Why I cancelled my nytimes subscription.

[kpete]

Link to tweet

[R0ckyRac00n]

1. outstanding (nt)

[Chevy]

2. Maggie Haberman and Glen Thrush

more than enough for me to cancel.

[Scurrilous]

3. K&R

[beam me up scottie]

4. Recommended.

Climate 'skeptics' are just as anti-science as vaccine 'skeptics' and creationists - they just camouflage their denial as concern and insist that accepted science is simply theory.

They're not fooling anyone.

[VOX]

5. I'll probably drop the NYT also.

All this equivocating on FACTS is serious.

[question everything]

6. Thus, he left the WSJ

I wondered how long he would last. I admit, I do not remember his stand on climate change, but in the last 18 months, or so, he went after Trump - one of the very conservative journalists who did. I posted here many of them but now can find these two

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027638476

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027668287

[bigtree]

7. single issue advocacy

...might not suit folks advocating other issues that NYT is handling well.

[AgadorSparticus]

8. Brilliant letter!

[fun n serious]

9. I am cancelling with you.

Science is settled.

[ProfessorGAC]

10. Even For The Scientifically Novice...

...it would take 15 seconds to look up the infrared absorptivity of CO2 vs Nitrogen or Oxygen
Simple logic dictates the more CO2, the more heat contained.
That NYT writer is a moron.
The simple technique is that none of the models are dead on.
Well, of course not. We didn't have satellites reading global thermographic data in 1860. So the 150 year old numbers are Arctic ice estimates
Hence every model is flawed. But, every model predicts higher temperatures world wide, and some are closer to reality than others
That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, it just means we need more time to model it perfectly
But, the idiot at NYT assumes that since no model is perfect, none has merit. That's intellectually dishonest and plain stupid
Good for this scientist for reading them the riot act