Dwight D. Eisenhower Smacks Down The NYT’s Ross “Doughboy” Douthat

By
October 13, 2010

Yes, there is nothing like being "constrained by elite sentiment," which Ross Douthat is, whether he realizes it, or not. Funny, I've always imagined his type more enjoying being constrained by leather, ropes, or even chains, perhaps – far more than sentiment, anyway. But I digress.

The debate over climate change isn’t unusual in this regard. On issues ranging from the death penalty to (at least until recently) immigration, America’s major political parties generally tend to be more responsive to public opinion, and less constrained by elite sentiment, than their counterparts in Europe.

As the nonsense aka anthropomorphic global warming has melted down faster than a would be Tahitian glacier – top scientists resigning posts, 30,000 scientists abandoning it in one clip, and the UN and scientists globally embarrassing themselves in what some call the greatest scientific scandal of our age, would be elite pundits like Ross Douthat are forced to maintain a distorted worldview not much larger than a test tube, as it allows them to always believe that they are still correct and somehow above it all looking down. 

Yet, I'd wager the young man knows relatively little, if anything, of pure science himself. Notice how, in his words, for instance, these self-professed elites have gone from proved, to beyond reasonable doubt, to consensus, to sturdy consensus, or even, apparently, now "pretty sturdy consensus" in Douthat's view. There is no place for statements with so many modifiers in the language of actual science. But Douthat needs to rely on them to, in the end, not say anything the least bit scientific.

He's simply conveying and re-conveying the same misguided and even ignorant, though certainly elitist, sentiment that constrains him. There's no room for words like sentiment in science, either, dammit, Douthat. If you are going to pretend to talk science, you could at least have the courtesy to use the straightforward language of it. But, see, if he did that, he'd trip himself up, having no nice words to dress up and hide his ignorance.

Overall, I much prefer the American approach, populist excesses and all. (It helps in this case, of course, that I’m deeply skeptical about the efficacy of climate change legislation anyway.) But there’s no denying that its left the G.O.P. on the wrong side — and increasingly so — of a pretty sturdy scientific consensus.

Douthat is doing nothing different than what Dwight David Eisenhower knew he would some years ago. Thank God these elites keep most of their prattle amongst themselves, allowing the majority of us to slip by without being forced to pay much, if any, genuine attention to it.

An intellectual is a man who takes more words than necessary to tell more than he knows. ~ Dwight D. Eisenhower

Please consider supporting RiehlWorldView with a small donation
, by shopping at Amazon via our Associate link in the sidebar or by re-distributing our content across the Web with the options below. Thank you.


Comments:
  1. Moobs says:

    douschehat wonders why the repubs do not believe in climate change?
    oh i do but it isn’t the climate change your thinking of

  2. mark l. says:

    “But there’s no denying that its left the G.O.P. on the wrong side — and increasingly so — of a pretty sturdy scientific consensus.”
    the two largest consenus mistakes in history were:
    the earth is flat.
    the sun revolves around the earth.
    the irony in that the two grandest ‘scientific consensus’ mistakes were in understanding the nature of the planet, and now scientific consenus is being used again…
    what was the impediment to accepting that the earth goes around the sun?
    deeply held religious beliefs.
    liberals in their effort to correct this mistake, have told themselves there is no god, and they now believe that their understanding is independent of religion. They don’t understand how funny they really are.
    even if all they say is true, and that they can interpret data which suggests massive destruction in 100 years, they refuse to look at the very closed system of economics, and realize that far more likely economic doom approaches, in a third of the time frame they are working with.
    I can read a hockey stick…look at our pending govt outlays against revenue.

  3. mark l. says:

    the question I would put to libs…
    even if we keep our carbon production constant, where is china in 20 years?
    would they go to war with china, over their carbon production?
    they better start having babies…carbon producing, fossil fuel sucking babies.

  4. Moobs says:

    no the sun revolves around obama and his teleprompter :lol:

  5. mark l. says:

    if libs are serious, but they aren’t…
    the biggest bang for their bucks is providing carbon capture devices for china and india.
    it would be one tenth the cost of reducing chinese/indian carbon production than pursuing the effort domestically, with 20 times the effectiveness.
    the long and short of it is that if the libs were serious, they need to collect money and tech, and spend it outside the view of their ivory towers.
    we could cut china check for jobs and industry at the next nobel peace prize awards. wouldn’t it be grand?
    maybe we should cut back on research grants for global warming, since the science has already been proven? why are we spending money to further demonstrate what they already know to be true?
    cut research, and put the money in implementation. should the effort ever be made, I’d love to see the research money completely dry up.

