The left is an ideological group that is consumed with bashing long-held scientific binaries (see, “No, Trans Women Are NOT ‘Biologically Male’“). However, in a glaring contradiction, the Left has only hardened the rift between camps in the climate change debate. On this issue, the Left has a serious blind spot, at best, or is highly hypocritical, at worst.
Former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, who now writes for the New York Times, has experienced this unfortunate reality. His learning curve started after publishing his initial column at the Times, titled “Climate of Complete Certainty.”
In the column, Stephens uses the example of Hillary Clinton’s scientifically-sure-yet-unsuccessful campaign for the presidency. He cites Clinton’s failure as evidence of a general need to shy away from absolute certainty, particularly when it comes to climate change. As the election and other things have proved, science is by no means infallible.
This argument makes sense. It ought to be crystal clear that no single issue is as easy as 1, 2, 3. For example, if either a single-payer approach or a completely free enterprise approach were able to solve all existing problems within the healthcare debate, no such debate would be necessary.
Another example is gender, which I mentioned earlier. Even that issue is becoming more and more complex, especially as we discover the surprisingly high number of children born with physical and chemical disparities.
And yet, too many people continue to pretend that every issue has a yes or no answer. The fact that Stephens would even raise questions regarding the issue makes him anathema.
Stephens writes profoundly, indeed prophetically, “Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.” Many Times readers affirmed cancelling their subscriptions over the mere publication of Stephens’ column.
This beckons the question: why are people willing to self-censor over a single editorial?
I presume that most cancelers didn’t make it down to the eleventh paragraph. There, Stephens does the opposite of what they were probably expecting: affirming the most controversial element of this issue, that humans influence warming.
All Bret Stephens wants is for us to talk about it more and to ask more questions. Unfortunately, the Left has reduced this highly nuanced issue into two simple camps. The first contains those who affirm climate change as anthropomorphic and, therefore, a very pressing phenomenon. The second contains heretics who have no respect for science.
The glaring inconsistency? The left preaches “spectrum” in gender and other issues, yet entertains no such spectrum of diverse perspectives here.