Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (1013972)	5/1/2017 1:16:16 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574477

Liberals have epic meltdown after NYT columnist suggests science behind climate change isn’t certain Bret Stephens, one of the New York Times’ newest conservative columnists, endured a wrath of anger from liberals on Friday who proceeded to meltdown after his first column for the Times stated that “climate change” isn’t certain. The general idea of Stephens’ column was that the science behind “climate change” is not certain — despite claims from climate change alarmists that it is — and that when uncertain science is deemed certain it undermines science as a whole. “Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong,” Stephens wrote. “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power,” he explained. To put it lightly, liberals and climate change alarmists lost their minds. They proceeded to lambaste Stephens on Twitter: “literally go fck yourself, new york times. go eat dog dcks,” wrote another user. All of the outrage over his column, or his assertion that it’s OK to be skeptical of climate change despite those who claim it to be “settled science,” didn’t get past Stephens. “After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” he responded. However, the hate continued to pour in. “bret if you think that tweet was “nasty” i have some news for you: you’re a shthead. a crybaby lil fckin weenie. a massive twt too,” wrote one journalist. “Oh no, someone said you should get fired, how dare they insult you for being a huge piece of sht, on record, over and over again,” added another Twitter user. “f*ck you, crybaby,” said yet another. In response to the outrage, the New York Times tweeted its coverage of climate change to its followers on Friday. But for many liberals who are afraid to read anything they disagree with, publishing Stephens’ column was the final straw. Many called the Times’ subscription office to cancel their subscription of the paper. theblaze.com