New York Times Searches Far and Wide for the Most Qualified Experts on Climate Change

(Originally printed 1-31-10. Edited, and updated, 4-15-10)
Space on the prestigious NY Times opinion pages is very limited.  Most of that space, in turn, is taken up by the paper’s own editorials and columnists.

So one imagines that on the rare occasion that the paper ventures to outside sources from among its constant inundation of submissions, that it chooses its pieces carefully.  And, in its search for someone to provide an informative piece on climate change risk, the Times apparently must have heavily scoured experts from around the globe, finally settling upon one from New Zealand.

What follows is how this chosen expert’s fantastic work of reason, logic, and well tied in fact might have made its way onto the famed and highly selective pages of the “paper of record,” the NY Times:

(NEW ZEALAND PHILOSOPHY PROFESSOR DENIS) DUTTON: I think we are overreacting on climate change.

NYT:   Why?

DUTTON: Because sometimes people overreact.

NYT:  Sometimes people also under react. Why are we over reacting, rather than under reacting, here?

DUTTON: Because apocalypses are intriguing.

NYT:  That’s not a reason for assigning over reaction. That’s a suggestion, if  it is determined that we are overreacting, why we are, not an argument that we are .

DUTTON: Err, uh, yeah, but, um, high seas, vicious storms, potentially catastrophic scenarios, people love this stuff, therefore we must be overreacting.

NYT: Are you saying we are overreacting to this because while most scientists are saying this will be a bad to really bad thing, we must be overreacting to what the scientists are saying because “people are fascinated with apocalypses?”

DUTTON: Yes.

NYT: That completely avoids the relevant facts of the issue, and is also a bit, well, ridiculous.  The main warning is we are doing something destructive to ourselves and our world long term. You are saying that doing potentially destructive things to ourselves is something we tend to overreact to?

While there’s plenty of things we overreacted to because they were sexy — like asteroids hitting the earth — there’s plenty of things we have repeatedly under reacted to, like the threat of al-Qaida before 9/11,  Nazi Germany, Glenn Beck today, along with plenty of other scientific warnings we ignored and which, as a result of, tens of thousands of people a year die of cancer today while even newborn babies are borne with debilitating neurological defects or learning disabilities, etc.

Also, and perhaps even more importantly, this entire climate concern thing is based on uncertain and very hard to pin point projections of unspecified times in the future, that also, in many fundamental respects, such as temperature changes or “bad weather,” seem normal; yet you are saying we are overreacting to threats that scientists are calling very real but that seem abstract to many? Wouldn’t  it tend to be the other way around?

DUTTON: No, no no.  People find apocalypses  intriguing!!! Don’t you get that?

NYT: An assessment of whether we are overreacting or underreacting comes from an unemotional, dispassionate (and, hard as that is today, well informed) analysis of the facts relative to our overall collective responses to them. Then, once and if you have determined that we are over or under reacting, you might offer “theories” as to why this is the case. You’ve both avoided and thoroughly confused the issue, and gotten the logic largely backward.  You have not shown or made an argument even supporting the claim that we are overreacting here; but rather simply speculated that we are overreacting here because “sometimes we do.” This is like saying asserting that right now it is raining in China (as opposed to not raining)because “sometimes it rains” when you have no knowledge of the pertinent facts. Besides, this also isn’t really about apocalypse, not that that matters.

DUTTON: Well, to some of the most extreme and exaggerated voices, it is.

NYT: So you are saying what makes this an overreaction is not the general warning that this is very counterproductive, if not highly destructive long term, but instead the abstract notion — that skeptics of climate change more than anyone have turned this into — that this is about saving mankind from assured destruction; and, that therefore the general warning by scientists that this is very counterproductive if not in some ways potentially catastrophic long term is an overreaction?

Is that why almost half the country thinks the issue is nonexistent or minimal, causing most scientists who actually study the issue to want to pull their hair out, because “people are fascinated with apocalypses and so are overreacting?”

DUTTON: Yes, and Yes.

NYT: That makes no sense. Also, what you are saying is “people are fascinated with apocalypses” so scientists are over-reacting to this because of apocalypses while people in general are under-reacting?

DUTTON: No. I’m just saying that we find apocalypses intriguing, so therefore, naturally, we are over reacting on climate change. Even we we are largely ignoring the issue while scientists repeatedly attempt to warn us, we are, don’t you see, overreacting, because we are fascinated with apocalypses!

NYT: It seems to us that you are saying is “people are fascinated with apocalypses” so scientists are over-reacting to this because of apocalypses while people in general are under-reacting.

But completely ignoring the fact here that most scientists say people are under-reacting, you are then in turn arguing here that people are nevertheless overreacting simply because people tend to sometimes overreact to potentially bad scenarios, even though there are plenty of times we under-react, and plenty of arguments as to why we under-react that would very specifically apply here.

So do you have anything more than the fact that while to potentially really bad scenarios “we overreact sometimes,” we under-react other times, we are overreacting this time, essentially based upon the reasoning that “we overreact sometimes”?

DUTTON: Yes, yes, of course.  Here goes. Here is my reason.  Drumroll please:

“It seems to me.”

NYT: Hey, whoa, that’s pretty darn good! It changes everything!!!

DUTTON: Yes!  And it’s awesome, isn’t it! Also, since this is a scientific issue, why should we bother with actual science, when instead we can bother with stuff that is even better than science!  Namely, science fiction. Because, New York Times, are you ready? I have even more.

NYT: Really, even more for why we are over reacting when the bulk of scientists continue to say we are under reacting, in addition to the amazingly relevant and op ed worthy fact that it “seems” to you that we are! Why, that would absolutely fantastic.

DUTTON: Yes, I am saying exactly that.  I have more. And like I said, it’s even better than science — who needs that anyway. Ready?

NYT: We have almost no room on our very limited and highly sought after op ed page for outside sources, but this clearly seems like it is going to be outstanding enough to make the cut.

DUTTON: Yes, yes, absolutely, because, in addition to the very strong fact that it “seems to me,” I even have yet another reason as to why I am claiming that people are overreacting, despite the fact that scientists — the one’s actually studying this issue — are saying that people are under reacting.  Are you ready?

NYT: Yes, Yes!

DUTTON: “Mary Shelley Created Frankenstein.”

Thus, you see, people are fascinated with this stuff, like Frankenstein; so, therefore, ergo, as a result, thus, voila, we are over reacting on climate change!

So now I’ve given yet another reason why in sometimes people overreact in general (just like we sometimes under react or vastly underestimate) without one bit even of suggestion or support as to why we are overreacting here! And no one will ever notice.

NYT:  Including us.

However, brilliant and relevant as this argument of yours now quite obviously is  is, it’s still, um, a largely tautological and unsupported sentence or two, not an op-ed. It’s very slight, but do you see the difference?  That is; Largely tautological and and unsupported sentence, versus complete op-ed piece.   Thus, in addition to mentioning apocalyptic visions and maybe a few more Frankenstein examples, can you largely fill in the bulk of the piece with a wholly irrelevant yet excruciatingly detailed example of a time when we over-reacted as opposed to under-reacted, perhaps regarding something which has absolutely nothing in common with the current situation save for the fact that we “over reacted” which, of course, since we already know that sometimes we overreact, sometimes we under-react, makes it about as relevant as the price of tea in China?

