More Instapundit to Althouse Ideological Parroting

InstaBS, Dec. 6, 2009:

December 6, 2009
CLARK HOYT DROPS THE BALL AGAIN, gets spanked by Ann Althouse.

Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 9:21 pm

This Ann Althouse? The one that apparently believes that it is commendable that -- and has to affirmatively share -- with her many readers (often sent over by Instapundit), that she "believes" in science. That actually has to note this belief?

The Anglia affair is newsworthy. And that's it.  What is incontrovertible is that heat trapping greenhouse gases have risen remarkably, and remarkably rapidly, of late; and that we know precisely what human activities have led to this.

And these levels are not just higher than they have been for the last 650,000-800,00 years, they are significantly higher, and climbing still.

What is also incontrovertible is that we are seeing the slowly increasing warming, and increasing weather volatility, that we would tend to expect. (But can't really be sure about, while we can be sure that there will be increasing climate changes.)

That fact that a few scientists were afraid that some conflicting and otherwise largely irrelevant data to the underlying issue would have a disproportionate impact upon what is an already misinformed debate (thanks to sites like Instanpundit, and Althouse, of course), and so, wrongly, tried to hide some data, is a story. But that's all it is. A story. Not some huges scandal that deserves constant attention, or that changes the basic science.

So what did Clark Hoyt do that Ann, "No, really, 'I'm a believer"' in science, but not necessarily a believer in the Easter Bunny" Althouse, in the words of Instapundit Glenn Reynolds, "spanked" him on? Let's see:

Wow. Hoyt thinks that the NY Times handled the "Climategate" story appropriately.  Presumably Hoyt believed that non stop, round the clock, let's decide to throw science out the window "controversy" was not really required by this scandal -- as apparently those on the very far right, who tend to over dominate thr framing of our debate in America today, do.

Yes. That is dropping the ball. If one is wishing desperately for any smidgeon, any kernel, by which to be able to cling to the not very objective idea that the basic, known facts -- that heat drives climate; atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have skyrockected; they have skyrocketed due to very known and very specific, easily identifiable activities and practices; and we have seen a very slow but corroborating warming, and more volatile climate shift -- are somehow irrevelant (which is bad science), or untrue (which is not true).

[Update:  Time magazine, hardly a "liberal" source, has an article aptly entitled: "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?" It notes,correctly, that:

The truth is that the e-mails, while unseemly, do little to change the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of man-made climate change.]

Climate gate, a bit more rationally examined. In particular, see here. Or here.

Yet a clearly outraged Althouse over the fact that the NY Times is not going to start (mis)interpreting the science or grilling on topics that really don't warrant grilling ("are you sure it's not the hot air coming out of the Instanpundit and Althouse sites, and not the fact that heat drives climate and that atmospheric heat trapping gases have radically risen that is causing climate change, maybe?") writes the following:

Drastic, mindboggingly expensive policy changes are proposed based on this science, making this potentially the biggest fraud in history.

Come on Ann, drop your ideological hat for one second. We know that perhaps some law professors are not that logical, necessarily; but are you seriously this gullible?

Also, and quite seriously, what makes you such a theoretical economics expert (when most people can't even get one of the two right) that you know that the "cost" to address climate change is really going to be so great, or even remotely significant at all.

Maybe all that this "cost" will accomplish is to discourage more harmful processes and activities that we have been over drastically overrelying upon, and encourage less harmful process that we have been drastically under relying upon. Maybe all the "cost" itself, since GDP is a measure of all goods produced (and ultimately they are not re produced if they are not bought), simply goes toward our net growth. In other words, Ann, and Glenn, maybe the development and growth of much smarter, more sensible, cleaner, and renewable fuels and energy practices will actually help constitute our growth, rather than, as you presume, impede it.

And is this really an ideological issue? If not, then why so seemingly knee jerk against the idea -- in this case, fighting tooth and nail the basic, incontrovertible science that you, Ann, say you are a believer in. 

What if you are right? Big deal, it costs some money. But it is incontrovertible that greenhouse gases trap heat, and that very identifiable activities are contributing massive amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, and that atmospheric levels are wildly out of whack with both historical norms, and --quite logically given its causes -- that this has occurred at geologically breakneck speed.

No one knows exactly what will occur. But it is almost impossible for this to not have some type of radical effect upon climate, over time.  Likely, that effect will be warming, and increased volatility (which the actual data that we do have backs up, rather strongly). But we don't know with absolute certainty, from a scientific perspective.  We do know that it is wildly reckless. And that it really has nothing to do with ideology, or partisanship, or economic perceptions and beliefs, or anything else. Nothing but basic science, which explains the world around us.

And the funniest thing, the concern, over this "cost," in the long run, is probably misplaced.  Expenditures are what grow our economy; they don't strangle us.  Are you fearful that a little money spent on protecting the ecology and biology of our world might delay the onset of the next great coffee maker by 3 months; or make electricity"cost" more for a little while? But then perhaps -- until we have the proper market incentives to promulgate more development, implementation, and usage of smarter fuels and processes -- we are vastly over utilizing these things right now: which would be wildly inefficient. And inefficieny is a cost. And, all those expenditures go to grow our economy, and are as valuable as anything else we choose to do.

And in this case, they are probably far more valuable -- as it will enable us to avoid what, from a non ideological, non partisan, cold, hard, scientific reality (which is the reality of our physical world, like it or not) is very likely to be increasing and rapid scale ecological and biological harm -- those expenditures will in the long run be going toward something for more productive and beneficial. That's not a cost.

