-
Farewell to the Spectator
December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
Tentative Praise for Ryan’s New Bipartisan Medicare Plan
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
-
The Day Ahead: Thursday, December 15
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
-
Examiner for Romney, National Review Against Gingrich
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
-
Paul Ryan to Introduce New Medicare Plan with Democrat Ron Wyden
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Without getting into the larger conservatives vs. conservatives argument, two points about your item on David Frum.
One is that it’s a bit over the top to say that Frum, aside from his other comments on conservatives, “smeared” Levin. It’s not clear from your post whether you knew this, but that Harper’s piece you mention was quoting from a long post Frum wrote on his website. If you read Frum’s original piece, his criticism was mostly directed at Andy McCarthy and Kathryn Jean Lopez, not Levin. And certainly he didn’t “smear” Levin in the sense that he wrote anything inaccurate.
The second is that the context in which Frum wrote his post is important: originally Jim Manzi (a conservative) attacked Levin on the Corner in response to accusations that conservatives are unable to think critically about where they get their ideas and news. By chastising Manzi for calling out Levin, McCarthy and Lopez confirmed those accusations, whether or not they were justified in the first place. So if you, not realizing this chain of events, now go after Frum for disagreeing with McCarthy and Lopez… well, we’re at risk of feeding right back into the idea that conservatives are not allowed to contradict other conservatives. Unless, of course, you reject the idea that Frum is a conservative entirely.
View all comments (25) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Joseph Lawler
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/29/re-david-frum-there-he-goes-ag
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Obama’s Drone War
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 12:09PM
Ahh, so per Mr. Lawler, conservatives are not allowed to defend themselves from those who claim to be conservatives themselves.
That Manzi didn't even bother to read Levin's book---just one chapter on his pet enthusiasm---and that Manzi holds liberal views on that particular issue matter not one whit to Mr. Lawler.
The defense of Levin---by Levin and by those of us who agree with him---is not evidence of enforcing a "smelly little orthodoxy"---Manzi has not been fired but only argued against.
Frum et al want Levin drummed out of polite company.
So who's close-minded?
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 12:12PM
Mr Lawler also fails to note that Frum was comparing NRO unfavorably to Communist China's murderous regime.
But I suppose he was only speaking "truth to power". I'm sure Frum was just as publicly critical of the Chinese regime on their soil as he was of National Review on their dime.
Missy| 4.29.10 @ 3:22PM
It's absurd to defend the fat-faced Frum: With friends like him who needs enemies?
Hi, Teflon, how are you today?
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 4:26PM
Very well, Missy---and good to see you. How are you?
The funny thing is that Frum claims to be all about Republican electoral victory and yet spends all of his time shooting at the conservatives who make up the base.
A guy who sells less than 5,000 copies for his manifesto is simply not an influential conservative. So what does the sniping accomplish besides earning Frum Strange New Respect?
Rubeczech| 4.29.10 @ 12:24PM
Actually, having read the whole thread about the back-and-forth criticisms on NRO -- the issue wasn't that Manzi contradicted Levin -- it was the (as McCarthy phrased it) DEFCON 5 approach of nastiness that Manzi took. All who commented were careful to note that it's fine to disagree, but civility is also a virtue.
Derek Leaberry| 4.29.10 @ 12:29PM
As Frum famously smeared Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak and lesser known paleo-conservatives back in 2003(for being right about the Iraq War), I guess he's an expert in the art of smearing. Of course, Frum wrote his 2003 smear in the pay of National Review, so you could say that National Review are experts in paying for smears. If Frum and the National Review crowd have a smearing contest, so be it and let the rest of us be entertained. Smear away!
Nate Washburn| 4.29.10 @ 1:41PM
Very good post Joseph. I was wondering if Jeffrey Lord had actually read the post he linked, because his commentary sure indicated that he had not.
Jim Manzi was tough, but I really didn't find his critique unfair. Civility is indeed a virtue, but I think most would agree it's a virtue that Mark Levin struggles with too.
Frum's piece on Buchanan and Novak, or at least the headline the editors chose for the cover of the magazine (not sure the piece was actually that inflammatory), was really bad, but that's not the issue here.