DUTTON: You mean like how if I theorized, with no support, that your publisher was having a steamy affair, I might write a piece about how on another occasion someone else had a steamy affair and provide excessive details about it, throw in the idea that “it seems to me” that therefore yours is also, and “support” it all with the idea that, much like apocalypses, people are fascinated with sex so therefore he probably is having an affair?

NYT: Exactly.

DUTTON: Okay, sure, absolutely. I will talk in excruciatingly irrelevant detail how many people over reacted to Y2K.

[Editor of ELA here:   Ahem, uh, "ahem."  Fear of  enormous breakdowns was not a widespread consensus. Yet with respect to those fears, which were based purely on the unknown of a one time, unique event rather than upon scientific reason and risk assessment of an extremely complex, centuries long global biological, ecological and physics problem, some thought the entire notion of an unavoidable enormous Y2k breakdown just because the years on many computers were in double rather than quadruple digits, was ridiculous, and said so repeatedly.  Including the editor of this site.  As for some of the practical implications it should also be noted that many Y2K computer problems and attendant  breakdowns were diligently worked on and avoided in advance precisely due to concerns.]

NY TIMES:  Yes!

DUTTON: Done. Check  your in box. You now have a piece consisting in its entirety of; the assertion that we are overreacting on climate change because people sometimes overreact; the assertion that are are over reacting rather than under-reacting here because “it seems to me” we are; a reason offered as to why we sometimes overreact rather than reasons offered as to why we oftentimes greatly under-react  – as opposed to reasons why we may be doing either in this particular case; and an excruciatingly detailed example of a time when some overreacted– omitting the fact that since we already know that sometimes we overreact,and sometimes in advance we greatly underestimate  and “under react,” this is about as relevant as which trash can of the many in your building you should throw my inane climate change submission into, which I nevertheless hope that you publish.

NYT: We’ll publish it!

Hard to believe, right?  As the NY Times might very well put it:

If you don’t believe this, come read our pages, December 31, and see for yourself.

Simply saying “We overreact to some things, perhaps we are to climate change, here are some reasons why we are over-reacting here,” flawed as the conclusion that we are overreacting likely is, is fine. Dutton does not come close to doing that, however.  He suggests that sometimes we over react to things; he explains why he thinks we over-react to things sometimes (fascination with the eschatological), and then suggests that “we are over-reacting here” for no reason other than the completely tautological explanation that sometimes we do, along with the completely irrelevant reason why we sometimes do.

If anything, there would be far more driving the idea that we are under-reacting here.  Likely results are many years in the future.  The implications to many, of this, are extremely negative, because of the (flawed) perception that sensibly addressing this means we have to sacrifice our economy. There is a general lack of general scientific understanding among the populace. And our expectations are grounded in what we have come to expect, and the difficulty we seem to have grasping the ideas that 1) there is an enormous time lag here between both cause and effect, and 2) effects are very likely to be non linear (that is, potentially accelerating with increased input and cumulative effect).

Whether that last paragraph was a good or bad (but short) opinion piece, at least it offered reasons. Dutton offers none. What he offered is like suggesting “remember how in medieval times the plague hit, and people did not take it seriously enough;” then spending most of the time writing about how bad the plague was and how wrong everybody was; then offering up a bunch of reasons why in general people often don’t take things seriously enough (and they tend to number far greater than “fascination with eschatology”) and then concluding “it seems to me climate change is the same. The end.”  That would be an inane piece.  And, analogously, it is exactly the logic — and all of it — that the NY Times, incredibly, chose to publish, though a far better example of it at that.

Update: The  NY Times seems at times to be to science understanding and real journalism on this issue as Saddam Hussein was to democracy and open, fair elections in Iraq.  Even its leading “Dot Earth” climate blog, comments included, helps contribute more to the general confusion and misunderstanding on the climate change issue, than to expose and correct it.

This is yet another, and  particularly troubling, example of the fact that our “media” is increasingly becoming a stenographic  reflection of our worst common ignorances, misunderstandings, and rhetoric, than a necessary Fourth Estate investigative and illuminative check upon it.

False Equivalency And Specious Analyses Offered up as “Balance” on Highly Influential NY Times Climate Change blog

A recent climate change coverage post concluded:

How repeated comments on the estimable NY Times DotEarth blog, to the constant effect that there is no evidence or support for the consensus of most scientists, continue to get posted and not sufficiently undermined by other commenters and in particular the blog itself, is hard to fathom. Unless — as I have suggested on it back when I inefficiently if not foolishly ventured forth some comments myself — this leading science blog is supposed to serve more as a reflection of the ignorance and disinformation of our national debate, rather than a check and attempt to improve upon it.

ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm suggests a rather harsh but on point reason why this might be the case, in a piece scathingly entitled “Revkin’s DotEarth hypes disinformation posted on an anti-science website”:

One of the reasons for the collapse [in rigorous scientific media coverage] is the media’s refusal to draw a distinction between what scientists say based on actual observations and analysis in the peer-reviewed literature and what anti-science disinformers say based on their total lack of knowledge of the science and general willingness to misrepresent the facts or make stuff up.

The only area I might tend to disagree with Romm on — and it’s minor to his point above —  is the conscious willingness to make stuff up and misrepresent. Sure it’s done a lot, but often I think it is believed by those doing so (or at least the points that it tends to support are believed); it is frequently the way an ideological driven analysis and the human minds works. If  belief is fervently held and/or there are particularly strong (believed) reasons for it, arguments will be concocted that reinforce (and sell) one’s predetermined belief. (Here’s an example of this just posted in comments on Romm’s blog itself.) We see this in spades on the climate change issue — and in some ways, it almost defines it. Although if it were that obvious, then obviously, we wouldn’t be having the national (and even to some degree international) misinformed discussion on the issue that by and large, we are.

Romm’s piece was in reference to this Dot Earth column.  I had written a decent enough comment to that same Dot Earth piece, to which Revkin both responded (see bottom),  and also quoted from at length in a post the next day.  (Which nevertheless wouldn’t update to reflect more than my last name only, for reasons he would not state, or, apparently, change.)

But to that same initial post that Romm critiques, Revkin also printed a somewhat inane email from ideologue and meteorologist Roger Pielke Sr.; another, much worse comment from some random blogger (who mislead or was flat out wrong with respect to almost every substantive point therein); and as Romm  harshly but correctly points out, updated the piece with an analysis by Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University — who in a highly convoluted but poetically written piece of tripe compares “the science is settled” assertion with the gravity and apparent lack of full candor on the “Iraq has WMD’s” assertion. (Indicating, in the process, that he either knows little about either (see here, or the second half of here), or his fervent ideology on this issue has gotten in the way. Not to mention the fact that the Ravetz letter appeared on one of the most powerful disinformation sites out there.)

