Note: On its 20th anniversary this week, I’d like to thank WND for being a platform for the reasonable in a sea of the irrational and to thank its editors for allowing me a voice.
I grew up being taught, and have subsequently tried to instill in my kids, that you don’t take pleasure in the misery of others – that it is just not charitable.
While this is a great sentiment, and I think we all (well, most all) try to live by this basic rule, occasionally it belies our baser human instincts. Sometimes you just can’t help but crack a smile or feel a warped sense of satisfaction when someone “gets their comeuppance,” as it were.
Regardless of your feelings regarding President Trump, if you are conservative, you, like me, felt elated that Hillary Clinton not only lost, but did so in humiliating fashion. We should merely be satisfied that she lost and not revel in her anguish. But I did, and admit it – you did also.
I know it’s wrong, but there is little we conservatives enjoy more than witnessing the crack-up of leftists. And even more satisfying is when they turn on there own, which seems to be happening more and more.
Liberalism, meaning extreme leftism, has a zero-tolerance policy for anyone who dares to stray from their phony revolutionist dogma. Of this, there is no better example than the religion of man-caused global warming.
I think we can all agree that one can’t get further left than those at ThinkProgress. Nowhere on Earth, except maybe North Korea or Iran, can one find a group of people less tolerant of any viewpoint other than their own. These are the Soros-backed, hard-left standard bearers who give no quarter to any liberal or organization that even hints of softening on climate change.
So when the site’s purveyors discovered that the New York Times, the liberal paper of record, “hired an extreme climate science denier,” they were beside themselves.
“The New York Times’ effort to stem the growing criticism they have received for hiring extreme climate science denier Bret Stephens is going about as well as United Airlines’ initial attempts to defend dragging a customer off one of their planes,” writes ThinkProgress.
So angered at the Times was Michael Mann, one of the global warming high priests, that he even claimed that he is canceling his subscription. He advised all other parishioners to do the same.
They describe Stephens in his previous employ as the “deputy editorial page editor for Rupert Murdoch’s deeply conservative, climate-denying Wall Street Journal.” ThinkProgress reprinted a portion of an interview Stephens did with Vox. In it, he defends his “extreme” position.
“A guy I know just had a baby, and he’s a big global warming, climate change activist. If he thinks in 20 years we’ll be heading toward unsustainable climates and there will be tens of millions of people being displaced, presumably including himself, at the most apocalyptic level, then presumably he wouldn’t be having children. It contradicts the belief that we are heading ineluctably for an apocalyptic environmental future.”
This is a good and perfectly valid point that demonstrates the obvious hypocrisy of the left, but ThinkProgress can’t, or rather refuses, to see it. They claim that one anecdotal tale does not disprove man-caused climate disasters to come. They are correct. It doesn’t.
What it does is highlight the hypocrisy of believers. Why would anyone bring a child into this world if he or she actually thought that sea levels will rise 20 feet, as Al Gore claims, or hurricanes and tornadoes will increase, as will drought, which will lead to mass starvation and thus mass extinction? And the list of coming disasters just keeps going and going. Stephens’ point was only to show that a true believer would never consider subjecting his progeny to such an apocalyptic fate.
Stephens adds that he is not certain of man-caused warming, “but now if you say there are uncertainties, you are akin to what’s called ‘a denier.'”
Welcome to the New York Times, Mr. Stephens, where readers so fervently believe in the religious doctrine of global warming that no one is allowed even to question it or have a differing opinion. The only question to ask now is how long such a heretic will survive at the Times.
