New York Times writer says CLIMATE CHANGE IS FALSE and the LEFT ARE INSANE!!

"Never Trumper" NYT Columnist, Bret Stephens has been bombarded with hate messages after he wrote an article suggesting the "certitude" of Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election was th same attitude of some climate change advocates!!

He argued that incorrect polling data from the presidential election could prove that science might be WRONG as well in relation to CLIMATE CHANGE!!

The so called "Never Trumper" said he's received hate mail in the last 18 months from Trump Supporters but said nothing has been more hateful than what he got as he said "After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, i'm reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse."

Twitter was outraged over his article after users said "NYT recent hire of the climate change denying, pathetic excuse of journalist Bret Stephens is unacceptable. Period". Another said "If people from the left are saying you're an a**hole and people from the right are saying you're an a**hole. Maybe you're an a**hole"

Even journalists were blasting him including Gizmodo Libby Watson who said "You're a s***head. a crybaby lil f***in weeenie. a massive **** too"

But the ex-WALL STREET JOURNAL writer said it's absurd to support climate change without being aware of both sides of the argument and used Clinton's polling figures to suggest incorrect data could be "lulling, misleading and often dangerous"

He said "there's a lesson heree. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude and certitude begets hubris. By now i can hear the heads exploding. Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainy about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whether a climate claim proves wrong"

Do you deny science on climate change? let's see what people will vote

Bret - Soon to be beggar

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0688700000578-4458894-New_York_Times_Bret_Stephens_columnist_has_been_bombarded_with_h-m-80_1493492788337.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC06E0F00000578-4458894-image-a-91_1493493598369.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC06E1C00000578-4458894-image-m-93_1493493692834.jpg

Twitter -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A4B200000578-4458894-image-m-85_1493493433974.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A4A200000578-4458894-image-m-86_1493493448579.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A49900000578-4458894-image-m-87_1493493460486.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A49E00000578-4458894-image-m-88_1493493480619.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A4C500000578-4458894-image-m-90_1493493518186.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/04/29/20/3FC0A4BE00000578-4458894-image-m-108_1493494196986.jpg

The alt right crowd here taught me that NYT is fake news. Sorry.

Lmao wow

hmm

Ahh so it seems that the NYT is starting to pander to the Alt-Right.

Climate change is nonsense

Yes, polls that indicated Clinton had more chance to win clearly prove that climate change is a hoax.

He's certainly right that people can make false conclusion based on data though, to be fair, most people usually use data that has at least something to do with what they're saying.

Wtf

muchdran posted...

Climate change is nonsense

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

The failing @nytimes is so desperate for attention that they let climate change deniers write for them. Sad!

Thus proving that this new Climate Gaea-ism is functionally a religion, completely with its own blasphemy police.

no link to the article

which isn't anti-climate change or anything

sigh

Manocheese posted...

The failing @nytimes is so desperate for attention that they let climate change deniers write for them. Sad!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. 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.

wow how ridiculous

Balrog0 posted...

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

So, essentially, the internet freak-the-hell-out machine did what it does best, huh?

Questionmarktarius posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

So, essentially, the internet freak-the-hell-out machine did what it does best, huh?

shut up deplorable scum

now please listen to my argument

Which part do you disagree with

1) we are adding more co2 to the atmosphere
2) co2 is a greenhouse gas

Balrog0 posted...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html

As Revkin wisely noted, hyperbole about climate “not only didn’t fit the science at the time but could even be counterproductive if the hope was to engage a distracted public.”

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. 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.

unacceptable. Period

whoever wrote this article must be a s***head. a crybaby lil f***in weeenie. a massive **** too