Bookends

Over the last week there has been a fair amount of attention drawn to the George Will column I have mentioned a couple of times already. If you have not read it I suggest that you do so. It is a marvel of intellectual dishonesty and hubris.

The reason it has stuck in my craw is it's just the sort of article that just gets under my skin. There are a variety of reasons for that, not the least of which is, someone who lacks a sufficient background in science opining and mischaracterizing peer-reviewed data.

Now this is not to say, that I am attacking anyone for having an opinion about a subject that they have not studied in great detail. I have a blog after all, so I am all for opining. What I do have a problem with, is when someone tries to dress up their ill-informed opinion as fact and then it is given the veneer of credibility because of their perch atop the editorial pages of a major periodical. It wouldn't be much different then me penning a piece for say, The Economist that stated that leveraging risk and artificially inflated housing assets are good for long term economic growth. All available data absolutely disagrees with that statement, but, "Hey! It is the Economist, how can it be wrong!". And more importantly it is my opinion on the matter.

Normally this would be the point where I would point out the offending segments and contrast them with the relevant text, however this time, I think I will focus on the the Washington Posts extremely inane response.

After being thoroughly made aware of the errors in said article this is what Ombudsman Andy Alexander had to say (TPMMuckracker had the coverage):

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Thank you for your e-mail. The Post’s ombudsman typically deals with issues involving the news pages. But I understand the point you and many e-mailers are making, and for that reason I sought clarification from the editorial page editors. Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors. The University of Illinois center that Will cited has now said it doesn’t agree with his conclusion, but earlier this year it put out a statement (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that was among several sources for this column and that notes in part that “Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,”

Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

Hilzoy and Carl Zimmer do an amazing take down of just what is so inane about this response. So I will just do some cutting and pasting, mainly because the amount of vitriol they extol is greater then even I could summon.

Hilzoy had this to say, "Naturally, I clicked the link Mr. Alexander provided, and read it. Did he? I don't know what would be worse: that he did, and takes it to support Will, or that he didn't take his job seriously enough to bother."

What she is referring to would be this:

From Will's column. His citation from the Arctic Climate Research Center.

"As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

Now what the Link actually directs you to, and the relevant context, as Hilzoy was able to divine using her arguably supernatural reading comprehension skills.

Here's the statement Mr. Alexander cites as "one of" Will's sources, including the sentence he specifically references. It's a response to an article in the Daily Tech called "Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979":

"One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice. (Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm )

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.Hemisphere reduction."

Hilzoy further goes on to castigate Mr. Alexander and Will,

Where I come from, when someone writes something of the form: "P is not evidence for Q, and here's why", it is dishonest to quote that person saying P and use that quote as evidence for Q. If one of my students did this, I would grade her down considerably, and would drag her into my office for an unpleasant talk about basic scholarly standards. If she misused quotes in this way repeatedly, I might flunk her. (emphasis added mine)

Indeed.

I believe that is the whole crux of the matter for me. A person, who does not posses the expertise to interpret data, does so anyways and tries to not only pass it off as a dispositive of peer reviewed studies, but impugns the researchers work by blatantly misrepresenting their findings.

That is worse then intellectual dishonesty. It is more like the intellectual equivalent of a praline and dick flavored pizza.

Also I might add that there still has been no correction nor has there been even the slightest retraction.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan said it best, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

George will is implying consensus where their was none (Global Cooling), and denying consensus where their is (anthropogenic climate change).

Simply because your ideology says something is not possible does not make it so.

-Cheers