The WMD certainty or near certainty belief was widely held. But not that widely held. And by mid-March of 2003 when we commenced military action, outside of this country and a few others, it was not a belief that was widely held by those at all remotely involved in the process.  It had been mainly believed in the absence of actual data, based upon Iraq’s history and pattern of non cooperation. Unlike climate change, it did not require looking into a crystal ball regarding long term future scientific effects in what amounts to a long term and wild experiment upon the entire earth’s climate, with no “sister” or control earth’s by which to assess differences in hindsight. It required confirmation of something that either did or did not exist at the time.

After weapons inspectors went back into Iraq on November 27, 2002 and conducted viable weapons inspections in Iraq for the first time in numerous years (up until they were ordered out on the eve of our military action commencement on March 19, 2003),  they found no substantial evidence to support what every nearly major intelligence report emphasized was a presumption rendered in the absence of verified data from Iraq, and were universally saying to “wait.”

Ravetz might be very scholarly.  But to compare that to a widespread consensus opinion that — by the actions of putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to the point where atmospheric levels of said gases, in total global warming potential equivalent GWPe (that is, taking into account the relevant long lived gases as noted above, and their various heat trapping potential reduced to a common denominator) are now approaching heat levels not seen in many millions of years — we are effecting future climate, is asinine.

Then of course there is this comparison, which makes the equivalency of Ravetz’ “the science is settled,” and “Iraq had WMDs” assertions even more asinine;  We have to get off of fossil fuels anyway.  They are finite. Their continued reliance harms national security and sends hundreds of billions each year overseas to often unfriendly regimes for a natural commodity which (in the case of oil) we simply don’t have nearly enough of on our own; they are highly polluting otherwise; and in the case of coal even lead to often excessive ecosystem damage in their acquisition, and in usage to the bio accumulation of toxins, such as mercury, in our food supply.

Even more importantly, as far as the climate goes, we can’t ever know exactly how much we will effect it until well after the fact (not to mention sufficiently after the fact to have given us enough time to accommodate for the large multi decade plus lag between cause and effect, and to iron out the enormous inherent variability of climate itself on top of that); but it is an enormous risk that will likely affect our children and their children far more than us, and one that an overwhelming number of actual climate and geophysical scientists who have studied the issue are in agreement, for basic, sensible reasons, is quite high.  The entire question is one of risk assessment, not of certainty of ‘X’ or “Y”result.

Iraq was  a monumental unilateral military engagement (now, seven years later, still ongoing) based not upon a risk assessment that Iraq had WMDs (for even if they did, plenty of nation’s do, it is not necessarily a reason for pre-emptive military action);  but upon “the fact” that Iraq did have them, and that therefore pre-emptive aggressive military action was justified. The risk assessment itself was based upon the assertion of this fact.

There is nothing remotely corollary to the climate change issue, nor, by the very nature of it, can there be. The only “proof” or evidence that has come in has tended to bolster the perception of the underlying climate change problem — in may ways, rather powerfully and extremely coincidentally. Critics of this often however confuse this so called “proof” or (as better terminology), evidence, with the problem itself, when it is most decidedly not the problem, but (likely) merely some very early, and highly trailing, evidence of it.  It is no surprise that if Watt’s Up is going to find a professor from a seemingly eminent Institution somewhere (among the tens of thousands of professors from eminent Institutions), he would find one who does not get this, among other things.

As for the “climategate” scandal which Ravetz also makes such a WMD type fuss over, see the summary of my email to Revkin below, highlighted in bold: As noted therein:

How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones']  work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did.

But one doesn’t hear about how their data compilations comprise the “science scandal of the decade.”  Yet most if not all of the data compilations put together by critics targeting the methodology and even integrity of Jones or Mann were repeatedly shown to have been more manipulated, if anything.  Yet nothing remotely approaching the same level of widespread public  scrutiny and condemnation has ever been applied.

The reason for this? There are very few people who decided it would be a good thing if the future climate was being royally screwed up; but countless — including many who have (or wrongly believe they or we have) strongly vested interests — who have predetermined that it would be a good thing if we are not, and have sought diligently to arrive at the end result conclusion, where belief is driving the analysis rather than vice versa.

Thus Mann and Jones’s work has been pilloried as a sort of  scandal of the decade. (Despite the fact that data supporting Mann’s hockey stick is still stronger than data not supporting it, and the fact that if the earth has shifted even more in the past than we think, thus rendering Mann’s “hockey stick” less oblique than as presented, this only means the climate is even more sensitive to or apt to ultimately, easily change, not less.)  Whereas creative critiques “proving” otherwise or any number of other fallacious or misinformed claims, has not nearly been so illuminated.  Indeed, media sources, often scurrying to provide the false patina of “balance” but providing anything but, have often promoted these as some sort of ’side’ to a ‘debate,’ and ideological interests have zealously pushed this point further.  (Revkin himself even recently and quite strongly played into this general trend of seeking false balance rather than simply the best and most relevant scientific inquiries of all types — and why I think he was well off base to do so.)

The disinformation site Watts Up With That, where Ravetz’ inanely contorted piece appears — the same one that Revkin promoted along with the Watts Up site itself  – engages in more misrepresentation on the underlying issue than Mann or Jones ever did – and does so on a fairly ongoing basis.)

(In reading Ravetz’ highly contorted but well presented piece, however, I can’t help but think that if pro climate change advocates assessed this in broader language, and stopped falling prey to the desire to overemphasize trailing temperature data — which is not the basis for the problem — at least some understanding would be improved.)

As Romm puts it:

The reason I am writing this post, however, is not any of the above.  It’s the staggering update Revkin has:

[UPDATE, 8 p.m.: In an interesting guest post on WattsUpWithThat, Jerome Ravetz, a longtime student of the intersection of science and society, explores the panel's travails and related issues.]

No, no, a thousand times no.

In general, you can assume that if Watts has reprinted a piece, it is filled with anti-scientific disinformation.  It’s kind of like the laws of thermodynamics.  If someone tells you they have a perpetual motion machine, you don’t actually have to look at the design closely to know that, in fact, they don’t.

Now the least Revkin could do is quickly skim this nonsensical piece to see if, yes, it is in fact a perpetual disinformation machine, like all of Watts’ other posts.  It’s just pure anti-scientific garbage masquerading as … well, it’s masquerading as mostly anti-scientific garbage.

A decent enough example of the ideologically driven Watts Up With That disinformation site is found here, noting:

The idea that weather does not define climate was examined here.  But A. Watts’ “Watts Up With That?” webblog elected to simply re post verbatim excerpts — note that the site often simply reposts large chunks or an entire article verbatim without much or any additional commentary, insight or analysis — from an original snowfall article,with the simple, snarky introduction:

More from the “weather is not climate department.”

