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.

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!

Nope.

“Science deniers.”

Even some New York Times editors are embarrassed by their own readers’ mad scramble to unsubscribe.

[ … puts down iPhone, skims column, picks up iPhone …]

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.

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.

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: