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

GURPS

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

Former Wall Street Journal writer Bret Stephens has now managed to draw ire from the left after his column ran online Friday.

As a noted “never Trumper” and climate skeptic, he has seen his fair share of hate mail and Twitter trolls over the past year-and-a-half — but nothing like what he’s endured since his article was posted, he says.

“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 #### 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, 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.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I think it's hilarious that these people toss around words like "violently hateful"....while being violently hateful. :lol:
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
People are furiously canceling their New York Times subscriptions after an op-ed disputing climate change was published


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.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
are you asking because I posted it this AM ?

No, just asking generally. I ask because the source piece, this guy goes after not one but two VERY sore spots for the left. He starts off by picking at the Hillary scab and pouring alcohol on it. And THEN comparing that tender spot, pretty much exactly with the logic and reasoning behind man made global cool warm changey too fast thingy. I mean, kick someone in the balls once, maybe it's an accident. Twice, you're picking a fight. :shrug:
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
I mean, kick someone in the balls once, maybe it's an accident. Twice, you're picking a fight. :shrug:

I've heard that before.... How does that old line go? "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but I'm going to kick you repeatedly in the balls"
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
No, just asking generally. I ask because the source piece, this guy goes after not one but two VERY sore spots for the left. He starts off by picking at the Hillary scab and pouring alcohol on it. And THEN comparing that tender spot, pretty much exactly with the logic and reasoning behind man made global cool warm changey too fast thingy. I mean, kick someone in the balls once, maybe it's an accident. Twice, you're picking a fight. :shrug:



Yes I did, when I posted it this morning ..
 
Top