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.
Haha….”indulgence” is the key word here.
The International Church of the Anthropogenic Global Warming…is currently selling them.
Beware.
” …7 articles indicating cooling compared to 44 indicating warming..” Which would tie in well with the 7 or 6 articles cites from that Newsweek article.
Peterson Connolley Fleck _The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus_ Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1
And still, nothing but anecdotal reminiscences about purported “programs in school that covered the “coming ice age”.
You know, I’ve rarely seen such an obtuse example of DENIAL as this demonstration here…
Really… the 70s were ALL about cooling. Denying it is absolutely hilarious to those of us who remember it. Which is, well, ALL of us who lived through it.
Really… the 70s were ALL about cooling. Denying it is absolutely hilarious to those of us who remember it. Which is, well, ALL of us who lived through it.
look, the person in denial is you.
a couple of facts:
the 70s were rather cool.
there wasn t any “hysteria” though, especially not in scientific papers.
instead, scientist during that cool spell correctly “predicted” the coming increase in temperature.
I went to school in the 60’s and our science lessons were about hard science and I was never taught anything about the climate. The global cooling articles were only found in the newspapers and magazines. In those halcyon days I was able to dissect rabbits, frogs dogfish etc. in Biology classes and in my Chemistry labs we expperimented with proper chemicals that exploded. No Health and Safety the., Thank God.
sod… hilarious.
Do you take this comedy show on the road?
This is getting downright embarrassing. As stated in my first post, I am firmly in the unconvinced, luke-warmer camp, but the behavior of the “skeptics” here looks a lot like what they claim to deplore in the Warmists: Bald assertions, name-calling, Ad-hominem attacks, conflating popular journalism with science, reliance on recollections and anecdotes . . . comic books???
Jeebus.
Smokey would do well to heed the advice of John Laidlaw (04:46:32):
“. . . I am going to keep my trap shut until I can prove my point . . .”
Thus far, he & every other “skeptic” here have provided not one piece of hard, verifiable data. Connelly, et al, at least gave something that is replicable, at least in theory.
Look: if you want to refute their study, then try to replicate it. See if their data are good, and complete. See if they cherry-picked. In other words, stop bitching and moaning and do some research & analysis. That’s what Lucia did with the George Will piece; that’s what Steve Mcintyre does all the time. That’s how they blow sloppy research out of the water.
And for God’s sake, stop with the “Connelly’s got an agenda” whining – it’s old news, and besides, everyone has an agenda (except me, of course).
Name calling, bald assertions & baseless accusations are wimpy – the surest indication of rhetorical poverty. Facts are powerful.
=================
And BTW, why does Smokey keep harping on this “I’m not impressed that it’s a PDF” thing? Almost any document can be turned into a .PDF. That has no significance whatsoever.
The global cooling comic book reference wasn’t meant to be serious scholarship, as some may think. Even so, Giles admitted its use in schools. My wife, a long time Principal, told me that similar materials were in use back then. If you argue with her, she’ll make you put on the dunce cap and go sit in the corner. The PETA comics weren’t intended to be serious either. They were just for general interest.
But Connolley’s fake claims were falsified, so the only conclusion is that PaddikJ either didn’t read, or maybe didn’t comprehend, the info posted @15:49 and information by other commenters in this thread.
Take another look at that Newsweek article. See all the names of the scientists? See their quotes? See the government and professional organizations named? You know, the same ones that William Connolley and his newspaper sidekick couldn’t seem to find? And that was from just one issue of one news magazine.
I’m willing to invest more time to refuting Connolley’s bogus claim with even more examples… just as soon as anyone falsifies the theory of natural climate change. Wake me when that happens. For the umpteenth time, it is not the job of skeptical scientists to refute any newfangled hypothesis that pops up. Rather, it is the job of the climate alarmists to falsify the long established hypothesis of natural climate variation — if they can. So far, they have repeatedly failed.
And if the quotes and organizations provided are not enough to satisfy folks who won’t read the Newsweek article, there’s always Google. Have at it. Or you could read this, which is right in line with the recollections of all the other folks who matured in the ’70’s: click
Yes, facts are powerful — if they’re utilized. But some folks will only believe what they want to believe, and facts right in front of them be damned. If someone believes global cooling was a non-issue thirty years ago, then all the facts in the world won’t be enough to convince them. They will believe what they like, it’s more comfortable that way.
Better go talk with Mrs. Smokey about “… its use in schools. ”
This started with ‘programs in school’ in the 70’s. A single book (from the 90’s’ is offered as proof. A book with a single mention of cooling tossed off in a sidebar.
And some anecdotal reminisces…
My libraries contained Bibles, Korans, various creation mythologies, books on hairdos, evolution, books about sexuality, novels with gay protagonists, books on paper airplanes. All were freely checked out by students. But not part of any ‘program’, not in that sense, ‘used by schools’ .
Giles, first you criticize the reminiscences of others as being of no account — and then you use your own recollections to try and make a point! If you will recall, I was simply commenting on a global cooling comic book in response to your post. My original comment was good natured and friendly. I certainly was not being antagonistic with you about it.
But you went on the attack over that very minor comment and made it into your primary argument defending the odious William Connolley. Your increasingly hyperbolic responses [over a comic book comment!] makes it clear that you’re grasping at straws to support your belief that there was no avalanche of global cooling stories back then, when in fact there were.