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 2:25PM
Yes, that David Frum sure is moderate and civil in tone:
"How wonderful to return to a free country, I thought as I stepped off the plane from Beijing at Washington Dulles. No more censorship, no more official lies, no more kowtowing to high officials who gained power by their mindless repetition of party dogma…
Then alas I opened my browser and read the dump-on-Manzi comments on NRO’s The Corner. Manzi had deviated from the One Correct Way of Mark Levin Thought, and all his former colleagues had been summoned together to Denounce and Struggle Against Him."
Because we all know National Review is worse than the Communist Chinese.
Thank goodness David Frum's standing in front of their tanks!
Pingback| 4.29.10 @ 1:46PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Re: David Frum: There H links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
linda| 4.29.10 @ 2:24PM
I don't dispute Frum's bonfides as a conservative but he always seemed to be more of a Canadian conservative than American.
bmatkin| 4.30.10 @ 1:27AM
As a Canadian conservative, I dispute his credentials. We used to have a branch of the Conservative party called "Red Tories", the equivalent of RINOs in the U.S. He is one of those.
We have almost expunged these leeches from the conservative side of Canada and are actually ahead of the Republicans getting rid of the RINOs.
Don't get me wrong I'm not in favor of any lock step definition of conservatives, but Frum violates just about every principle. He comes by it honestly, his mother was a pretty good commentator for the far left CBC in Canada.
zombyboy | 4.29.10 @ 2:39PM
I've spent a little time defending Frum (even though I don't agree with him on some specifics) and will do so again in the future. The histrionics over him, essentially, losing his job with the AEI was overdone, though. They have every right to want more for their money and every right to decide that the money would be better spent elsewhere. There is no tenure on that kind of a position.
Anyway, I think that Mr. Lawler here is missing a few points:
First- Manzi's original post about Levin was nasty in tone. He could have made his points without having the very personal slant on the attack. Without acknowledging that, I think the rest kind of goes out of focus.
Second- In what way did McCarthy and Lopez confirm the accusation? They didn't drum Manzi out of the site, they didn't say he didn't have a right to voice dissent (in fact, there tends to be an interesting amount of dissent in the Corner). Room for dissent and discourse flows in both directions--what the Corner does regularly is prove that there isn't a monoculture on the right, in fact. Read the commentary on Puerto Rican statehood and you'll see that right off.
What you seem to be saying is that if conservatives want to prove that their can be criticism and debate internally they must passively allow that critique. That's an odd way to view the situation.
Which is why I disagree with Mr. Washburn above (although agreeing that Levin also struggles (regularly) with civility). I didn't think that Manzi's critique was unfair (whether I agreed with it or not), but neither did I think that dissenting from his critique or even noting the nasty tone was unfair.
To prove my point, I'm happily anticipating harsh criticism for my reading of the situation. Fire at will!
Eric(OfConservativeMind)| 4.29.10 @ 3:50PM
A very well reasoned post. I currently don't find myself wanting to argue with that! Or does that undermine the point... lol.
I believe your summary of the situation is an excellent one. I find myself agreeing more with Levin than Frum, but that is certainly a matter of bias. My exposure to Frum has been very limited, while I've been listening to Levin's very popular talk show for the past year.
While I agree with the author of this post(http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/04/manzi-versus-levin-at-nro.html) at ReihlWorldView on the point of principle verus pragmatism in conservatism, I don't know enough about NRO to agree with or argue against his statement about NRO as a vanity press. heh. Conservatives should be allowed to disagree and argue(civilly) amongst each other, so long as we can attempt a united front against the Statism that has crept so long upon our flanks. God bless the U.S.A.!
WJ| 4.30.10 @ 1:32PM
I would like to add that zombyboy's post is a good on
"By chastising Manzi for calling out Levin, McCarthy and Lopez confirmed those accusations,.." Mr. Lawler, don't you think that this statement is a bit of a Catch 22?
If McCarthy and Lopez disagree (and they were not mean at all) with Manzi they are closed minded? But if Manzi disagrees ( I don't agree he "attacked") with Levin, he is showing how conservatives are open-minded? Not getting this logic.
John W.| 4.29.10 @ 2:51PM
"Unless, of course, you reject the idea that Frum is a conservative entirely. "
Wait a minute.