Read through the 154 comments to the snowfall article to see if this kind of subtle (and very often not so subtle)‘arguing’ doesn’t have a profound effect on shaping and misinforming the discussion. Unfortunately, as a perusal of the comments on the site at any point in time aptly illustrate, it does.  (Here’s an interesting related video, which Watts improperly had YouTube take down, and which was then put back up: see from minutes 3:56 on — as the earlier part is peripheral, and it is true, someone does have to defend smokers.)

Watt’s article completely neglected to mention that this unprecedented summer snowfall in Australia also happened during one of the hottest, and driest, Australian summers on record, following an even hotter summer, and during the continuance of Australia’s worst long term drought on record (which also included its worst short term drought on record).

The link to the very popular but designedly anti climate science site Watt’s Up, and Ravetz’ misunderstanding of the state of science and what “settled” means and does not mean, along with his misunderstanding of the scientific basis for, and the fact of, the overwhelming relevant scientist consensus that we are now in the process of affecting future climate (see endnotes here for support), not surprisingly, was also provided by another near constant misinforming and/or misinformed commenter on Revkin’s blog; to whom Revkin directly responded:

I added a link to it earlier tonight…. Thanks for posting here. Well worth reading.

No, Andy, it wasn’t.

To the same post yet again, Revkin also highlighted a comment by yet another clearly driven ideologue — who for some perhaps not so coincidental reasons seem to get attracted to Revkin’s Dot Earth blog like moths to light. (It’’s a venerable NY Times blog and considered influential, hence a good place to go to try and influence public opinion, and Revkin puts up with, and occasionally even promotes, a good deal of misrepresentation, and worse.)

This commenter was responding to an IPCC statement to the effect that “[the data] show that recent warming is inconsistent with internal climate variability and other external influences alone,” and wrote:

This statement is simply absurd! How can these people sit there and make statements about what is and what is not consistent with internal climate variability when they have no idea what all of the elements of climate variability are? Ask them to explain what elements of climate variability are responsible for overriding the effects of CO2 for the most recent twelve years, and they have absolutely no clue.

Number one, 12 years are not that consequential climate wise — the longer term trend of statistically significant warming over the past 150 years, is– depending upon what happens within those twelve years. (Proving the negative of a causal effect on an inherently variable and long term system always takes a certain amount of accumulated data,proving the opposite, or the high likelihood of the opposite, depending upon the actual data itself, also takes a lot of data, but to varying degrees less depending upon the extremity of the data itself.)

Number two, whether or not some aspects of the IPCC’s generalized language and explanations could have been better or not, this commenter badly confuses the inability to precisely map climate with both precision and short term precision, with any ability whatsoever to ascertain broad parameters of climatic effect.

And, number three, those same 12 years which this commenter asserts negated any impact of CO2 (which impact, again, is far more significant long term, and with a large time lag to boot, anyway) have witnessed ten of the eleven warmest years on record. Just another tiny little oversight.  But to him, because we can’t do the near impossible and model it down to all of the huge variability, it is then “absurd” that we can know anything at all.

It’s a scientifically specious, or just extremely misinformed comment.  Yet Revkin highlighted it.

But he’s highlighted worse.

And linked to worse pieces, as Romm points out.

As I wrote to Revkin recently, in part explaining my decision to not waste time posting comments on that blog unless and until standards for accountability and for true, dispassionate, science objectivity rather than false balance equilibrating are improved, essentially:

You [recently gave] a speech at Warren College about changing mindsets, in a world that is different than the one that exists out here. And the reason the world is different is due to facilitating and playing into the misrepresentation and misleading and ideological driven zealotry where any workable and self believable and thus highly sellable manipulation is arrived at or contrived in order to fit the “fact” into a pre arranged belief…

By allowing [this] to go unchecked, by providing the forum for it, by sometimes even highlighting for “thoughtfulness and interesting-ness” what is misleading, manipulated (unintentionally or otherwise), misrepresented, or the comments of those who engage in this, is promoting it. It is promoting, and not checking or improving upon, the basis of our misinformed collective understanding. Not the “understanding” of journalists, or scientists, or only those who have studied the issue intensely, but of all of us, that which shapes our world and our collective response through sensible policies (or not) of what is whether we like it or not, a decidedly collective challenge.

…How much attention have the critic providers of alternative work to Michael Mann’s [and Phil Jones, who together comprise "climategate" as referred to above] work received? To a tee, they all manipulated data more than Mann [or Jones] did. Yet is this nearly as frequently pointed out (or even one tenth as big a deal made about it), do the ideologues call these people criminals and worse, like they do Mann and Jones? Of course not. They call them heroes. I don’t know if you fully get what is driving what can’t even fairly be called a double standards — because double standards pale in comparison — and how putting up with it only perpetuates and furthers the problem; in which case, that is, facilitating or putting up with it, then, really, there is no point in working on the issue.

I imagine that was my ultimate point to Revkin. If it — an estimable blog at the (still somewhat?) august NY Times, or any such ideal journalistic endeavor– is going to try to seek a “common ground” based upon the misinformation perpetuating and entrenching pretense of false equivalency, and vastly differing standards of scientific and logical rigor, then there is no point in pursuing it or engaging in it in the first place. It becomes more a part of the problem, then of the solution.

Don’t Worry, Winds Are Not a Part of Climate

Regarding climate change, if all the ice melts and northern albedo (heat reflectivity) is decreased, leading to significantly reinforced additional warming, it may not count, because it will all be due to “winds.”

But winds are not separate from climate, they constitute a key part of it.

On the popular NYTimes DotEarth blog, here are the first four, of five, comments today in response to a column examing the idea of winds pushing ice southward where it has tended to melt faster, and perhaps serving as a more direct cause of half of the floating ice melt than direct overall ambient warmth itself. (The first two are in full, the next two in part):

Mark Serreze at NSIDC coined the term “death spiral” in 2008 – the same year he incorrectly bet on an ice free pole for that summer.

Arctic ice area is currently normal, which is quite different from a “death spiral.”
http://arctic-roos.org…
Recommend Recommended by 9 Readers

_____

The well-informed amongst us knew all along, of course, that any 2007 ice “crisis” was a result of the winds having pushed a lot of ice out to sea.

Somehow, however, I don’t think the information we knew and you so well lay out made it to the headlines and to the desperate calls to “save the Polar Bears.”

In fact the Department of the Interior rather adroitly used the 2007 ice “crisis” to list the Polar Bear as an endangered species in May 2008… at at time when there were 5 times more Polar Bears that 60 years ago. One might even think the DOI wasn’t using science, but politics!
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers

_____

Since no one mentioned it, I thought I should bring up well documented earlier Arctic ice summer melts.

The big 1922 Arctic ice summer melt. The Washington Post headline on Nov 2, 1922, was
“Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.”
(discovered by John Lockwood)

http://www.washingtontimes.com…

_____

New light shed, or existing ignored light?

To begin, shall we all adjust our Arctic warming clock down approximately 45% accounted for, according to NASA, aerosols or soot:

“The researchers found that the mid and high latitudes are especially responsive to changes in the level of aerosols. Indeed, the model suggests aerosols likely account for 45 percent or more of the warming that has occurred in the Arctic during the last three decades. The results were published in the April issue of Nature Geoscience.”

