The American Spectator -- Why Would You Follow Something That Purposefully Misleads?

The American Spectator -- Why would you follow something that purposefully misleads?  Or, if not purposefully, illustrates no clue regarding the subject matter which it is nevertheless trying to inform you on, and, what do you know, by a bizarre coincidence, is also wildly misinforming you.

What is the reason for that bizarre coincidence?  Simple. The American Spectator has a particular view that -- right or wrong -- it very zealously, almost religiously, wants to believe, and promulgate. So it does it's darndest to then cherry pick, manipulate, and misrepresent information in order to promote that pre conceived notion.

Why would you trust such a magazine as a source of information?

Don't believe that this is what the America Spectator does? Let's take an example, on a very objective, factually based, non partisan, and in fact, wholly scientific matter, which nevertheless has been turned into a somewhat partisan, and very subjective matter by resources just like the American Spectator.

Here is their opening two paragraphs, with links, of a piece by Paul Chesser.  It is clear Chesser wants to believe something, so has done his darndest to convince himself that what he wants to believe, is accruate. He has that right. As do you to read his stuff. But if you want to be informed, rather than mislead into thinking that you are coming to your own conclusins,when in fact you are being somewhat manipulated, why would you want to?

Here we go:
It is like the Peanuts gang laughing in derision after yet another Charlie Brown gaffe. It is like the doubling-over at the double-stumble (video) during fashion week in Paris.

The cackles and guffaws now come routinely. Global warming alarmists, led by inconvenienced (because of cooling weather) Al Gore, are seeing their prophecies of doom dissolve. Now that big ice grows, big winter is bad (like last year), cold temperatures hit record levels, and global mean surface temperature has not continued upward -- despite continued increases in that demonized "greenhouse" gas, carbon dioxide -- the panic peddlers look like flailing jesters.
First, notice the three of three completely gratuitous links in paragraph one. Okay, that's fine. But what about paragraph two, where the mocking stops, and the "substance" begins?

The first link showed that it was really cold one day.  Trying even to insinuate relevance to this, would be like saying in late May that we must be going into winter in the northern hemisphere, because at 4:30 p.m. it was cooler out than at 4:23.  To call it idiotic doesn't even do it justice. But this is supposed to be entertaining? Is that what the American Spectator is, a "wholly" entertaining magazing that "informs"? How is it doing that here, and not misleading you by trying to imply that a day or two of temperatures have anything to do with the only data that really matters -- the decades long temperature trend.

The second link (go ahead, click on it, or go the original and try it there) is of course, "broken or expired."

Then comes the third link. Go ahead and click on it, also, and see how it was "really cold." It shows a record cold snap in a particula region,which is like saying now on a Wednesday in May that we are moving to winter because Tuesday hit a record low in your state (while perhaps hitting record highs in other areas, and on other continents). Only here this American Spectator artiucle actualy tries to tell its readers that this is in anyway relevant to the issue. What is this; blatant scientific idiocy on the part of the American Spectator, or an attempt to manipulate and deceive, you, its audience?

Which one?

Perhaps American Spectator does not understand the science. But then why write the article?? And why do so to try and undermine the consensus of an overwhelming majority of scientists (which, in itself, is fine), by the writing patent scientific absurdities and taking advantage of the fact that most of its audience probably does not consist of scientists either,  and is looking to the/American Spectator for guidance on the issue.And yet instead, is getting mislead.

Link four is not bad. But it is similarly irrelevant, since those who think that global climate change -- which means that our huge net emissions of heat trapping gases will have an influence on the climate -- somehow completely obviate natural patters, as well as cause climate to suddenly become linear and not still erratic (when really we should expect it to become more so) don't understand the issue. 

Not "well, they have a different take on the issue." But; "don't understand the issue." At the same time,we want all the data we can get, and all of it is relevant for assessing what degree of impact we may have.  So the source of this link -- Richard Lindzen of MIT -- why is he cherry picking a relatively short time span here? Is he just trying to refine modeling, or is he trying to suggest that climate change is not a real phenomenon because temperatures are following expected non linear patterns?

Well, it turns out Richard Lindzen is a self described global warming "denier." What do you know. This is a fine view to have, although it does not appear, from this link that Lindzen's methodology of scientific reasoning is very objectively sound.

But what is interesting to note is that very very few actual scientists reject the consensus that the large net addition of gases that trap heat into the atmosphere will invariably affect climate. Very very few scientists reject this consensus because there has realy been no scientifically plausible basis -- given what we know about climate, atmosphere, and heat (as well as the long term historical ice core data) to reject it.  Notice how American Spectator scours far and wide to bring you that source, however; a source which then in turn posits as his evidence something which is largely irrelevant to the broader issue -- namnely, that change will be non linear.

For those who think that climate change means that temperature change will be linear, guess what; it doesn't.  So the American Spectator mislead with every single substantive link and statement in that paragraph. And the one link and assertion that it did not mislead? It simply got it wrong.

Which brings us back to the original question. If you want to be fed cherry picked, and highly misleading information designed to make you think you are coming to your own conclusions, the American Spectator is your source. If you actually want to be given objective, reasoned information, look elsewhere.