  6. alwaysfiredup says:

    Ha. Dan, it’s anthropogenic global warming, unless we are endowing global warming with humman characteristics. Oh, that sad, sad global warming! It’s getting very lonely.

  7. mark l. says:

    in the grand scheme…
    the ‘civilized carbon fearing govts’ are in the process of increasing their debt, and their economic disadvantage with the world’s largest polluter, which is growing at seven times their rate?
    i have even seen the argument put forth:
    they have the right to ‘catch up’ to the carbon pollution of the modern countres, as if, when they reach a point of equality, they’ll just turn off the spiggots?
    scientists?
    religious dolts, waiting on a hill for the carbon rapture.

  8. rk says:

    One easy way to tell that warmers or alarmists are really unserious people is that they are almost uniformly against nuclear.
    If they had the brains and the fear of CO2 that they profess, they would be hectoring everyone for more research into advanced nuclear
    But no, they bitterly cling to a bad Jane Fonda movie for their info about nukes, and then dream about windmills.
    These people are easy prey for scammers…hey, let’s build a few more windmills! Or, I’ll paint your roof white!
    in an advanced society people like Ross would be shunned…too primitive.

  9. mark l. says:

    i’m with you rk, on the nuclear.
    that we even have a federal govt, depriving states of the right to accept the gifts of prometheus, under the pretense that it is in their behalf, is rather demonstrative of their impediment to progress.

  10. JEM says:

    What I find most notable about that piece is that ten hours later the NY Times does not appear to have approved a single comment.
    Douthat, of course, is spouting nonsense.
    His “pretty sturdy scientific consensus” has been collapsing for the past year. The voters of this country have noticed, and are now ending the careers of whole boatloads of climate-pimping politicians of both parties and widely varying political stripes.

  11. mark l. says:

    i wonder if douthat’s interview, (or independnet research of the nyt) determined that he wouldn’t make fun of agw.
    it’s not like they didn’t pick and choose someone they ‘wanted’.

  12. Montjoie says:

    Strange — I posted a comment on that article yesterday and it still says it’s not up and there are no other comments. Hmm. Does this guy not take comments?

  13. mark l. says:

    “Does this guy not take comments?”
    trust me, they do. post em?nah. read them. obsessively.
    take egos like that, and give something that reflects their work, ie comments.
    they self google at least 3 hours of the day. the spend another two googling what people say about their coworkers.
    given that they pump out two pieces a week, which looks like it took 15 minutes to write on the back of a school bus, they have the time.

  14. fgmorley says:

    Great quote from President Eisenhower.

  15. Mook says:

    I work with mechanical and chemical engineers whose CFD models often miss by 300% or more compared to empirical field measurements for very limited studies of things like flow out of a nozzzle, where there exists well defined physical properties and boundary conditions. Yet “scientists” (many/most of whom are not engineers) proclaim with great confidence that their atmospheric models, with infinitely more unknowns, have established a definitive cause and effect relationship between between man-made effluents and global temperature patterns. They’re either flat out lying, or they’re drawing unjustified conclusions way outside their field of expertise/experience, or they’re bought by the climate change lobby and the grant $$ that comes with it. There is NO WAY they can establish with any degree of certainty the cause and effect relationship that they’re claiming with their models. No way in hell.. and it’s fraudulent for them to claim otherwise. If their science is so “sturdy”, let’s see their models and the assumptions made within so that we can test and evaluate the predictive accuracy.
    I’ve seen zero accreditation as to what establishes a ‘climate scientist’, and most of the published studies that I’ve read rely on statistical data not engineering physics, statistical data which by definitition is limited to the last 50 years or so at best due to changes in instrumentation accuracy over the years and other unknowns such as temperature changes due to changing population densities and associated highrise buildings, manufacturing, vehicles, etc.. When the truth comes out in full, if it ever does, global warming will turn out to be the largest fraud in our lifetime and those who participated in it need to be ‘named and shamed’ for the rest of their lives

  16. mark l. says:

    “There is NO WAY they can establish with any degree of certainty the cause and effect relationship that they’re claiming with their models.”
    but al gore’s movie had hurricanes on the cover, and we have hurricanes.
    even the weather channel is playing “the day after tomorrow”, and they have three massive hurricanes, turning into one giant one.
    al had prophesized extreme weather patterns, and now, we have extreme weather patterns.
    I repent for the death and destruction of the tides rising a foot in the next fifty years. Imagining all those beach front houses in cali being evacuated 10 feet back from the shoreline…the madness.