The soot comes primarily from burning wood,coal and dung, and is partially combusted carbon residue.   But don’t worry, it “doesn’t count.”

The other aerosols here are mainly man made pollutants as well.  They don’t count as well.

Also don’t worry, whatever the state of the earth’s climate 50 years from now, it won’t be because of “climate change;” but instead, anything we can think to label as something other than “climate change.”

Including perhaps, one the most critical components and products of climate — wind itself.

But even the Dot Earth post itself tends to potentially somewhat underplay the role that wind plays in climate, as if understanding some short term mechanisms for specific changes somehow conflicts with the broader understanding of the direction of change that the globe’s increased heat trapping potential is likely to lead to. It is almost as if one expects to hear the following one day when and if climate really ratchets up: “Climate change is not real, increased heat in oceans driving climate, not climate change!” when of course climate change is increased heat retention in oceans (as noted below).

That basic, underlying effect — increasing heat leading to increased heat retention by oceans which ultimately drives climate –  we tend to understand at least to a minimum degree, even if it has been largely overlooked in coverage of the climate change topic. But just because we don’t understand all of the other mechanisms does not mean that when we do find a particularly apparent direct sub climate component cause and effect that “appears” to be coincidental to the actual changes that we would expect to see as a result of “climate change,” does not mean that it doesn’t count. What the climate does on its own or not is a part of the inherent variability that we are dealing with. The conditions we create + that inherent variability will combine to form the end results of what we observe;  in other words, it all counts. Climate change acts upon the system as is, with all its attendant variability, not the system ‘norm,’ as their is no ‘norm.’

If warmer temps lead to thinner ice, which combined with strong winds pushed ice to warmer waters where it melts even faster, whether those winds were a part of the change we are wreaking, coincidental, or a little bit of both, ultimately does not matter.  Things will act in tandem regardless.

I wrote to Andy Revkin, the estimable former NY Times environmental reporter who runs the Dot Earth blog, half suggesting, half asking the following, hoping that Revkin would have something to add that I was missing:

Why the leap to thoroughly disassociate wind patterns from climate?  In the long run, things will happen climate wise:  what largely makes climate change the issue that it is, is the changing systems’ response to those components that make up the forces of weather and climate over time.  As bases change, susceptibility to more change increases.  Even if the specific pattern can not be directly tied to climate change itself (this is always a questionable concept as ultimately climate encompasses everything, but it is understandable given our desire to isolate out and explain various observations), such variability, in part attributable to us or not (again see parenthetical) still produces a different effect than it would upon a more stable base. It is how climate tends to ultimately lurch –and it has geologically, and no reason it might not at some point now.

Even given this caveat about the original article, the comments were still out of sync with what it was conveying, leading the 5th commenter to note:

[I] Suggest you all read the article and ignore the effort to reinterpret the information in the first two comments, and doubtless many to come.

Leading to this question: Why such an exacerbated attempt on the part of commenters on this popular NY Times future climate and ecology blog, to spin everything in a direction away from the basic science of climate change?

Since this winds up repeatedly undermining its purpose, and causing it to become a source of as much if not more disinformation as information, one might ask why the Dotearth blog itself puts up with it or doesn’t at least try and correct it?

Lest one think the above comments are not that bad — and they are not in comparison with the usual — here is a typical example from an earlier post, by someone who in other, often far more misleading, comments, claims to be a mathematical physicist. From this page here:

As the story points out, people always worry – as they should – about changes in climate, freezing and warming alike.

The idea that the cause of these changes, which have always been around, is us is new.

This idea does not appear to be rooted, or search confirmation, in the cold reality of measured data. It seems motivated by a general, vague feeling of guilt.

Actually, the idea is rooted in the fact that due to specific, easily identifiable anthropomorphic activities, we are in the process of taking CO2 that was sequestered deep undeground over hundreds of millions of years, and releasing it back into the atmosphere in what is almost a geologic instant.

And it is rooted in the fact that because of this, as well as an increase in nitrous oxides, a tremendous increase in methane, the development and release of fluorocarbons, and significant net deforestation, we are now at a level of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations in total global warming potential equivalent (GWPe) likely not seen in millions of years; and are rapidly adding to that level, at geologically breakneck speed. And the fact that the greenhouse effect, due to these greenhouse gases, is the reason the earth is warm and teeming with life as we know it, rather than largely a frozen ball hurtling almost lifelessly through space.

And because there is no reason, based in physics,  biology, ecology, or climate science, to presume or believe that the greenhouse effect reaches a certain level and “magically” shuts off when greenhouse gases reach a certain point in their range — say, by wild coincidence, that point where they stood just before we started ferociously adding to them beginning in earnest about 150 years ago, and even more so the past several decades.  And there is every reason to believe that the greenhouse effect doesn’t magically “shut off.”

And, perhaps most importantly of all, it is rooted in the fact  that climate is not instantaneous, or linear in response to changes in climate stressors or some type of external forcing. (That is, it takes time for increased trapped atmospheric heat to slowly effect climate sub systems, most notably oceans,which then being to change appreciably many decades after the actual causation; and climate does not respond in an even, symmetrical, fashion.)  Climate is a complex, highly variable phenomenon, with trapped heat but a fleeting precipitator of gradual, increasing system changes which then in turn change climate; including, yes, prevailing winds, and ultimately the oceans themselves, the main driver of climate here on earth.

And, over time, the oceans are, in fact retaining more and more heat.

The main basis for concern over any potential effect on the climate is not rooted in anything we have seen, but in fact of the underlying physics of and biological science of the matter. The problem, or “challenge,” could have been realized, theoretically, in advance even of any anthropomorphic activities. In fact the beginnings of our increasing atmospheric trapped heat climate awareness actually had their origins decades ago when the earth was in the process of a short cooling process. (A cooling process that itself was still part of a longer term statistically significant warming trend, which has now at this point seen the eleven warmest years in modern record, all in the last thirteen years of our history.)

But to this commenter, its just a new angle to dismiss all of this, which is just one step short of dismissing the fact that the sun rises in the East — now it’s based in “guilt.”  The day before on the desire of the UN or Al Gore to “control the world.” The day before that on Neanderthal Democrats’ (and some Republicans’) misanthropic desires to return us to the stone age, the day before that it is to get ‘funding money’ (unlike all science the planet over, one presumes), the day before that because — unlike far heavier investments in non “green” technology — vested interests in “green” technology, who invested after it was seen that maybe older energy sources were a long term problem, were nevertheless just self interested, the day before that it was….  But this comment was about average on that blog, and not even nearly among the worst.

How repeated comments on the estimable NY Times DotEarth blog, to the constant effect that there is no evidence or support for the consensus of most scientists, continue to get posted and not sufficiently undermined by other commenters and in particular the blog itself, is hard to fathom. Unless, of course, as I have suggested on it back when I rather inefficiently ventured forth some comments myself — this leading science blog is supposed to serve more as a reflection of the ignorance and disinformation of our national debate, rather than a check and attempt to improve upon it.

