As Twitchy reported, The Guardian decided to direct its reporters to drop terms like “climate change” and “climate skeptic” and adopt the more alarmist and loaded “climate emergency” and “client science denier.” You can’t be skeptical of climate change — sorry, climate emergency —research; you can only be a denier of climate science … like the climate science The Guardian published in 2004 saying Britain will have a Siberian climate by 2020.

So it’s sad to see Bret Stephens, one of The New York Times’ “conservative” columnists, still being label a climate denier more than two years after his debut column, which reportedly caused waves of readers to slam the Times’ phone lines to cancel their subscriptions.

It seems Intercept contributing writer and Type Media Center fellow Kate Aronoff isn’t one to forgive and forget:

Wow, The Times has no business giving him a platform?

Like we said back in April 2017Stephens didn’t dispute at all that climate change is real and man-made; his crime was to caution against “claiming total certainty about the science”:

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.

It’s right there — “None of this is to deny climate change” — along with a warning not to let sketchy studies become married to political movements, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ Green New Deal, which is a Trojan horse for socialism.

But the word was already out: Stephen was a climate change denier and had to be shunned for his heresy. He even wrote a follow-up column trying to cool down people’s tempers, but it was too late. Obama bro Ben Rhodes said The Times might as well have hired a flat-earther.

Again: “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences.”