If you are blind to the obvious fact that William Connolley has a partisan axe to grind, that’s fine and you have my sympathy. But please calm down, and stop pretending that the global cooling scare didn’t exist in the 1970’s. It did. Just look at the recollections from others upthread. They were there, and they remember the scare stories. And despite your insinuations, they are not lying or deluded.
If the internet had existed back then like it does today, the same level of frantic debate would have occurred regarding the 1970’s global cooling scam that goes on today over the global warming scam. If you can’t understand that, then surely everyone else with a little common sense can.
Sigh.
For the fourth (and final) time: The topic before us is not what the press reported the scientific community was thinking or concerned of; it is not what may or may not have been in school curricula; it is not whether or not there was widespread panic (“The Glaciers are coming! The Glaciers are coming!”) (or fear, or mild concern, or complete indifference) among the general populace. All of the above are interesting, but off-topic.
It is about what the scientific community was concerned with. Period.
Therefore, we may discard press reports – for all we know, the press may have had its own axe to grind (or more likely, was sensationalizing as usual – exactly as it is doing today with AGW). We may also discount personal recollection, the contents of school libraries, celebrity scientists, and the girl in 7th grade who almost got frostbitten toes from when the bus was 30 minutes late on that -30 degree morning.
The only reliable way to gauge what the scientific community was concerned with is by looking at the scientific literature of the era. Primary sources only – Newsweek is a secondary source. Connelly & company did this. They may have been selective in their search; they may have biased their search terms to give the desired result; they may have even egregiously misinterpreted the main thrust of the articles they cited. All of this is amenable to review & replication, unlike, say, the silly op-ed piece by Naomi Oreskes purporting to show the mythical Overwhelming Consensus; which did not provide any information that could be used by another researcher attempting to replicate her findings.
There. I simply can’t put it more clearly.
==========================
A few last crumbs:
Smokey’s paragraph about falsifying natural climate change is a total red-herring. Absolutely no one, not even M. Mann with his broken hockey stick, argues against natural variability. Natural climate change isn’t even a theory – it’s a fact. There is nothing to refute; and even if there were, it would be completely off-topic vis-à-vis the current discussion.
What, exactly, in Giles Winterbourne’s comment leads Smokey to believe that he’s in need of calming down?
Strictly speaking, partisan means party affiliation and arguing along party lines, and more generally, arguing along ideological lines, ie: Liberal, Conservative, etc. When Smokey asserts (for the umpteenth time) that “Connelly has a partisan axe to grind”, what, exactly, is his point – again, vis-à-vis the current discussion?
And finally, given that I stated almost everything above in my very first post, Smokey may want to be a little more careful in tossing off phrases like “. . . PaddikJ either didn’t read, or maybe didn’t comprehend . . .”
And with that, I am, truly,
Over and out.
????
Nope, my anecdotal reminisces carry no more weight than the others – except that I was a bit older and teaching and developing curriculum in the ’70’s and the personal reminisces from others seem to be as ‘4th grade’ or other students. But, since the argument is that it was being taught, it would seem the weight of the evidence would be to produce that science book. And we haven’t seen one yet. And that argument has been out there for several years.
Will was trying to (and has tried several times in the past) to sway public perception of the state of climate change research by implying they were wrong in the past. he Peterson Connolley Fleck paper (http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2008BAMS2370.1) provides analysis that (44 to 7) there was more discussion of warming than cooling in that period. ~snip~
Now, if you don’t like the Peterson Connolley Fleck paper; rather than just say ‘agenda’ or ‘bias’ go check the data, work through the methodology. You’ll notice that there isn’t much discussion on skeptic sites. And there is a reason for that.
A small addendum: why are not Peterson and Fleck named as biased or with an agenda?
Then look at the Newsweek artcle: “…climate seems to be cooling…” “Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend” . No cites of actual articles and who knows how much was cut to provide the quotes. And, no discussion from any scientist who didn’t fit that cooling meme the reporter was pushing.
Giles, Paddikj, Smokey, sod, et al,
another article from today’s Washington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/03/20/ST2009032003115.html
And I want to write a few things about the casual dismissal of eye-witness accounts.
Eyewitness testimony, such as offered by me and others above, is one of the strongest forms of evidence available. Period. When an eye-witness testifies, “I saw him with the gun, then saw him pull the trigger, and heard the gun go off, and saw the victim fall with blood spurting out from his chest,” that is very strong evidence. Many who stand accused have been convicted and sentenced to death on eye-witness testimony such as that.
So to dismiss as fantasy, or dreamy remembrances of days gone by, or “they were merely 4th graders,” shows a lack of understanding of evidence and persuasion.
An attorney reading this will think, Ah, but these comments above are not even admissible! They are hearsay only, and worse, some are from anonymous writers. And that attorney would be correct. (Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, offered for the truth of the matter asserted). Anonymous hearsay is virtually never allowed as evidence in a court of law. But, I am not anonymous, and if asked, I would be perfectly willing to testify to my account from 4th grade above.
Equally compelling, in my view (naturally, as I offered it), is the expenditure by the University of Texas of a huge sum in order to adapt to future cold episodes. If global warming was the thinking of the day, that would not have happened.
Finally, even the distribution of scientific papers, skewed 44 to 7 on warming vs cooling, is not compelling to convey the sense of the scientific community. Why were there 7? More generally, in any scientific matters, why would the number of publications count for anything? Did Einstein have hundreds of fellow-publishers when he wrote his world-changing paper on relativity? I think not. Quantitative arguments on the volume of publishing do not win in science. Quality and accuracy are what win.