.

It’s Seems it’s Easy to Just Over-blame, Target, Scapegoat and Villainize a Group

A comment to this Frank Rich piece from the New York Times noted:

…..There is only one battle to be waged: Outlaw all bribes of government employees. Ban outright, any corporate money in politics. Limit annual campaign contributions to a maximum $250 per individual for any candidate. Enforce a life-time employment ban on revolving doors. If there is no financial incentive for selling votes to the highest bidders, then our government is stuck representing us, we the people.

This person fails to recognize –and in quite the opposite direction — that under our new, going in the direction of radical, Supreme Court (where a solid but non radical conservative — Justice Kennedy, made a mistake, and sided with four somewhat extreme leaning Justices) corporations are people too.

Regarding the financial meltdown and all of our bank bailouts, I put a comment up to Rich’s piece. What a mistake. Point missed. Overlooked. I suppose had I called bankers scoundrels, crooks, criminals who deserved to be tarred, feathered, and worse (as can be seen in several of the comments, including popular ones — it seems people love to mob rule scapegoat), then it would have gotten some attention.

What did Lehman Brothers do wrong? If principles did something illegal and immoral, then it is a criminal action. That is actionable. If not, then they did what they are allowed to do — take financial risk, and even do so foolishly.

And then their company goes bankrupt. And they fail.

That is the way it is supposed to work. Only people, rightly or wrongly, argued that they were “too big too fail.”

And whose fault was that?

We keep focusing on the surface of problems, and not the roots. We ignore, dismiss, or downplay the slow decline of our media, the increasing gap between rhetoric and reality, and increasing misinformation and even disinformation (extreme, yet leading example of the worst of this combined with wildly inflaming and demonizing rhetoric, here).

What were the root causes of this latest financial meltdown. Greed? Greed is good: Gordon Gecko, “Wall Street.” The pursuit of profit oils and drives our market. It’s not a bad thing. Financial risk is a good thing too, and with risk comes downside. When the industries are private, and the downside is nevertheless for the public, something is not working right.

It seemed right off the bat that there were two basic problems here (perhaps, among others that could use sensible redress; this is not an argument against any reform per se necessarily). Thus the comment linked to above, and largely overlooked, suggested:

Isn’t a big part of the problem that companies should be able to do whatever they want financially, with two minor corrections [required] for where we have gone astray over the past ten plus years?

1) They should be able to do whatever they want financially, but not if they are being backed or guaranteed by the U.S. government. That seems a simple one, and seemed a simple one at the time when Glass-Steagall was repealed a little over ten years ago, changing this.

2) The whole ‘too big to fail’ phrase has seemingly still not clued us in to what the real problem is. Lack of antitrust oversight. Capitalism is not oligopoly. Capitalism is true and robust competition. (In real capitalism, excessive, rather than fair, profits are often ephemeral, since competition will provide viable alternatives for consumers and business users alike.) Yet we have become a nation that has become implicitly antitrust phobic.

‘Too big to fail’ means that in capitalism, it is too big to exist as such. If it’s too big to fail, there is not true, robust efficient competition, and it means we have not adequately enforced antitrust laws.

Oddly, the intrinsic belief that capitalism needs no laws for its protection, rather than only requiring the protection from laws, is an oversimplification at best. When it comes to the most fundamental aspect of all, free and robust competition, antitrust laws lie at the heart of our system of free and competitive enterprise.

And their application, rather than their repeated dismissal, also precludes this “too big to fail” nonsense.

Are these suggestions not relevant?

Or is just easier, and in an overly blogified, comment thread, Internet information and misinformation, rhetoric, polarizing and often shouting and spin match age, to simply call all bankers the worst kind of scoundrels, now, and in response fight to over regulate rather than address the roots?

It seems so.

New York Times Blindly Plays Right into Tea Party Rhetoric, Media Abandoning Principles Contributing to Problem

(Updated below)

In a feature piece yesterday by David Barstow, the New York Times blindly plays into Tea Party rhetoric. And then in yet another display of ridiculous “false balance,” highlights the very first comment to the piece, which itself plays into the rhetoric far, far more zealously:

What a great article — very informative…

…These people, though, if they are the way you describe them, seem much more progressive in their views toward individual rights vs. government than any of the self-proclaimed “progressives” of whom I am aware.

I will start paying much closer attention. I might have just found a new political home.

In stark contrast, consider these recent questions regarding the same Tea Party movement:

The funny thing is Tea Partiers say they are for more freedom, but most of the real threats to freedom — creeping authoritarianism; an expectation that people are the same or similar; distrust of differences; condemnation of different views as unpatriotic, or, worse, as “traitors;” an increase in unchecked governmental power over citizens; an increasing governmental intrusion into both privacy and the morality of individuals; a continual evisceration of privacy rights and of course calls for a national ‘Id’ card, etc.; an increasingly powerful, creeping corporate oligopoly; an abominable and somewhat radical recent Supreme Court decision that granted corporations the dollar purchased speech rights of private citizens plus even more at the expense of actual, meaningful, individual free speech; sweeping security checks and procedures based solely upon religion or race; etc. – are advocated or supported by a majority of the so called “Tea Party” movement.

At least the newspaper didn’t block the following comment (like voodoo climate author Steven Levitt’ did on his Times blog column as noted here), one that raises a question that still begs an answer: Why was the following ridiculously misleading reference, among others, included in the Times piece?

“Tea Party leaders say they know their complaints about shredded constitutional principles and excessive spending ring hollow to some, given their relative passivity through the Bush years. In some ways, though, their main answer — strict adherence to the Constitution — would comfort every card-carrying A.C.L.U. member.”

That rings a little hollow. I have yet to meet a Tea Party member who doesn’t seem to despise the ACLU. (Though I am sure there are some.) The unrecognized hypocrisy is only scantily referenced by the note on the “relative passivity” through the Bush years, a far more imperial, more autocratic, far more intrusive, and a far more constitutionally violating, presidency than the current administration.

And Glenn Beck? That’s who you note many Tea Partiers are getting their information and spirit from? Maybe one of the biggest propagandists in the Western world since Benito Mussolini, and at any rate one of the most profoundly misinformed, wildly misleading, and exceedingly inflammatory voices of the modern age?

The real questions that need to be asked of and about the Tea Party movement, where a lot of well meaning people may be being mislead, a lot of rhetoric is exceedingly far from the reality, all while there is a lot of misplaced anger and misinformation brewing. (Just see link above about Beck lest you have doubts, as obviously, many who listen to Beck must.)

Some may argue that the Obama Administration is not “far more constitutionally violative,” just “more constitutionally violative.”  But the points above all stand.  As do perhaps some of the potentially more chilling points made by yet another Times reader:

Is the tea party movement just a folksy grass-roots movement or is there something more dangerous brewing here? Apparently tea party activists are motivated by a fear that the federal government is too big and too intrusive. Many tea-partyers are libertarians and some are attracted to the militia movements. The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge are often mentioned.

