Not all liberals are doormats and will o’ the wisp. I take it you didn’t attend Trump’s speech for the NRA today. You can work on your common ground and hands across the water with his deplorables instead of us fellow liberals. After your comment, I kind of question your liberal bona fides. And wouldn’t want you to help out in a fight with a deplorable.
I blame arts and letters graduates from our parasitic chattering class more than any other group for this lousy discourse on climate science. NYT gave us Andy Revkin, a liberal arts major, and now is given us Stephens, another liberal arts major. Revkin spent over 30 years confused about climate change so he spent most of his writing on the sideshow of climate change communications and shilling for the oil and gas industry. Sadly, this is what liberal arts majors as subscribers like to read about. Stephens gave us utter nonsense from the perspective of someone who has absolutely no idea what he’s talking about today. I’m sure he’ll be on Charlie Rose, another liberal arts major, soon to discuss how mean liberals are and how climate change isn’t really a big deal compared to the need for more war mongering.
NYT doesn’t care about environmental protection or any liberal cause outside of our esteemed white chattering class fears and worries. Sure NYT will eulogize a recently dead benefactor from the UES or CPW who gave to environmental and wildlife causes for a tax break. NYT also made it clear environmental protection isn’t its concern after nixing the Green Blog several years ago. Ironically, about the time of Hurricane Sandy. With all that liberal arts training to “learn to learn” you’d think there would be at least one Columbia J school grad writing for NYT who would pick up a goddamn science book once in awhile.
What Stephens wrote today finally gave me a reason to cancel my subscription. Anybody interested in science and science writing and opinion should as well. Unless they’re a doormat or a Trump deplorable.