Frum's a conservative? Who knew? Why weren't the rest of us told?
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 3:14PM
Oh, he must be a conservative, John---how else would he be a candidate for "The Left Wing Media's Favorite Conservative" along with Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, and Ross Douthat?
Wait a minute---you don't think----?
Ran / Si Vis Pacem | 4.29.10 @ 4:01PM
John... In defense of Frum, he has on occasion expressed opinions in accord with conservative principles. ( Such as the clear need for strong federal environmental legislation to reduce anthropogenic global warming, for one. Oh, wait... )
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 4:16PM
And Frum, like any good conservative, believes we need bigger, not smaller government.
Oh, wait....
Teflon93| 4.29.10 @ 5:24PM
And like any good conservative, Frum wants us to support abortion.
Hey, waitaminute...
Well, at least he's rock solid on conservatives' time-honored views of marriage and family. Except for urging us to embrace homosexual rights. Wait....
Frum says he's "a pretty conservative guy."
That should be good enough for us---especially given the outstanding electoral success of John McCain.
Tim| 4.29.10 @ 3:02PM
The David frumious Bandersnatch, that is...
"'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
- Lewis Carrol, Jabberwocky.
Nolann Ryann| 4.29.10 @ 3:59PM
Good grief Lawler you've totally mischaracterized the entire kerfluffle over Manzi's original diatribe and yes it was a diatribe against Levin. Levin is able to defend his work quite easily from the lazy slipshod rant Manzi trotted out. Quite the opposite of how you and Frum characterized the defense by Lopez and McCarthy makes me ask you; Did you even read the back and forth? Because if you did you saw both Lopez and McCarthy disagree using facts and decorum. While Manzi barely offered a defense of his spittle. Oh yeah, Frum is no conservative. He's been a poser and is finally exposed. Your rush to his defense makes me wonder.
Ron Leon| 4.29.10 @ 5:22PM
I don't think Lopez and McCarthy used facts to dismiss Manzi's post. They merely said it was "deeply disappointing" and "nasty". I'm pretty sure the facts are with Manzi. And, does anyone really need to come to Mark Levin's defense? I'm pretty sure he can handle someone who disagrees with the way he presents global warming in his book.
By the way, here's Mr. Manzi's defense. I'd say it's more than a spittle.
Kathryn / Andy / Mr. Levin,
I accept that it is fair to characterize my tone in the “Epistemic Closure” post as scathing. I apologize (sincerely) if this was offensive to you. All I can say about it is that I was calling a spade a spade as I saw it.
Mr. Levin,
Thank you for the reply. I’m happy to give you the last word, and simply invite readers to review both posts and draw whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate.
Andy,
I read the Richard Lindzen Wall Street Journal op-ed that you reference. While I might not have chosen the same words as Professor Lindzen in places, there is very little of scientific substance in that piece with which I disagree. In fact, I’ve made some version of most of the relevant points, often in almost identical language, and often right here at NR and NRO.
I’ll start by repeating my characterization of Lindzen’s views on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) from the post, and compare this to what Lindzen said in a prior WSJ op-ed.
In my post I said:
Richard Lindzen, a very serious climate scientist who disputes the estimated magnitude of the greenhouse effect, but not its existence…
In the Wall Street Journal, in 2006, Lindzen wrote:
[T]here has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas — albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.
Lindzen has argued for some time that the expected impact of CO2 on temperature — this is a rough definition of “climate sensitivity” — is lower than do most climate scientists, and that therefore we should not be alarmed, but he clearly acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is important to keep in mind as we proceed through the current op-ed and discussion. Let me take it one piece at a time.
The first several paragraphs of his current op-ed make the point that the so-called science underlying much of the historical temperature record, and the use of historical data to establish a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, is unreliable, and should not be the basis for establishing policy.
Or, as I put it in 2009:
I argued over two years ago that: 1) Long-term climate reconstruction was one of the two key trouble spots in climate science; 2) mathematically sophisticated critics had debunked the methodology used to reconstruct long-term climate evidence that is the basis for the famous “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures; and 3) excellent evidence had been presented to the U.S. Senate that, in climate reconstruction, academic peer review meant, in effect, agreement among a tiny, self-selected group of experts. The root problem here is not the eternal perfidy of human nature, but the fact that we can’t run experiments on history to adjudicate disputes, which makes this less like chemistry or physics than like economics or political science.