It’s interesting that this movement was quiescent during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the federal government clearly violated people’s civil rights. It was only after the first black president in history was elected that this movement, which exclusively attracts white people, really got going.

Think back to 1995, when the deadliest act of terrorism prior to the September 11 attacks was perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh was a member of a militia, he was partial to libertarianism, he blamed the federal government for just about everything wrong with society and guess what? The events at Waco and Ruby Ridge were major motivations for his act.

Or think back even farther. In the 1920’s there was a certain political party that started out in Bavaria. A grass-roots party when it started, it attracted people who hated the federal government, and who were partial to conspiracy theories especially ones about Jews. It had no clear leadership until an enterprising fellow named Adolf Hitler came along. The rest, shall we say, is history.

Unfortunately many times more people will read author David Barstow’s false balance and far right kowtowing Tea Party fluff piece, than some random comments.  And that fluff piece is in the New York Times:  ”Fair and balanced” coverage of the Tea Party movement disconnect between assertion and actual fact is often worse elsewhere.

A few things to add here:  First, it is not only a black president, it is a moderate, rather than right or far right wing President (not withstanding that Tea Partiers are convinced he is a “socialist”) who also just happens to be black, and, even less coincidentally, a Democrat.

Second is that these are loose, and potentially somewhat unfair connections, by and of themselves. The real problem is the excessive rhetoric, and its often enormous disconnect with reality. This is something that the media, as exemplified by this leading Times story, is not serving as a check upon, but often as a simple parroting stenographer for.

Third, is a statement I would again reiterate, famously made by the late Louisiana Governor Huey Long.

Fascism, shall come, in the name of Anti Fascism.

As the Times piece noted (emphasis added):

That is often the point when Tea Party supporters say they began listening to Glenn Beck. With his guidance…

Glenn Beck. Here (again, see middle portion) is just a synopsis as of last summer (Beck’s gotten even worse since) of some of the profoundly ignorant, outrageously hypocritical, highly inflammatory, and incredibly misleading assertions an obviously spintastic Glenn Beck has foistered upon both himself, and an increasingly angry listening public – not angry at Beck for misleading them, but angry at others, and other things, real and, often imagined, because of Beck.

That Person.  The person who expresses more anti Fascism fervor — almost everyone who disagrees with Beck is a “Nazi,” by the way — than perhaps anybody in America. And who exhibits many of its underlying tendencies.

Refer back to the famous quote by Huey Long, above, “fascism shall come, in the name of anti-fascism.” Consider last comment block quoted just above. Apply.

Many Tea Partiers are no doubt well meaning, and very earnest, and maybe not always radical right wing folks.  But when the gap between rhetoric and reality gets as large as it is becoming today, and the biggest purveyor of that gap in the United States becomes the de facto leader or “inspiration,” it should be a wake up call to Democrats, Liberals, Independents, Moderate Republicans, and in particular the media, that something simply has to be done in this country to start to lessen the growing gap between rhetoric and reality. A vibrant and secure democracy simply can not function this way.

Maybe it would be helpful, if instead of a kowtowing fluff piece, the New York times engaged in actual journalism, and did a real piece on the issue. But then, some suggest (including myself), it is the breakdown in our media’s role as a Fourth Estate check that, more than anything else, is enabling this increasingly large disparity between rhetoric and fact in America today, and which is, in many ways, starting to become a mirror of it.

It’s not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said that given a choice between having government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, he would “not hesitate” to choose the latter. And he was not talking about simply shouting out in the village square — a vital and separate right also guaranteed by the First Amendment.  (And which today, in its modern technological equivalent, is reflected in the increasing prevalence of Internet “information and opinion” sites and reliance, that ironically enough, because of its ease and immediacy, is serving as a further threat to the media itself) . But it has no check upon it.

As I noted here (also on the New York Times site):

People shouting out in the village square is a key part of democracy, and clearly protected under the First Amendment. But it’s not journalism, and it’s not a substitute for the Fourth Estate.

Despite the fact that the Internet does bring excellent access to information (both correct and incorrect), it is still really nothing more than the modern high tech version of the village square.

And as such popularity and popular will and opinion are in effect tending to serve, more than anything, as the determiner of what is “right” or correct, even when it comes to objective facts — whereas in reality, popular opinion is often wrong, and can not serve as a check upon itself. It is why a fourth estate was so vital.

As these two – a fourth estate merging into just a more sophisticated if not as polarizing version of a parroting stenographer, and a (Internet) popularity arbiter of what is news and what is important and what gets read — merge, we are gradually losing the essence of this critical Fourth Estate check that Thomas Jefferson once thought even more important than government itself.

We are beginning to see the results of this:  With people who say they are for less government intrusion, more individual liberty, yet who actually tend to despise the ACLU; who say they want strict adherence to the “Constitution” yet in most cases supported a Bush Administration that was not only imperial, highly secretive, and completely lacking in accountability, but which employed an extreme “Unitary Executive” theory of the Constitution which gives the Executive the Unilateral Discretion to do whatever he/she wants in the name of “national security,” obviating the basic reason our Constitution was designed in the first place, and exactly what our Founders feared in motivating them to create it; people who say the are for individual liberty and less government services, but who suddenly only rose up in outspoken, and often demonizing anger, after a far right administration left the White House, and was replaced by a moderate Democratic Administration. People who in many cases, are taking up arms, and supporting militias. Not against an autocratic governmental regime, but because what was an increasingly autocratic leaning government regime, has just been replaced by a far more moderate one.  Whom a certain individual has nevertheless convinced many people is “coming after” them.

People who are being led by one of the most manipulatively misinformed, misleading, demonizing, and inflammatory voices in a long, long time. Glenn Beck.

With this person, another world class expert in rhetoric and little else, as their Keynote speaker.
____________

Update: The Cato Institute continues to sometimes kid itself: A few days ago, Vice President Gene Healy writes:

Anyone who’s been to a Tea Party rally knows this is no Astroturf movement. These are ordinary citizens, rightly furious that the federal government has sold the country a junk mortgage on its future, sticking America with an unsustainable debt.

They may be “ordinary citizens.”  But with Glenn Beck as perhaps the prime instigating force — as even the fluffy New York Times article above supports — and with Sarah Palin perhaps not far behind, these are ordinary citizens who have been greatly mislead and have a lot of illusions regarding political processes in America.

Government debt is what they say is a lot of the “fury;” but which programs are they advocating to be cut? And they are more furious about “pork”?  In the middle of the night several years back, after the Bush Administration’s Medicare Administrator (Tom Scully) threatened the program’s chief actuary if he shared his true cost estimates with Congress, one of the biggest corporate handouts in the history of the world was occasioned. At taxpayer expense.

That medicare “prescription drug plan” within just fourteen months of its original passage, was expected to cost well over a trillion dollars.  Most other pork complained about is barely even noticeable in comparison, combined.   Where was the outrage over a one trillion dollar giveaway — count to a thousand, that is how many billions are in a trillion — to corporate interests, at taxpayer expense. Where was the outrage?

