Posted on 04/30/2017 3:35:41 PM PDT by blam
The New York Times' decision to publish a debut op-ed column by the newly-hired Bret Stephens, a notable denier of *anthropogenic climate change, has sparked an uproar from the paper's subscribers, who are furious that the Times decided to publish a column that is contrary to much of the modern-day scientific consensus on the dangers of global warming.
In his column, Stephens compared the "certitude" with which Hillary Clinton's advisers believed she would win the 2016 election to climate scientists' repeated warnings about climate change risks. As evidence, Stephens said that inaccurate polling data during the 2016 campaign proves that science can miss the mark in other fields as well.
"There’s a lesson here. 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.
Stephens' column evoked a swift and angry response from many of the paper's subscribers, who promptly canceled their subscriptions and bashed the Times' decision to hire Stephens as a writer.
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
I’m tempted to become a new subscriber. Right on!! Truth trumps ideology!!
A very significant question is how much actual “greenhousing” are we feeling here from this accumulation of “greenhouse” gas.
There’s been so much fraud and error in the warmists’ supposed pursuit of that question, it isn’t even funny.
Isn’t it fun theyre eating thier own now
Liberals are so inclusive.
Ping
All I know is only two winters ago I Was digging out from 8 foot drifts on staten island.
Well, I wasn’t but the people I paid were :)
i don’t care why the cancel, all I care is that the slimes goes broke.
And in the meantime, all this extra CO2 hasn’t been simply been hanging around idle in the atmosphere. Green plants have been noticing it (inasmuch as a portion of it may be real, which has its own questions, like why are we measuring global levels right next to a live volcano). Green plants have been answering “yum! keep it up!”
It’s almost like something smart engineered the earth to take care of small, trivial disturbances in parameters like this.
Lol the NYT readers refuse to read other than fake news. Quick, get Bill Nye, Leonardo, and Algore to write the science opeds.
| You Know The Drill Click the Pic
|
No question that climate change is happening. How much is man-caused is open for discussion (or SHOULD be). Finally, what can we do about it? How much of our limited resources should we commit to the Sysiphaen task of stopping the climate change gremlin?
If we limited cars to 10 MPH we could virtually eliminate automobile deaths. Would/should we do this?
Bill Nye the Queer Scientific Theory guy!
Wouldn’t it be nice if something could eat it all up.
Oh wait.
Wow, what a novel way to turn the people away and lose money—tell the truth. I’m all for it! The NY Slime deserves no better.
Aside from his irrational hatred of Trump, I liked reading Stephens in the WSJ. Sad to see he’s gone to the NYT but then there’s not to much difference between those papers anymore.
The truth it burns....
I wonder how much of the fury related to his climate comments or whether what really riled them most was his unflattering comparison to the pre-election arrogance of Hillary and many of her supporters.
That's "parts per million." That's a change from 0.02% to .04%.
It's hard for me to understand the mechanism by which such a small change in a trace amount of gas is supposed to have such catastrophic consequences.
To put it in perspective, if I had a square greenhouse 1,000 inches on a side (83' 4"), you could represent 400ppm as a pane of glass 20" (1' 8") square.
Good Lord, now real people may subscribe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
