<p>Angry readers are cancelling their subscription to the <em>New York Times</em> after the paper published an op-ed column in which author Bret Stephens argues against the scientific &ldquo;consensus&rdquo; on global warming. ;</p>
<p>Stephens, a former writer for the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, is a neoconservative pundit and notable climate change skeptic. Unlike many <em>Times</em> readers, he doesn&#8217;t blindly believe the claim that mankind&rsquo;s behavior has had an effect on climate trends.</p>
<p>In his article, Stephens compares scientists&rsquo; constant warnings about global warming to the media&rsquo;s certainty that Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. &ldquo;There&rsquo;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.&rdquo; ;</p>
<p>&#8220;Claiming total certainty about the science&hellip;creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions,&#8221; writes Stephens. ;</p>
<p>This is a fair argument. Just last week, former Energy Department Undersecretary Steve Koonin admitted that the Obama Administration used misleading press releases ;about climate change to support political initiatives. ;</p>
<p>Stephen&#8217;s article has also ;prompted backlash from the scientific community. ;</p>
<p>&ldquo;I enjoy reading different opinions from my own, but this is not a matter of different opinions,&rdquo; argues Stefan Rahmstorf, head of Earth System Analysis at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. &ldquo;The <em>Times</em> argued that &lsquo;millions agree with Stephens.&rsquo; It made me wonder what&rsquo;s next &ndash; when are you hiring a columnist claiming that the sun and stars revolve around the Earth, because millions agree with that?&rdquo; ;</p>
<p>According to <em>Times</em> editorial page editor James Bennet, Stephens was hired as part of an effort to &ldquo;further widen&rdquo; the paper&rsquo;s range of views. &ldquo;[There are] many shades of conservatism and many shades of liberalism,&rdquo; notes Bennet. ;</p>
<p>&ldquo;There&rsquo;s more than one kind of [climate change] denial. And to pretend like the views of a thinker like Bret, and the millions of people who agree with him on a rage of issues, should simply be ignored, that they&rsquo;re outside the bounds of reasonable debate, is a really dangerous form of delusion.&rdquo; ;</p>
<p>As Stephens points out, there is a giant gap between what scientists are learning and what global warming advocates are claiming. As I wrote in a previous article, a Dutch study found that over 50% of climate scientists don&rsquo;t agree with the so-called &ldquo;consensus&rdquo; on anthropogenic climate change. ;</p>
<p><strong>Author&#8217;s Note: ;</strong>To me, hearing all sides of a story is the best way to increase one&rsquo;s understanding of it. That&#8217;s why the ;<em>Times</em> decided to hire Stephens.</p>
<p>But the liberal media is so in love with the idea of global warming ;that just a single dissenting view is causing them to boycott the <em>New York Times</em>. Unbelievable.</p>
<p><strong>Editor&#8217;s note:</strong> ;If you care to read the article, it was not denying climate change and was actually rather tame.  ;</p>
<p>But climate change is a religion, Stephen&#8217;s editorial was ;sacrilegious. Anyone not see this coming?  ;It is actually a bold step by the NYTimes though. An olive branch?</p>
<p> ;</p>