To make matters worse, the Bush Administration did it by misleading Congress, as even some leading Republicans have complained about. Where was the outrage?  Where were the Tea Parties?

The closest thing we had to Tea Parties before today — one could call the outrage leveled against the Clinton Administration the tea party precursor — was during the Clinton Administration — an Administration that inherited absolutely gargantuan budget deficits, and enabled by favorable productivity gains due to the widespread implementation of computer technology along with sensible fiscal policies, left the incoming Bush Administration with a surplus.

Whether it is a good idea or a bad one (thought most economists fully urged this action), the current spending at least had the stimulus angle and a belief that this country was in dire economic times.  Where was this outrage when the Bush Administration was doubling our historical outstanding national debt at a time when total military and national security spending was still lower (percentage wise, the only measurement that matters) than during any decade but one in the past half a century?  When the Bush Administration was literally shredding the basic preventative purposes of the Constitution, rendering it void at the Executive’s discretion and thus Articles I and II essentially voluntary?

In the second paragraph Healy does briefly note at least part of this seeming “oddity.” (Which, if one understands the tea party, and the true motivations and mis-perceptions behind it, is really no oddity at all):

Yet there are those who doubt the new activists’ sincerity, asking, in effect, “Where were you when George W. Bush was spending faster than Lyndon Johnson?” It’s a fair question.

It’s also one, among others, that Healy never answers.

The answer can be found, in the post above.  And in the ravings of Glenn Beck, and others.  And in the media kowtowing to this, with, title aside, absurdly fluffy pieces, and the even more inane mainstream media liberals’ blinding dismissal of it all.

I’ve emailed Healy and invited him to comment on the above post, including this update.

Jon Stewart, Torture Advocate John Yoo, and the American Media Today

Perusing through the daily blog posts at the Liberal “American Prospect,” one sees that they don’t get many comments, typically. Whether that is a good or bad thing, is not suggested here. But one very recent post that DID get a lot of commentary was on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show interview with former Bush Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo.

Several of the comments were interesting, to say the least. A few examples:

Sadly, this blog post says more about the American Prospect and Adam Serwer than Jon Stewart. Very disappointing. How about the Prospect doing an in-depth profile and interview with Yoo in your next issue, and doing a better “job” than Stewart could in 8 minutes on a comedy show?
Posted by: Kay Leigh Hagan January 12, 2010 4:26 PM

True that.   At the same time, the Daily Show reaches millions; the American Prospect reaches a small, very largely self selected group that on average is likely going to be highly skeptical of Yohn Yoo’s theories. Thus, instead, how about the American Prospect do an in depth profile interview as suggested in the comment above, and work on turning it into mainstream news?

I think that giving John Stewart a pass because he is “just a comedian” is a bit of an unfair double-standard. When he makes a good point, we don’t give him less credit because he is “just a comedian”. Take Glen Beck for example. He says the most insane things you can imagine, but then qualifies it by saying he’s just a clown, etc, and that you shouldn’t listen to him. At no point does he really expect anyone to not take him seriously. I think it is the same with John Stewart.
Posted by mike January 12, 2010 5:50 PM

Stewart is more than just a comedian. He covers timely news events, and news interviews, all while doing so with, humor, insight, and often additional knowledge.  On the other hand — and often underestimated by those who dismiss Beck as obviously “full of it” — Beck has one of the most popular radio talk shows in America; a news punditry show, with an occasionally funny weird twist, not comedy.  Beck also has a daily news punditry show on “Fox News,” a 24 hour, round the clock news channel – and the most watched cable news channel in America.  Stewart  has a daily comedy show on the 24 hour, round the clock comedy channel.

Stewart may or may not have done a good job going toe to toe with John Yoo on the Constitution.But it’s not like he wildly mislead viewers. He just failed to do a much better job asking, following up on, and getting answers to, tough questions, than most others in the media.  This next comment however, right or wrong, suggests he still did a better job than the general media.

Stewart did a much better job with Yoo than any other so called journalist. Let’s see Yoo on Face The Nation or The Situation room, compare and contrast.
Posted by: John D’oh January 12, 2010 3:38 PM

He asked more than Congress or the Obama Administration has asked.Stewart isn’t a lawyer. And a comedy show isn’t the kind of place where you can try to pin down a slippery and practiced opponent. That’s better done in a court of law.
Posted by: clbrune January 12, 2010 3:41 PM

I agree with most of the people here saying that Jon Stewart is a comedian and that it’s a failure of real news channels that we rely on him so much to get to the real answers. I disagree when the author says the Jon didn’t question Yoo when he said that the outlines of torture had never been addressed by the US – he tried to get Yoo to clarify that multiple times. Yoo did what a lot of politicians do which is broadly acknowledge the questions without really answering them. I’ve definitely see Jon be more combative in interviews however so I’ll give you that.
Posted by: Susan January 12, 2010 3:48 PM

Another echoed this a bit further:

Cripes, people! You can’t expect Stewart to be a one-person truth squad for the nation! He can’t do it alone! As long as network window dressing like the George Stephanopolis’s and the Chuck Todd’s of the world fail to do their job the media will continue to fail us all. We need gutty, intellecutally curious journalists to challenge this sort of thing. What we get is “Herb Tarlek” with a microphone.
Posted by: Mark B January 12, 2010 3:22 PM

A vibrant democracy can not rely upon a one person truth squad. It needs a robust Fourth Estate to serve as a mainstream, non polarizing, non insular, non self selecting, check upon misinformation, group-think, rhetoric run amuck, and government. But for the past ten years (perhaps even fifteen, ever since Glenn Beck’s “Fox” came on the scene), America has been seeing less and less of that, and more and more simple stenographic copying of what people in, or with, power (or microphones), are saying.

Using the specific media examples given in the last comment, here are some facts and context behind former Major Rudy Giuliani’s appearance as a terrorism expert last week with Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Good Morning America, from some random, unknown, and likely audience self selecting blog.

Here is what you get from watching Stephanopoulos himself conducting that interview.[Also note, Giuliani spends most of the time, as if he is one of the writers for the hit Fox TV counter-terrorism series"24," talking about how 30 hours is nothing for an interrogation, and what one "typically gets" out of "30 hours." Perhap's its just me, but, depending upon what led up to it, I'm thinking I could get a lot of information out of Giuliani, or even a caught red handed terrorism suspect, in probably ten hours of total actual questioning.  But there is nothing from the interview to suggest that all questioning of Abdulmutallab has ceased. And if Giuliana has inside information that this is so, he does not share it.]

Here is what you learn about John McCain’s foreign policy expertise during the 2008 Presidential election, from that same random, unknown, blog. Here is what you get from listening to the media and NBC’s Chuck Todd on John McCain.

Jon Stewart, comedian; and in the form of comedy and satire, occasional savior of truth.

But while close, in some eyes, to a one man truth squad for the nation, no match for John Yoo: Apologist for and proponent of state sanctioned torture, and primover behind the theory of Executive Unilateral Discretion regardless of existing Statute or Bill or Rights, in the Executive’s unilateral view of “national security.”