Bret Stephens, one of the New York Times’ newest conservative columnists, endured a wrath of anger from liberals on Friday who proceeded to meltdown after his first column for the Times stated that “climate change” isn’t certain.
The general idea of Stephens’ column was that the science behind “climate change” is not certain — despite claims from climate change alarmists that it is — and that when uncertain science is deemed certain it undermines science as a whole.
“Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong,” Stephens wrote.
“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,” he explained.
To put it lightly, liberals and climate change alarmists lost their minds. They proceeded to lambaste Stephens on Twitter:
1. Bret Stephens first op-ed for the NYT is an abomination https://t.co/X6Juy3jyHh
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) April 28, 2017
Someone, somewhere, thought a Bret Stephens op-ed was worthy of a push notification. That person was wrong. pic.twitter.com/flLj393At2
— Felix Salmon (@felixsalmon) April 28, 2017
The Truth Is More Important Now Than Ever, Except If You're Reading Our Op-Ed Page pic.twitter.com/1bWM9IPM1k
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) April 28, 2017
It's really a shame what has happened to this once-great newspaper. https://t.co/GAqOJx6hUd
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) April 28, 2017
Democracy dies in the darkness. So, too, the climate. Thanks, Times, for spreading fake opinion. https://t.co/y22I0b987N
— David Corn (@DavidCornDC) April 28, 2017
Well this is considerably worse than I had dared imagine. Dimwitted, ridden w/ caricature & basic misunderstandings, & relentlessly smug. https://t.co/h8ewD1pwgc
— David Roberts (@drvox) April 28, 2017
Oh yeah, this is *exactly* what the NYT was missing. Water muddying wrapped up in intellectual pretension. smdh https://t.co/IIVWQiXOLd
— Clara Jeffery (@ClaraJeffery) April 28, 2017
Finally, the world will hear from the climate skeptic. I think America will remember Miami fondly. https://t.co/5SjCEvP4xM
— Jon Lovett (@jonlovett) April 28, 2017
“literally go f*ck yourself, new york times. go eat dog d*cks,” wrote another user.
All of the outrage over his column, or his assertion that it’s OK to be skeptical of climate change despite those who claim it to be “settled science,” didn’t get past Stephens.
“After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” he responded.
After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I'm reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse. https://t.co/uQ2L5lox6e
— Bret Stephens (@BretStephensNYT) April 28, 2017
However, the hate continued to pour in.
“bret if you think that tweet was “nasty” i have some news for you: you’re a sh*thead. a crybaby lil f*ckin weenie. a massive tw*t too,” wrote one journalist.
“Oh no, someone said you should get fired, how dare they insult you for being a huge piece of sh*t, on record, over and over again,” added another Twitter user.
“f*ck you, crybaby,” said yet another.
In response to the outrage, the New York Times tweeted its coverage of climate change to its followers on Friday.
— NYT Climate (@nytclimate) April 28, 2017
But for many liberals who are afraid to read anything they disagree with, publishing Stephens’ column was the final straw. Many called the Times’ subscription office to cancel their subscription of the paper.
— Stefan Rahmstorf (@rahmstorf) April 27, 2017
— Marie Mosley (@MMosley) April 28, 2017
— Julie DiCaro (@JulieDiCaro) April 28, 2017