Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece

Times columnist blasted by ‘nasty left’ for climate change piece, by Chris Perez.

“After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” Stephens tweeted Friday afternoon, as the hateful messages kept rolling in.

“Go eat dog d—s,” fumed one Twitter user.

“When is the Times going to get rid of you?” another asked.

Stephens even managed to tick off fellow journalists.

“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive twat too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo.

“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed Eve Peyser, politics writer at Vice.

“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she said.

In the column, [Bret] Stephens never states that he believes climate change is a farce. He simply asserts that people should look at claims from both supporters and deniers, in the attempt to get all the facts.

He’s accurate:

“Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he writes.

“That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.” …

“Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts,” he adds. “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.”

New York Times Readers Are Canceling Subscriptions Over Climate-Denying Writer, by Carla Herrenia.

The New York Times just hired Bret Stephens, a conservative writer who identifies as a “climate agnostic” ? infuriating many readers who say the paper is going against its mission to cover climate change.

Now, scientists are rallying people against the Times and its new hire. …

The Times’ decision to hire Stephens, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist, was part of the paper’s efforts to expand its range of political views. But for many, Stephens’ hire was a backward step for a paper that had previously declared climate change to be one of the most pressing modern topics.

And Mann wasn’t the only scientist to denounce the paper’s decision. Ken Caldeira, a Stanford climate researcher, and physics professor Stefan Rahmstorf, an ocean science fellow with the American Geophysical Union, both wrote letters to Times editors alerting them of their canceled subscriptions.

They are really not going to like my upcoming book.