Kerby Anderson

When Bret Stephens wrote his first column to the New York Times last month, he caused quite a stir. If writing a column could be compared to a football game, Stephens was a smart quarterback who caused the opposition to jump offsides.

The title of the column was: The Climate of Certainty. He began by reminding us that most pundits were certain that Hillary Clinton would be our next president. He also reminded us that the campaign placed too much “faith in the power of models and algorithms.” He concluded that there is a lesson to this. “We live in a world in which data conveys authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris.”

Then he turned to the subject of climate change. When he applied some of the same lessons to that scientific discussion and debate, he acknowledged that you “can almost hear the heads exploding.” He was correct. Heads did explode. Twitter comments came fast and furious. There was a campaign to cancel subscriptions to the New York Times.

In his column, he makes it clear that he does not “deny climate change or the possibility of the severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism.” That didn’t stop critics from completely misrepresenting what he wrote. The headline in Slate said his column was “Classic Climate Change Denialism.” Think about that. A columnist who does NOT deny climate change is still charged with being a climate change denier.

The reaction to his column proves his point. Stephens was calling for humility and warning about hubris. The twitter posts, the angry letters to the editor, the campaign to cancel subscriptions, and the misrepresentation of his position illustrate the stridency and illogic of the other side. His column forced liberals to jump offsides.