Must be tough to be living in an era when reality rules! Georgie boy, your propaganda helpers returned to TX. It's you on your own now. You - against reality. Doesn't make you look too good, georgie. Tsk. Tsk.

To think I used to argue for WaPo as the most important paper in the world. Of course that was the early seventies, when they had standards... It is now two or three defections from falling off the face of the earth.

Climate science is serious science.

One does not get to cherry-pick facts and cook up some theory to match one's wishes.

The scientists working in this field have to make careful statements - or get clobbered by their peers. Science is extremely competitive.

Let's have Will propose his theory at a meeting of climate experts. He can answer questions from the audience. He may escape being exposed as a clown. He may get laughed out of the venue.

Will's patrons, who pay for this sort of bunk, should also be exposed. Surprise, surprise when we find out who they are.

Actually there are several problems with global ice.

The one sited is that Arctic ice is all ocean ice, it floats, and is easily eroded by warm water. It also grows and shrinks every year by a huge amount.

But there are two types of arctic ice: year old ice and multi-year ice. Year old ice is thin and easily broken up and melted. It also grows faster, so that even if the ice cover grows back to the same place every year, the amount of year old ice is more important. Why? Because the research shows that the minimum ice cover is reached later in the year, so ice keeps eroding longer each year and dark ocean is exposed to the sun for longer each year, absorbing more heat. But the year old ice grows back fast, so the maximum ice doesn't go down that much over the years.

Second: old ice is much thicker and represents more ice per square mile, so measuring just the amount of ice at maximum cover is not a measure of how much arctic ice has gone away.

But third: global "warming" can be measured with a thermometer. Will wishes to select his data and ignore all other data which doesn't support his conclusions. Scientists don't have the luxury of ignoring data. The typical conservative anti-scientist tends to do this. They use scientific language, but assume that they can choose which data to use and which they can ignore. In general they ignore 99% of the data so they can make their point.

hold up....

...people still buy newspapers?

George Will is the antithesis of Al Gore.

Some Fun Thoughts for Today:

CO2 of course drops off when you drive 222 billion miles less than the year before, and that is just in the USA. Thank you economic collapse. Could that have helped the return of snowfall?

The last decade was the warmest decade and continues to keep the trend line up in average temps. So much for the "Getting cooler bull"

Yes the seas have melted before, they will melt again, and this time humans have done their ignorant best to help it along.

Since CO2 levels rise 800 years after warming in the geologic record, yet CO2 is now accelerating ahead of warming and acidifying the oceans, it is a double whammy. Increase airborne CO2 while decreasing oceans capability to sequester it... priceless.

Do you think the average temp of the ocean would go up or down if you slid ice cubes the size of Jamaica into it? And how do take the temperature of a swirling mass of water so deep you can't even get to the bottom?

Most auto exhaust is H2O, a more threatening green house gas.

The Denialist Psalms... love to shoot them down with common sense.

user-pic says
Fact: Sea ice at Antarctica is up over 43% since 1980.
Fact: Arctic ice is down less than 7% since 1980!

A classic way to lie with statistics. There is (or was) a whole ocean of sea ice in the arctic and only a narrow band of sea ice around Antarctica. How much is 43% of a comparatively small quantity? And the added sea ice (stuff that's actually afloat) is coming from the breakup of shelf ice. Its increase is also a bad sign.