Washington Post reporters Juliet Eilperin and Mary Beth Sheridan have an article on the alarming decline of Arctic sea ice. In a stunningly unusual move, the article includes this statement:

"The new evidence—including satellite data showing that the average multiyear wintertime sea ice cover in the Arctic in 2005 and 2006 was nine feet thick, a significant decline from the 1980s—contradicts data cited in widely circulated reports by Washington Post columnist George F. Will that sea ice in the Arctic has not significantly declined since 1979."

We've written extensively on WaPo columnist George Will and the misinformed opinion pieces he has been putting out lately. Never did I expect to see a WaPo journalist to go after Will so blatantly. It's refreshing to see.

Earlier today we reported that a Washington Post blogger chastised the Will for lying repeatedly in his columns.

Now it’s come to our attention that multiple columnists and other colleagues from Will’s own paper have come forward to slam Will for his outrageous use of global warming denier arguments in WaPo columns. See Chris Mooney’s blog “The Washington Post vs. George Will?” and David Robert’s coverage over at Grist.

It’s quite extraordinary for employees of the same news organization to openly chastise each other, by name, in their own paper.  And it’s just the treatment that George Will deserves.

Kudos to those reporters who had the backbone to stand up and say something about Will’s lies.  Let’s hope the WaPo editors are listening and that George Will finally gets reined in before he spreads around any more skeptic

Special kudos to Dave Roberts at Grist and his keen eye for finding the Eilperin quote. trash in his columns.

Our own Chris Mooney was honored this week at the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Meteorological Society. He won the 2009 Louis J. Battan Author's Award for Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming, dubbed “an accurate and comprehensive overview of the evolving debate on the impacts of global warming on hurricanes that illustrates the complexities of this significant scientific problem." It's a compelling book that successfully provides an interesting and honest account of the history of storms and climate science, while taking a serious looks at the players and politics involved.

Mooney is a regular commentator at DeSmogBlog, contributing editor to Science Progress, and senior correspondent for The American Prospect magazine. He has authored three books, New York Times bestselling The Republican War on Science, Storm World, and forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future. A founding member of ScienceDebate, he also writes for a variety of news and scientific magazines and blogs at The Intersection.

Congratulations Chris!

I know, I know: If you support "adaptation" in the global warming debate, you run the risk of being mistaken for someone who opposes "mitigation." But I'm not one of those adaptation-only Bjorn Lomborg types.

I support both capping emissions, and also getting ready for climate change, because I believe the science is clear: We have to do something, fast, to prevent the worst outcomes; but we're already so far down the global warming path that there will be many changes we can no longer stop, and must live with - and so must prepare for.

But my question is, where is Barack Obama on all of this?

Late yesterday, reports started zinging around suggesting that the Obama transition team was ready to announce its energy and environment leaders.

By now it's clear they are the following: former New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection commissioner Lisa Jackson will head up the Environmental Protection Agency; current Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory director Steven Chu will become Secretary of Energy; and Clinton administration EPA head Carol Browner will fill a newly created post, that of White House "climate czar." In addition, Nancy Sutley, the current City of Los Angeles "deputy mayor" for Energy and Environment (and, of these four, the person with the thinnest Wikipedia profile), will come in as chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Just when you thought it was safe to acknowledge the unequivocal reality of global warming…..

Just when you thought the U.S. government was ready to admit that it has a serious emissions problem, and do something about it….

Just when you thought the skeptic party was over…

No way: There has been a strong run of nonsense from global warming "skeptics" and deniers lately. They are not ashamed, and they are not changing their tune. In fact, it sounds like they are gearing up for the next battle.

Prying answers out of the candidates about science-related issues this electoral season has proven almost as challenging as prying interviews out of Sarah Palin, McCain's elusive running mate. Aside from an early focus on the candidates' respective energy policies (see: their positions on offshore drilling), the press has shown relatively little interest in scrutinizing Obama's and McCain's views on matters of science.

Even the once controversial issue of stem cell biology, which, alongside gay marriage, helped mobilize the conservative base for George W. Bush during the 2004 election, has received little shrift this time around.