But I think this latest liberal meltdown takes the cake.
In an uncharacteristic move, the New York Times has given a column to Bret Stephens, a conservative journalist who formerly worked as an editor of the international opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.
In one of his opening columns for the Times, Stephens did the unthinkable. That is, he simply answered questions that readers asked about climate change, sometimes by posing new questions.
He did it in a reasonable way, looking at the issues from many angles, and discussing the existing science without sounding like a fanatic.
Some of the questions Stephens had the nerve to answer…
“How low do the uncertainties about climate change have to be before we decide to do something about possible adverse effects?”
“What if [climate change is] 100 percent true, but we make the world worse with the wrong response?”
The reaction of the left is both comical and telling.
Some have called his columns a form of “stealth global warming denial.” Other writers have stated that his very reasonableness is what makes him more dangerous than the average denier.
One writer at Slate called him “insidious” stating that his true crime was “not to help readers learn how to reason with people who are skeptical about climate change.”
Even asking simple, reasonable questions is enough to get the left in a twist when it comes to climate change. The message is clear. Toe the line, or else.
I promise that here at Independent Living News we’ll choose “or else” every time.