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.
I'm on hold with the @nytimes trying to cancel. They told me they're slammed with people canceling subscriptions because of Bret Stephens.
— Sean Kent (@seankent) April 29, 2017
wow brave pic.twitter.com/oQMa6fIc1K
— T. Becket Adams (@BecketAdams) April 29, 2017
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!
@seankent @nytimes People just don't get what "op-Ed" means I guess lol
— The Resistance (@DStewart541) April 29, 2017
Nope.
@seankent @nytimes I spent 1 hr and 10 mins on hold! ? I was nice to the girl, but she certainly got an earful! NO CANCEL BUTTON ONLINE? Good one NYT!
— Kevin McCormick (@KMMPDX) April 29, 2017
@seankent @nytimes 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
@seankent @Herring_NBA @nytimes 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 Thomas (@VexedShelly) April 28, 2017
@seankent @nytimes Just cancelled as well. Tried to tell me his hire was abt hearing every side. Science deniers don't need any more platforms.
— Jonathan Revell (@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
@charlescwcooke According to the NYTimes very smart, very able readership, apparently.
— Robert Venosa (@robert_venosa) April 29, 2017
@charlescwcooke The real accusation is heresy, though they dare not say that.
— just_one_thing (@just_one_thing7) April 29, 2017
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
@charlescwcooke 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
— My Place (@MyPlace4U) April 29, 2017
@charlescwcooke 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
@charlescwcooke @molratty Today's progressives are totalitarian. They brook no dissent. On anything. Look what they did to scientists like Pielke and Curry.
— PS (@PS0302) April 29, 2017
@charlescwcooke For a bunch of supposed science lovers, they certainly are dogmatic
— Casey (@casusdelicti01) April 29, 2017
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
— Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) April 29, 2017
@jonathanweisman @BretStephensNYT 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?
— Tracie Bowles (@tracie_bowles) April 29, 2017
@tracie_bowles @BretStephensNYT You didn't read the column.
— Jonathan Weisman (@jonathanweisman) April 29, 2017
[ … puts down iPhone, skims column, picks up iPhone …]
@jonathanweisman @BretStephensNYT You mean the comparison re overconfidence in climate science and hubris of the Clinton campaign? Yeah… I read it. thx.
— Tracie Bowles (@tracie_bowles) April 29, 2017
@tracie_bowles @BretStephensNYT It was an invitation to discussion, to spark interest in climate change. I'm amazed that the response has been to refuse discussion.
— Jonathan Weisman (@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.
@jonathanweisman @tracie_bowles @BretStephensNYT 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 (@NoceraBV) 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.
@jonathanweisman @tracie_bowles @BretStephensNYT The discussion he wants is one geared toward climate change denial. You know this. Stop with the bullshit.
— dave fox (@davefoxred) April 29, 2017
@jonathanweisman @tracie_bowles @BretStephensNYT 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
