So you say.  Who says this? Where? Why do you believe it?
Citation needed.

Can you find that here?
http://www.google.com/search?q=“Walt+Meier”++NSIDC+”George+Will”

Suggestion: look for a direct quote beginning:

Basically, Mr. Will made three mistakes:

And since he’s been proved right on the central point of contention, the only way to do that is to prove that his other statements are incorrect.  As far as I can determine, nobody’s even attempted to do so. 

Instead it’s come down to the tired old statement “The science is settled so how dare he publish anything that contradicts what everybody knows is so”.   Somehow those who use that line always fail to understand that the science is NEVER settled.   Nor do they understand that saying they’re right doesn’t make them right.  Nor do they understand that if “everybody knows it’s so”, then “it” (whatever “it” is) will shortly be proved wrong.   Life doesn’t offer that much certainty – nor does science.  And if science does so, then it’s not science at all. 

I don’t look for ponies – nor do I expect you to.   I look for reality.  And reality doesn’t reside in either ad hominem attacks or argument by assertion.  

Keith –
I came here once not too long ago.  I came back largely because of the petroglyph in your header.   I’ve spent more than a few months in the last several years wandering the Southwest deserts finding and photographing ruins and rock art.  So your site intrigued me.  But I think you might find me troublesome – I’m a retired aerospace engineer who spent 40+ years working with the basic data that some people believe proves the case for catastrophic AGW.  But it doesn’t.  So if you moderate my posts, I won’t get all bent out of shape about it. 
In any case, I’ll be around only until mid-May – then I’ll be headed west again. 

http://network.nature.com/people/andrewsun/blog/2009/03/07/is-science-a-must-for-human-being

How this argument works:

Deliver a load of fertilizer, announce that there has to be a pony in there somewhere, challenge the scientists to go through it and prove there isn’t a pony, and proclaim they have failed.

And that is the point, isn’t it.  To “teach him a lesson” – like schoolyard bullies ensuring that others fall in line with their wishes.  After all, it’s worked so well in convincing others to not publish or talk about subjects that are not aligned with the views of the “consensus”. 

In any case, I have yet to see anyone provide any “science” to disprove what Will wrote. And I’ve been looking really hard.
The only arguments I’ve seen against Will are either ad hominem attacks or arguments by assertion. Argument by assertion is, by definition, not very bright. Kinda like trying to beat your opponent up with a cotton candy bat. 

Hate to give you bad news, guys, but there’s never been a “consensus” among scientists – only among environmentalists and the media. 

He displayed much of the same animus toward the science on second hand smoke.  The EPA came out with a risk assessment on second hand smoke in 1992.  Nonetheless, Will and many other right leaning columnists continued to repeat tobacco company talking points for years.

Will himself could deal with the problem by just ceasing to write about it, but listening to the extensive ranting of wingnut talk radio on this issue makes it clear that he can’t so long as he sees his primary role to be one of reinforcing the standard model.

The obvious answer to John’s point is that for people like Will dropping the science objections to focus on the policy response would require such a fundamental modification of the standard model (i.e., abandoning the idea that free enterprise can solve all problems) that he simply refuses to do it.  Necessary to avoiding cognitive dissonance is continued belief in a sufficient degree of uncertainty with respect to the implications of climate science and thus uncertainty in the science itself.  Seen in this light, this weekend’s Heartland conference looks a lot less ridiculous and a lot more dangerous, notwithstanding that every bit of the featured science is ludicrous.

For the record, add to John Fleck’s experience with trying to set Will straight on the “global cooling” meme John Quiggin’s columnist’s'<a href=”http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/26/recycling-in-a-digital-world/”>viewpoint</a> of  Will’s phoning in of prior material.  Facts aside, one would think Fred Hiatt and the WaPo Writers Group would have a problem with that, but apparently not.  

I also want to highlight this weird assertion by Will: 

<blockquote>The critics completely ignored — as again, understandably — the evidence I gave of the global cooling hysteria of 30 years ago.</blockquote>

Critics?  I seem to recall that it was Andy Alexander who did the ignoring.     

Well,  yes, but that is a very useful and wise animus to have. One hopes that hundreds of millions of others follow that lead and get a similar animus of their own.