Download Bret Stephens` first New York Times column is classic climate

Slate
Sign In Sign Up
Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York
Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism
Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York
Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism
Slate
Sign In Sign Up
SLATE
SCIENCE
THE STATE OF THE UNIVERSE.
APRIL 30 2017 10:52 AM
Bret Stephens’ First Column for the New York
Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism
It doesn’t outright reject the facts—which makes it all the more
insidious.
By Susan Matthews
Bret Stephens, then still at the Wall Street Journal, during a Christians United for Israel
summit, July 13, 2015, in Washington, D.C.
Alex Wong/Getty Images
The weekend after the New York Times announced it was hiring Bret Stephens—a conservative
formerly of the Wall Street Journal whom some consider a climate-change denier—to be its new
columnist, I got into a fight with my mother. She was defending his hiring, arguing that he held
views that many people hold, and that perhaps allowing him to put them on the pages of the New
York Times would allow the paper to regain its position as a news source that can be trusted by
people on both sides of the political spectrum. She was right that the public no longer seems to
agree on what truth is, but she was wrong that bringing Stephens on would help us resolve this.
His debut column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” published on Friday, supports my theory.
The thesis of the column is that we would do well to remember that there are fair reasons why
people might be skeptical of climate change, and that claiming certainty on the matter will only
backfire. He casts himself as a translator between the skeptics and the believers, offering a lesson
“for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy.” Technically, he doesn’t get
any facts wrong. Painting himself as a moderate, he says it is “indisputable” that warming is
happening and is caused by humans. From one angle, his point is quite familiar—it’s actually
one that has been made somewhat frequently lately, and by liberal-leaning outlets, too: Shoving
the certainty of fact down people’s throats is not the way to get them to change their minds, and
it’s high time we try something else.
Advertisement
But in reality, the goal of this column is not to help readers learn how to reason with people who
are skeptical about climate change. Instead, the column reinforces the idea that those people
might have a point. The New York Times push notification that went out Friday afternoon about
the column said as much—“reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate
change,” it read. That is not actually true, and nothing that Stephens writes makes a case for why
it might be true. This column is not a lesson for people who want to advance good climate
policy. Instead, it is a dog whistle to people who feel confused about climate change. It’s nothing
more than textbook denialism.
Stephens starts with the unprecedented and embarrassing loss of Hillary Clinton. The Clinton
team, he says, “thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.” Stephens is
apparently dredging up this point to remind us all to be humble; we have a tendency to be
overconfident in our data, he reminds us, we got this one wrong, and we are damned if we forget
it. (I would assert that we certainly have not forgotten it, since it’s the entire reason why
Stephens now has his job, but no matter.)
Get Slate in your inbox.
He then goes on to compare the Clinton failure and the science on climate change. “Isn’t this one
instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?” he asks
facetiously.
Stephens suggests that the rational way to go forward with a conversation about climate change
is to admit that climate change might not be certain.
I will be honest, I do not know what “100 percent of the truth” means. But I do know what
Stephens is doing here. He is sowing the seeds of epistemic uncertainty. He is telling readers that
the experts’ wrongness during the 2016 election is a good justification for doubting other
established facts. People are right to look around at the institutions we once held onto and to
doubt the veracity of the information they give us. It is entirely reasonable to stop trusting
expertise, Stephens subtly suggests. Remember Clinton?
Advertisement
This is a classic strain of climate-change denialism. Stephens does not call a single fact into
question throughout his piece. Instead, he’s telling his readers that their decision not to trust the
entire institution of science that supports the theory of climate change might actually be
reasonable. “Ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism,” he
writes. “They know—as all environmentalists should—that history is littered with the human
wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.” Trust nothing, he urges, for nothing
deserves trust.
The institutions Stephens questions in his column are not singular entities but entire ideas:
scientists who may not see their biases, statistical models that might be skewed, liberals who
may be so swayed by their ideology. His argument is convincing because the institutions he
mentions can make mistakes. It’s true, there are some problems with how we use probabilities in
science. We tend to be bad at distinguishing between correlation and causation. Sometimes our
biases do get in the way. Stephens knows this, and he taps into it in his piece. “Much else that
passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities,” he suggests. You have to be an idiot or
a zealot to believe climate change is certain, whispers the subtext.
Regardless of what Stephens says in this column—and regardless of Clinton’s modeling
failures—climate change is a terrible threat to life as we know it on this planet. Anyone who
wants to honestly investigate the data will come to the same conclusion that the scientific
establishment has: Climate change is real, and dangerous. Our failures elsewhere—even in the
disturbing wake of the election of Donald J. Trump—do not negate that. The questions are no
longer whether and how but how soon and how bad. Climate change is happening, and “claiming
total certainty about the science” does not “traduce the spirit of science.” Instead, it is a
reasonable interpretation of the science at hand.
The final shoe drops in the last lines of the piece:
Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be
president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be
interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.
Advertisement
What he is suggesting here is that the rational way to go forward with a conversation about
climate change is to admit that climate change might not be certain. This is similar to the
torturous logic he puts forward throughout the rest of the piece: The only way to be reasonable
about this topic is to give in to those who are unreasonable about it. While he calmly insists he is
the only logical person around, he is spewing complete bullshit.
Of the many other dishonest ideas floated through the column—and there are many, including
that lots of Americans are skeptical of climate change (they’re not), and that the skepticism is
caused by doubts about the data (it isn’t)—the idea that truth may not be knowable is the most
insidious. That Stephens doesn’t bother to cite which climate-change facts are uncertain may be
because he knows exactly what he is doing, and he’s aware he wouldn’t win that argument. Or it
may be because he himself has fallen prey to his own argument about epistemic uncertainty, and
so he no longer thinks the evidence matters.
Top Comment
I'm tired of the whole Op-Ed genre, which takes people who are not experts and specialists in
multiple fields, and has them write about them authoritatively in influential media
outlets. More...
Join In
Either way, his accusation—that it is not the facts you should question, but the entire system that
creates facts at all—is terrifying. It’s much scarier and more damaging than anything I thought
he’d put in the paper. I assumed he might mess up a fact or two. That would have been bad, but it
wouldn’t have been the end of the world. Facts, after all, can be corrected.
But the New York Times cannot easily correct this one. In publishing this article, the paper of
record did something that will be much harder to reverse: It conceded that it is more important to
remain palatable to a larger group of people than to maintain its standards of truth and logic and
good argument. In this age when the very concepts of reality, facts, and honesty are under attack,
this should scare us. Stephens may be wrong about most things, but he was right about one.
Some institutions no longer deserve to be trusted.
Susan Matthews is Slate’s science editor.
Powered by LivefyreSlate
Sign In Sign Up
FOLLOW SLATE



Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
SLATE ON



IPHONE
ANDROID
KINDLE







ABOUT US
CONTACT US
WORK WITH US
USER AGREEMENT
PRIVACY POLICY
FAQ


FEEDBACK
CORRECTIONS
 Reprints
Advertise with us
Slate Group Panoply
Slate is published by The Slate Group, a Graham Holdings Company. All contents © 2017 The Slate Group LLC. All rights reserved.
SlateSlate
Sign In Sign Up