Monday, April 17, 2017

Climate whackos abandon NYT because it hired a skeptic

The Gray Lady is a left-leaning daily which is immensely unpopular with many of you and with a big part of the Republican base.

But I must admit that I have always considered The New York Times a mostly credible, conventional daily which has sometimes joined the left-wing witch hunts but which always kept more decency than most of the truly ideological counterparts. Maybe their article about me in 2001 has contributed to this relative respect of me, maybe Dennis Overbye's articles about physics did so many times afterwards, who knows. But I am convinced that even their pieces about politics are more tolerable in average – although I have seen a lot of the very bad ones, too.

But despite the superficial similarity, I have grown a significantly different attitude to The New York Times and The Washington Post, to pick the most obvious benchmark for a comparison.

Well, there's another reason not to abandon The New York Times now. It has hired a new op-ed writer, Bret Stephens, who is still in the Wall Street Journal now but will join The New York Times since the early May. Stephens is a Pulitzer prize winner (for commentary in 2013), he is a conservative opponent of Donald Trump. But what is more important now is that he is a climate change skeptic. And that makes quite some difference.




So you might predict the hysterical reaction by the extreme leftists known as the climate alarmists. Google News offers you quite a collection of titles from these whackadoodles if you search for Bret Stephens' name, such as:
NYT Hires Climate Change Denier

Flush With Subscription Money From Anti-Trump Readers, The New York Times Just Hired a Climate Change Denier
But the greatest tirades were written by Joe Romm, a would-be ex-physicist running "Think Progress".




One article was introduced by the headline
After hyping itself as antidote to fake news, New York Times hires extreme climate denier.
Romm argues that Stephens is unusually extreme and divisive. Imagine, one of the reasons is that he is still working for Rupert Murdoch's "deeply conservative" Wall Street Journal. It's amusing because WSJ is at most right-leaning and you will find lots of people who will convincingly argue that WSJ is really a left-wing daily. Romm tries to attack everyone who has praised Stephens etc.

But he wasn't satisfied so two days later, Romm wrote another, harsher rant:
New York Times defends hiring extreme climate denier: ‘millions agree with him’
The subtitle looks like a parody:
The Times replaces search for truth with search for popular ideas that are false. But would they hire a Holocaust denier?
Surely when one centrist daily hires a writer from another centrist daily, it implies that they would hire a Holocaust denier, too. The New York Times defended the new hire by the words:
There are millions of people who agree with him.
Romm calls this defense "stunning". Millions of people? Do you really want to argue using these toxic parasites devouring the surface of the Earth who have to be eradicated in order to save the planet? How dare you?! ;-) With that logic, you must also hire everyone from the Ku Klux Klan, Romm tells his readers, and even those who dare to think that vaccines pose a health hazard. You may read Romm's full tirade if you want to please yourself by the observation how tiny all your problems are relatively to someone's skull content's being completely putrefied.

But it's not just Joe Romm who has declared war on The New York Times. Here is the reaction by another psychopath who loves to be talked about as a "climate scientist":


He canceled his subscription – or he decided not to steal the daily from his neighbors, whatever was his way to get the newspapers so far. Nice. Only self-declared scientists like Romm and Caldeira should decide what the most influential U.S. dailies can write. Needless to say, one guy such as Caldeira is enough to spark a mini-avalanche:


and


and


and



and many others. To make the story short, by hiring a top writer from The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times has lost at least a dozen (or a fraction of the dozen containing those who were actually paying) of intolerant radical psychopaths. Surely the loss of the giant likes of Romm and Caldeira can't be compensated by the modest gain of 276,000 new e-subscribers (mostly anti-Trump folks) during the last 3 months of 2016.

I find it amazing that these individuals still haven't understood that it would make sense for them to delete all their accounts on the Internet and walk through the sewerage system only. Folks, you are feces and you no longer have the powerful people at the very top who would be masking this self-evident fact from the world.

No comments:

Post a Comment