And this perspective is a pretty far cry from "Drastic, mindboggingly expensive policy changes." Which perhaps is what is driving so many, illogically, and non dispassionately, to cling to the idea, scientifically ridiculous as it is -- that maybe this is all a "fraud," let alone the biggest fraud in history, that Althouse potentially calls it.

Which itself is what is really, "mindboggling." Except it's not.  It's driven by increasingly fervid (and unhealthy) ideology in this country.

Put aside that preconceived belief, or desired belief, for a moment. Go take some measurements of the air, monitor some sites, examine the history through 100,000s of years of ice cores, study the science of air chemistry. And see what you see. And then just consider.  Maybe switching over to fuels, for example, that are not extremely finite, that don't otherwise pollute heavily (as coal and oil do, extraordinarily in the case of coal), is in fact,a smart economic thing to do.

Mabye you'll see a whole new world. And maybe we can make some progress on this issue, that like it or not we are all in together.

And keep in mind that, if anything, this is an anti big government blog. But anti big government does not mean that we don't sensibly address collectively the few things that we are forced to share. And, besides national defense, what is number one on that list?

The quality of our natural environment.

Sarcasm on Bush - More Insta BS

More manipulation and ideologically driven blindness from the highly influential and widely read "Insta BS" site -- more formally known as Instapundit.

Facing the reality of the Bush Administration's misunderstanding of the issues, and the facts, would require heavily ideologically driven sites like Instapundit to reconsider their own belief driven orientation. Or at least consider the possibility that belief is helping to shape interpretation of the facts, more so than the idea that facts are helping to shape belief.

One easy way to ignore the realities of the Bush Administration's heavily authoritarian, overly secretive, fiscally reckless, globally myopic and misfocused, constitutionally impinging, corporate favoring, environmentally destructive tenure is to mock the claim to any ties between the conditions that we face today, and the approaches and policies of the Bush Administration for most of this decade.

Thus today we see this little sardonic gem from Instapundit:

November 19, 2009

I BLAME THE FAILED POLICIES OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION: Kellogg Co. warns of nationwide Eggo shortage.
Posted at by Glenn Reynolds at 10:20 am

For the record, the "Eggo" Shortage is due to "interruptions in production at two of the four plants that make them." One plant was shut down for an undisclosed period by a n...historic amounts of rain in the area. At another plant, its largest, several production lines are closed down for repairs.

Perhaps Reynold's creepy sarcasm is based on the idea that bad storms played a role;one of the things that leading scientists have been saying for over two decades is that increasing the concentration of heat trapping molecules in the atmosphere will lead to more volatile weather patterns; and of course, the Bush Administration, as well as Congress while it was in office, largely ignored the issue of increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Or perhaps it is based on pure air. 

Either way, it evinces an unwillingness to look objectively at facts which conflict with a predetermined, and largely ideological mindset. And one of the best ways to do this is to find ways to mock what in fact needs to be looked at, and see in others the very practices that are being engaged in by oneself.

As an example of the latter, Glenn Reynold's on Instapundit also put up this extraordinary, and rather ironic, post:

DAVID HARSANYI ON SARAH PALIN: “All you haters out there force me to root for her.” “The widely read blogger and purveyor of all truth, Andrew Sullivan, was impelled to blog 17 times on the subject of Palin on the same day Americans learned that the Obama administration awarded $6.7 billion in stimulus money to non-existent congressional districts — which did not merit a single mention. To see what is in front of one’s nose demands a constant struggle, I guess.”

Apart from capturing the over reliance upon crude and misleading stereotpyes, and one or two other points, Harsanyi's article in the Denver Post is sheer idiocy, from the very beginning, to the very end.  It is no wonder that Instapundit linked to it.

As for the "impelled" to write about Palin point, instapundit is promoting a Denver Post column which actually makes the argument that because Andrew Sullivan, who is not "CNN" but a blogger, chooses to write about Palin rather than a stimulus funding accouting snafu, must be unable to see things right in front of his nose.

This is a specious stretch, to say the least. And it was promoted by non other than a law professsor. (But then here's an even stronger example of Instapundit's law professor logic.)

So by this line of  reasoning one could bring up the many hundreds of key stories that famous blogger Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit chooses not to write on each day, and thus argue this shows that Reynold's can not see what is in front of his nose, every day, hour after hour after hour? After all, we are not talking about one story here, but a constant stream of them, completely missed, by Instapundit. Every day. And Instapundit has dozens of little posts, so it does act more like a news source, than the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who is a true blogger in the sense that he writes columns, and covers more limited, select topics, rather than the scattershot approach that Instapundit takes. And still Instapundit puts up almost nothing on this site which cuts against its excessive ideological orientation. 

(With respect to the second part of this extraordinary post by Instanpundit, a reference to Megan McArdle writing yesterday in the Atlantic on this same general topic, see here.)

Manipulative Trash to Reach a Pre-Desired End Result Will Attract Readers

The Althouse blog is pure, unadulterated, far right wing bias that often turns logic into sauerkraut. It is often linked to by Instapundit (aka, InstaBS), which alerted us to this little fact:

Althouse is the third most visited law professor blog, in America. (Or at least of those with publicly available site meters).

Here are just a few examples of how logically and politically skewed the Althouse blog is, and yet for the last 30 day period measured, there were over 13 million page views.

That's an awful lot of people being mislead.