Slate - Bret Stephens First Column for the New York Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism

[TomCADem]

Bret Stepehens' premise is that because pollsters were wrong in predicting the 2016 election, all science is suspect. Shoot, can we even take the earth not being flat to the bank?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/bret_stephens_first_new_york_times_column_is_classic_climate_change_denialism.html

he weekend after the New York Times announced it was hiring Bret Stephens—a conservative formerly of the Wall Street Journal whom some consider a climate change denier—to be its new columnist, I got into a fight with my mother. She was defending his hiring, arguing that he held views that many people hold, and that perhaps allowing him to put them on the pages of the New York Times would allow the paper to regain its position as a news source that can be trusted by people on both sides of the political spectrum. She was right that the public no longer seems to agree on what truth is, but she was wrong that bringing Stephens on would help us resolve this.

His debut column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” published on Friday, supports my theory. The thesis of the column is that we would do well to remember that there are fair reasons why people might be skeptical of climate change, and that claiming certainty on the matter will only backfire. He casts himself as a translator between the skeptics and the believers, offering a lesson “for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy.” Technically, he doesn’t get any facts wrong. Painting himself as a moderate, he says it is “indisputable” that warming is happening and is caused by humans. From one angle, his point is quite familiar—it’s actually one that has been made somewhat frequently lately, and by liberal-leaning outlets, too: Shoving the certainty of fact down people’s throats is not the way to get them to change their minds, and it’s high time we try something else.

* * *
But in reality, the goal of this column is not to help readers learn how to reason with people who are skeptical about climate change. Instead, the column reinforces the idea that those people might have a point. The New York Times push notification that went out Friday afternoon about the column said as much—“reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate change,” it read. That is not actually true, and nothing that Stephens writes makes a case for why it might be true. This column is not a lesson for people who want to advance good climate policy. Instead, it is a dog whistle to people who feel confused about climate change. It’s nothing more than textbook denialism.

Stephens starts with the unprecedented and embarrassing loss of Hillary Clinton. The Clinton team, he says, “thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.” Stephens is apparently dredging up this point to remind us all to be humble—we have a tendency to be overconfident in our data, he reminds us, we got this one wrong, and we are damned if we forget it. (I would assert that we certainly have not forgotten it, since it’s the entire reason why Stephens now has his job, but no matter.)

[angstlessk]

1. Didn't we USED to do 'Worst Case Scenario' back in the day...now

we do 'Cost/Benefit' analysis as if nothing else matters...the planet dies...but the cost to keep it alive is astronomical (play on words intentional)

[sharedvalues]

2. Stephens - ugh

And no economic populists at the NYT. Sad.