Fact Checking, Peer Review, and George Will

Recently, George Will published a column entitled "Dark Green Doomsayers" in which he claims, among other things, that "global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979." Numerous responses challenged the facts presented in Will's article, with Will counter-responding that his facts were correct in that he was reporting global sea ice, and not Arctic sea ice. If only Arctic sea ice is measured, the amount has declined since 1979.

While Mr. Will was technically correct, his nevertheless misleading statement points out the fundamental problem with presenting complex experimental data, and drawing conclusions from it, to a large audience. Science is by its nature a messy thing, with many published results that are incorrect, unimportant, or intentionally misleading. That's why a system of peer-review has evolved that attempts to sift the best kernels of scientific ideas from the chaff.

Which leads us back to Will's articles and the problem of non-experts weighing into the debate on climate change. By presenting a few facts that are cherry-picked to draw a forgone conclusion, anyone can make a case to uninformed readers that their cause is just (or that their opponents cause is foolish). Which is why if Mr. Will's results were submitted for peer review by qualified experts, they would be almost certainly be rejected. If Mr. Will wants to influence the debate about climate change, I suggest he submit his thoughts to a refereed journal. Maybe he should stick to writing about baseball and politics, topics where there is no "right" answer.