By Daniel Lang
Following the election, it became painfully obvious that mainstream liberal news outlets were out of touch with half of the country, and had a serious lack of intellectual diversity among their journalists. It appears that some of these media outlets are learning their lesson. The New York Times for instance, has recently hired a conservative columnist named Bret Stephens, who published his first article last Friday.
His piece, titled “Climate of Complete Certainty,” was somewhat skeptical of man-made climate change. Because of that article, the New York Times learned another important lesson. Apparently, many of their liberal readers can’t handle any opinion that even remotely differs from their own.
In his article, he complained that there was a wide gap between scientists doing thorough and rigorous research, and global warming cheerleaders who are over-hyping the threat of global warming. He warned that just because the data produced by scientists looks solid, doesn’t mean we should stop questioning it.
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. From Robert McNamara to Lehman Brothers to Stronger Together, cautionary tales abound.
He goes on to say that he still believes that humans are contributing to global warming, but we can’t be certain of how serious the threat of that warming is.
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 earth 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.
Whether you agree with that or not, you have to admit that Stephens is putting forth a pretty uncontroversial opinion. He didn’t even deny man-made climate change. He merely suggested that it’s not an open-and-shut case, and we shouldn’t stop questioning the data.
And for that, liberals took to Twitter en masse and threatened to cancel their subscriptions to the New York Times. One Twitter user wrote “Global warming deniers get enough of a voice with this administration, I’m disappointed you are giving them a voice at NYT.” Another added “Think it’s time to cancel my subscription.”
Despite an increase in subscriptions since Trump was elected, the paper continues to hemorrhage money; a trend which has been going on for years. It appears that they’re about to lose many of the subscribers that they’ve gained over the past few months. And so, the New York Times is about to learn its third lesson. Once you wed yourself to the far-left, there is little or no escape from bankruptcy and irrelevance. The moment you try to adapt to changing times, and try to offer more opinions, the far-left will turn on you.
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Daniel Lang of The Daily Sheeple.
Daniel Lang is a researcher and staff writer for The Daily Sheeple – Wake The Flock Up!
We ALL WERE/ARE FOOLED by those in power, up to the point, when everyone finally starts to think and see the FACTS!!! POWER up your BRAIN, EYES, ENTIRE BODY with every ORGANIC nutrition possible to make that come through…
When the left inoculates itself against non-left, it really is too good, isn’t it?
Most reasonable subscribers to the NYT have left.
Most remaining subscribers that are left are on the Left.
They are not interested in non-Left views.
They are only interested in Left views.
This is what the NYT is left with.
Pretty sure I’m right about the left.
One should relish the opportunity to rebut the arguments they oppose. If they cannot, they should reconsider their position.
Except that it is a religious position and they will not reconsider.
Global warming was a hoax and so is the ‘climate change’ crap.
MSM is dead.
There was a great comparison given about the influence of humans on “global warming.” Something to the affect that if all humans disappeared the percentage effect of their absence on global warming would be equal to placing a dime on edge of the goal line of a football field compared to the other hundred yards.
Whatever happened to the open minded, tolerant, liberal that is L I B E R A L minded left, of the 60’s and 70’s?
What about the 30,000 scientists who recently said climate change is a scam?
It would seem that they are the most close minded, ridged, narrow minded people on the planet, now.
About 5 years ago, was my first clue of this. I have had a liberal friend for 20 plus years. At that time she told me that the Tea Party people were the most dangerous people in the USA. Well, I worked with some typical Americans and they were going to Tea Party events, I was not. They were your ever day ma and pa Americans. I remember thinking that is insane what my friend said.
Well, obviously, insanity reigns supreme with the left now. It is all quite astonishing to me, where we have come in the past 20 years. Wow!
Marxism is the mainstay of the left, obviously, with Bernie and Hillary, all things my mom was so concerned about in the 50’s through the 90’s. I must say i am glad she is not here to see this, but she knew it was coming. I went to sleep, because I actually hate politics, during my career although I saw all the signs as a state employee. So glad to be retired, I do wonder if my state retirement and SSA will be available by the time I leave this planet.
Global warming is an article of faith on the left and they will do anything to maintain it.
About three years ago, NOAA started issuing press releases that announced a practice of ”adjusting” historic temperature readings to conform to the global warming computer models.
Basically: If the readings did not support global warming, change them to fit the global warming computer model. So much for science.
Scientists in the early 1970s claimed their data showed a new ice age was coming by the end of the century and warned people to get ready. They mocked people who did not fall into line (deniers).
Hmm… The ice age didn’t happen. Maybe the ”deniers” were on to something!