Earlier this year, columnist George Will sparked controversy with claims that global ice levels were the same as (if not greater than) 30 years earlier. This was part of George Will’s retread truthiness and deception in his widely syndicated columns falsely asserting that global warming is not happening.
With his Will-ful Deceit, Will spun this distortion of scientific study on multiple levels: he wrote “now” with data tha was months old; the data did not show what he asserted; he wrote based on misreporting in a global warming denier site; the material was out-of-date when he wrote “now”; he wrote of area coverage but not total mass (it isn’t just the area coverage, but also how thick the ice is: what is the total ice) and he focused his points on global sea ice coverage (e.g., Arctic and Antarctic Ice) when the scientific community is prinicipally focused on Arctic ice as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ since Antarctic ice coverage is predicted to be more variable and disappear at a (far) slower rate than predicted with the Arctic.
Considering George’s deep fascination with reporting on ice coverage, should we expect a breathless Will reporting of the latest news from the Arctic?
Amid what Will (and too many other deniers) falsely state is an 11-year cooling period (due to 1998 being (perhaps) the hottest year on record for natural cycles coming on top of human-driven global warming), Arctic ice coverage (and mass) is now at a lower level than it was in the year of least ice coverage, 2007.
(See more robust chart, but without the November data, here.)
PS: In response to the title, the answer is certainly: NO! Will has no interest in engaging in truthful discussions to help educate the public and move the dialogue forward toward real solutions to real problems.
Hat tip Shlipk with his recommended discussion: Why isn’t this bigger news? He focuses his discussion on the threat that we may have passed the tipping point to out-of-control global warming due to methane melting and positive feedback cycles.