Today’s Lindzen op-ed proceeds to consider the science around projections of warming impacts. I’ll compare the key points in it to what I’ve written.
First, Lindzen:
The IPCC’s position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and is essentially simply that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man's emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it is purely subjective.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
The current summary indicates that the IPCC is “90% confident” that we have caused global warming. The summary further implies that if we double the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the IPCC is 90 percent confident that we will cause further warming of 3° C +/- 1.5° C.
But what do these statements of confidence really mean? They are not derived mathematically from the type of normal probability distributions that are used when, for example, determining the margin of error in a political poll (say,+ /- 5%). IPCC estimates of “confidence” are really what we would mean by this word in everyday conversation—a subjective statement of opinion. This is a very big deal, since bounding the uncertainty in climate predictions is central to deciding what, if anything, we should do about them.
Second, Lindzen:
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.…
But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees … throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the ‘feedback’ effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research.”
Who would guess from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming. That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
The most important scientific debate is really about these feedback effects. Feedbacks are not merely details to be cleaned up in a picture that is fairly clear. The base impact of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere with no feedback effects is on the order of 1°C, while the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus estimate of the impact of doubling CO2 is about 3°C. The feedback effects dominate the prediction. As we’ve seen, however, feedback effects run in both directions. Feedback could easily dampen the net impact so it ends up being less than 1°C. In fact, the raw relationship between temperature increases and CO2 over the past century supports that idea.
Over the past several decades, teams in multiple countries have launched ongoing projects to develop large computer models that simulate the behavior of the global climate in order to account for feedback effects. While these models are complex, they are still extremely simplistic as compared with the actual phenomenon of global climate. Models have successfully replicated historical climates, but no model has ever demonstrated that it can accurately predict the climate impact of CO2 emissions over a period of many years or decades.
Climate models generate useful projections for us to consider, but the reality is that nobody knows with meaningful precision how much warming we will experience under any emissions scenario. Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.
Third, Lindzen:
[T]he proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
In summary, then, the best available models indicate that 1) global warming is a problem that will have only a marginal impact on the world economy, and 2) it is economically rational only to reduce slightly this marginal impact through global carbon taxes. Further, practical knowledge of the world indicates that 1) such a global carbon-tax regime would be very unlikely ever to be implemented, and 2) even if it were implemented, the theoretical benefits it might create would probably be more than offset by the economic drag it would produce.
Why, if I am in such close agreement, am I not just going along with the “don’t worry about AGW” line? Because of uncertainty. The problem of the lack of confidence highlighted in the first Lindzen quote from the current op-ed (restated in concept as lack of model certainty in the second quote) is crucial. It is the basis of the sophisticated argument for emissions mitigation.
Lindzen is one expert scientist who forecasts very small net warming as a result of emissions. Most relevant scientists predict quantitatively larger effects. Put yourself in the position of a senior government leader tasked with making real decisions that affect the lives of millions. What would you do if faced with a matter of technical disagreement on such a quantitative-prediction question among experts? The sensible thing to do is to gather together a group of the leading subject-matter experts to produce a review of known science, and subject it to review by a standing body of leading scientists who are not directly in the field in order to minimize both groupthink and opportunities for self-dealing. In America, this in effect describes the U.S. National Research Council (NRC).
In 1979, prior to any accusations of politicization of which I am aware, the NRC convened exactly such a process, and estimated that climate sensitivity is about 3C. This estimate has been consistently affirmed by each of the U.N. IPCC Assessment Reports over the past 20 years. It turns out (as I explore in detail in a Corner post from last week rebutting Paul Krugman) that the amount of warming that would be implied by this climate sensitivity doesn’t justify the costs of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, or other emissions-mitigation schemes.
However, it is also the case — for the basic reasons that both Lindzen and I reference — that there is substantial uncertainty about this and other related estimates. Thus, the legitimate risk from climate change is that our current best forecast is wrong; more specifically that climate change will be worse than current forecasts. In a post from earlier this week at the Corner, I go into excruciating detail about why the argument from uncertainty, however, is unpersuasive in supporting aggressive mitigation programs.