The New York Times is losing subscribers and it’s not because they find the Gray Lady to be too biased. It’s that it’s not biased enough!
According to CNN:
A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.
In his first column for the Times, Bret Stephens said advocates for climate policy can take a lesson from Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign and her reliance on data to predict the election.
"We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote. "Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong."
The column angered scores of environmentalists and climate change activists.
Some of them announced on Twitter that they were canceling their subscriptions to the paper, including scientist Stefan Rahmstorf who sent a lengthy letter to the Times explaining his reasons. In brief, Rahmstorf said Stephens’ column “run[s] counter to all evidence” and “is simply repeating falsehoods spread by various 'think tanks' funded by the fossil fuel industry.”
Stephens is the former deputy editorial director for the Wall Street Journal and a Pulitzer Prize winner. He was also a part of the “Never Trump” movement during the election. But as The New York Post explained, the hate he received for that is no match for the liberal hate now coming his way:
“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.
Here’s what angered so many found in Stephens’ column:
“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.
“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.”
"I am by no means an expert in climate science, and I take it as fact that the earth is warming, perhaps dangerously so. Nor am I infallible: Human fallibility was my very point," Stephens said in response to the criticism. "That said, I have reasonably good credentials in writing and reading. Clearly some of my critics need remedial education in these basic subjects."
In his piece, Stephens was clear he wasn’t denying climate change, but only arguing that skeptics shouldn’t be treated as pariahs:
“Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts. 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.”
But liberals gotta boycott, and we can’t think of a nicer organization to boycott than the Times.