercussions from his column as “just another encounter with another interest group doing interest-group politics. This strikes me as a very minor event.” The discussion then moves on to baseball, a truly important activity.
What was really revealing was in his description of the response to his column, the effort to, in effect, silence him.
So, change the social graces guide. In a gathering, do not discuss religion, politics, or environmentalism.
To Destroy the Borg we have to plant a virus. I have invented one that I found that has been around us for millions of years. It is a double helix virus that should destroy any attempts to assimilate us into it’s collective. That virus is truth and facts. The hard part is removing emotion.
George Will lives in his own mental parallel universe — his entire column was pure rubbish, totally unfounded in science, not just the bit about the global sea ice extent, a virtually worthless number when discussing the science of climate change, a fact that you ALWAYS conveniently leave out for your readers — what’s up with that?
REPLY: “global sea ice extent, a virtually worthless number when discussing the science of climate change” Thanks for that Tenney, we’ll remind you of your quote in the future. – Anthony
Tenney Naumer (05:27:37) :
—”…his entire column was pure rubbish, totally unfounded in science,”
How could it be rubbish if it was unfounded in eco-pseudo-science? Then new “science” is the rubbish. We will be cleaning up this pigsty for the next fifty years.
We have to get over thinking that “science” matters, or that “facts” are meaningful.
The real fact is that government needs more money to take care of us, and using “cap and trade” is a good way for them to get it. Then, they can help the poor.
Are you against helping people?
George Will is true-blue. How else can one describe a man who has spent a conscious lifetime in unwavering fidelity to the Chicago Cubs?
George Will really does live in his own mental parallel universe.
What an idiot!
I really can’t believe that anyone in their right mind would predict that the Pirates would be better than .500 this season.
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.
Only if good people do nothing. Thank you for doing something.
–Mike Ramsey
Bravo!, however the hard argument of GWrs is : “If the UN and many scientists of all the world back these theories then they must be true”. Without the UN backing him the leader of this eschatological “cult” would be seen as one more of those preaching “the end of the world”. So, the efforts of people like George Will, should be aimed to the source…..and he could take the Pirates along to help him!
bill (05:47:44) :
Yes, indeed. If there was a real problem we would be spending all of the cap and trade money on it. Just another transparent re-distribution scheme.
Sure Anthony,
Feel free to remind me and the NSIDC and Cryosphere Today while you are at it.
REPLY: Thanks Tenny, we always do. Thats why both NSIDC and Cyrosphere have made changes to the web presentations. We remind them when they are in error. Along those lines, by labeling people with angry words, what do you expect to accomplish? – Anthony
(and because it makes them feel good)
That’d be about all you really actually need to know about global warming. (Amongst about a half-dozen other hysterias propogated by certain political groups.)
Nice guest piece, Anthony. Thanks for posting. And no statistics! My brain is grateful.
OT but a company called Evelop are wanting to build wind turbines in UK. They brag on their website that 11 of their staff are amongst the 2000 “scientists” who have written the IPCC reports.
Evelop are only one company. There must be plenty of other companies benefitting from the warming scare who also have staff wotking with the IPCC.
Clearly the IPCC cannot claim to be independent, unbiased or objective.
He also says “..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.”
In Europe (and the US) there is a huge government desire to stimulate the world economy. Leaving aside for a moment the direct spend, the thinking goes that environmental regulation generally (and that related to climate change in particular) is a great way of stimulating innovation – both the desire to produce and the need or desire to purchase innovations:
– new or better products and processes;
– those that better meet the new regulations;
– new low carbon fuels;
– efficient powertrains, etc.
This is universally seen (by those in power) as a good thing, regardless of whether global warming is real or not. It is for this reason that the AGW ideology will hold on at a political level for a long time – as long as it can.
Anthony, who is angry? Not me. You still have not explained the utility of the global ice extent figure. What is up with that?
REPLY: Tenney, some introspection is in order for you. I urge you to review your comments here. You use labels, for effect and for derision. You also don’t get to change the subject. What do you hope to accomplish by using such labels? Do you think that you’ll win any converts by calling them “flat earthers”?.
May I offer some assistance for you? I suggest reading How to win friends and influence people by Dale Carnegie
See point #1 as it pertains to the labeling you practice. On the plus side, you have softened just a bit. Initially you referred to me just as “Watts” in your first posts. Now you’ve changed to addressing me by my first name. I appreciate the improvement in your demeanor. – Anthony
bill (05:47:44) :
Bill,
Congratulations you managed to fit two types of fallacious arguments into that short post.
1. “The real fact is that government needs more money to take care of us, and using “cap and trade” is a good way for them to get it. Then, they can help the poor.”
This is circular reasoning argument that first assumes that the government wants to take care of us, (and even assumes that would be a good thing) and uses that assumption to prove that cap and trade is a good thing because the government can take care of us.
2. “Are you against helping people?
This is a straight forward argument by rhetorical question; a crude construct that needs no response.
But your first point that science doesn’t matter to the current administration is correct. Maybe not well received here on this science based site, but correct.
Tenney Naumer (05:27:37): global sea ice extent, a virtually worthless number when discussing the science of climate change
Agreed, Tenney: “the ‘science’ of ‘climate change'” = “fossil fuel CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we’re all gonna’ die from it [repeat, repeat, repeat….]”
Except, that for those such as Tenney who are attacking and trying to shut up George Will, there is no “discussion”.
Would George be interested in a guest post here?
REPLY: Compared to his reach, WUWT is small potatoes. Besides, his contract likely stipulates otherwise. – Anthony
hey bill
when the government helps the poor people by taxing the not-so-poor
does the government create more poor people??
other wise noted in the past as taxing yourself to wealth..
Being a liberal, with very odd extremely conservative beliefs peppering my “love is hard enough to find for anyone so let gays marry, we collectively need to take care of those who truly cannot care for themselves, stay outta my bedroom and babywomb, etc”, persona, there is much for me not to agree with when it comes to Will. But on this point, I am firmly in his camp.
Tenney Naumer (05:27:37) :
George Will lives in his own mental parallel universe — his entire column was pure rubbish, totally unfounded in science, not just the bit about the global sea ice extent, a virtually worthless number when discussing the science of climate change, a fact that you ALWAYS conveniently leave out for your readers — what’s up with that?
I have yet to see anyone provide any “science” to disprove what Will wrote. And I’ve been looking really hard.
The only arguments I’ve seen against Will are either ad hominem attacks or arguments by assertion. Argument by assertion is, by definition, not very bright. Kinda like trying to beat your opponent up with a cotton candy bat.