Apparently the NYT just added this columnist (Bret Stephens) and he had the hubris to start out by addressing climate change. Bold man. Here's a link to the article. I've seen liberal friends on Facebook denouncing the times and him for this piece, unsubscribing, etc. I don't get it. I found this to be an excellent article. I don't see it as "denying" climate change or anything of the like. It seems to me that he is making the excellent point that when rhetoric (an I using that word correctly?!), i.e. strong political statements, express more certainty than exists in reality, the public becomes skeptical and the desired support/buy-in may not be achieved. That happened with Clinton's campaign and it happened with climate change. Yes, we now have some consensus that global warming is at least partially human caused (of course there are natural cycles as well), but many sources were boldly stating that before it was actually known. And it seems to me that what the result of that is (i.e., how many degrees of change over how long) is still very much up for debate. If you want the public on board, don't spout dramatic predictions and total certainty before it's time...
I will add that I am one of those people the article is talking about. I find that although I consider myself an "environmentalist", meaning I care a great deal about the environment, wild places, etc, and would like to see them continue, I find myself constantly skeptical of the "environmental movement" because they put out so many of what I consider one-sided, non-objective positions that claim far more certainty and moral "rightness" than they might deserve.
I thought this was an excellent article and look forward to seeing more from Bret. I will, however, acknowledge, that I have only read this one piece by him, so I am not speaking to anything he has written in the past - no opinion yet because I haven't read it!
