As Twitchy reported, progressives were triggered when Bret Stephens, the new conservative columnist for the New York Times, published as his first piece a column about climate change. “Go eat dog dicks” was the considered response of Rolling Stone’s Jesse Berney.
Keep in mind that Stephens didn’t dispute that climate change is real and man-made; his crime was to caution against “claiming total certainty about the science,” which isn’t scientific at all:
None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.
Whoa, that’s some serious climate change denial right there! But there has to be room for some skepticism, right?
That sure sounds like heresy to us, and apparently it did to a lot of subscribers as well. Last we’d heard, Stephens hadn’t been burned at the stake, but subscribers were burning up the phone lines at the Times rushing to cancel.
https://twitter.com/seankent/status/858117328143212544
https://twitter.com/BecketAdams/status/858351251062484994
So the new guy publishes one opinion piece in which he advises, “Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.” COME ON, MAN … asserting one’s moral superiority is the entire point!
People just don't get what "op-Ed" means I guess lol
— Tabula Rasa ?️?❤?️? (@DStewart541) April 29, 2017
Nope.
https://twitter.com/KMMPDX/status/858124444752936960
Recommended
Perfect! By the way you can go online if you have a digital subscription and cancel there. I hope that will teach them a lesson.
— Arriadna ?? (@Arriadna) April 29, 2017
They hung up on me.
— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) April 29, 2017
The #NewYorkTimes really really really sucks. They won't even let you cancel your subscription. #BretStephens #climatechange #FlatEarthers
— Shelly T (@VexedShelly) April 28, 2017
Just cancelled as well. Tried to tell me his hire was abt hearing every side. Science deniers don't need any more platforms.
— Jonathan (@jonathanRevell) April 29, 2017
“Science deniers.”
Writing “none of this is to deny climate change” and describing “human influence on that warming” as “indisputable” makes one a “denier”?
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) April 29, 2017
https://twitter.com/robert_venosa/status/858427634119847937
https://twitter.com/just_one_thing7/status/858428936434229248
Specifics of what @BretStephensNYT wrote don't matter. Those throwing a tantrum are so insecure that they can't tolerate any disagreement. https://t.co/Wm1jSU4qDS
— (((AG))) (@AG_Conservative) April 29, 2017
You can't question any little aspect of it or even ask for proof or they'll label you a denier. It's the the liberal fascist tactics
— T-Covfefe (@MyPlace4U) April 29, 2017
You will bend the knee fully and recite the proper recitation of belief, or you will not be taken to do so at all
— Wretched Esq (@WretchedEsq) April 29, 2017
https://twitter.com/PS0302/status/858428788564086784
https://twitter.com/casusdelicti01/status/858431508788412416
The inability to handle disagreement is a cancer on our culture and politics. WTF is wrong with people? https://t.co/aIrEgElLv9
— Ken Gardner (@KenGardner11) April 29, 2017
Even some New York Times editors are embarrassed by their own readers’ mad scramble to unsubscribe.
This is a liberal embarrassment. You don't even have to read @BretStephensNYT column but you can't stand thought of a conservative presence. https://t.co/XZHSj15tIX
— (((JonathanWeisman))) (@jonathanweisman) April 29, 2017
NYT has had plenty of conservative voices. I'm fine with those. Not fine with co-signing nonsense. What's next – a flat earth columnist?
— Enough Is Enough (@TayTay_Bow) April 29, 2017
You didn't read the column.
— (((JonathanWeisman))) (@jonathanweisman) April 29, 2017
[ … puts down iPhone, skims column, picks up iPhone …]
You mean the comparison re overconfidence in climate science and hubris of the Clinton campaign? Yeah… I read it. thx.
— Enough Is Enough (@TayTay_Bow) April 29, 2017
It was an invitation to discussion, to spark interest in climate change. I'm amazed that the response has been to refuse discussion.
— (((JonathanWeisman))) (@jonathanweisman) April 29, 2017
We appreciate Weisman standing up for Stephens, but come on … those who don’t work inside the New York Times building aren’t amazed one bit.
I'm not amazed. Liberal readers have been building up to this for weeks. Anyone who doesn't fall in line is a "denier." Pathetic, really.
— Joe Nocera (@opinion_joe) April 29, 2017
Forget the “democracy dies in darkness” nonsense — if this is the reaction of people who actually read the column, it’s reading comprehension that was allowed to die in full daylight.
https://twitter.com/davefoxred/status/858452994639237121
Would you be okay with "sparking interest" in the shape of the Earth? Why is this different?
— SNF (@Superninfreak) April 29, 2017
Guys, one more time: “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.”
Nope … Stephens still left way too much room for the deniers to squeeze their way in to the discussion.
* * *
Related:
Monty Python’s Eric Idle wants to put climate change deniers on trial in a world court https://t.co/AXwSMEr19C
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 16, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member