(((JonathanWeisman)))Verified account

Not liberal, and not an embarrassment. Why is it liberal to demand the truth from the NYT?

You didn't read the column.

Have you considered possibility that we read it and concluded it is really poorly reasoned. Even hyperlink he cites contradicts his point

I would hope that if you reached that reasonable conclusion, your next thought would not be "nah nah nah, I can't hear you. I'm canceling"

Let me point out: if you worked at any other company and bullied a consumer on social media like this for giving feedback, you'd be fired.

If Coca-Cola added rat feces to its formula, would it be OK for them to tell customers "you're just too dumb to appreciate how good it is."

That is exactly what you're doing, right now. Your paper had a serious lapse of editorial standards, ppl are complaining, and you're...

...acting like we're idiots for wanting actual quality science reporting instead of dramatized obfuscation of established climate facts.

Typical NYT failure to self-reflect. We guide the conversation after all. Follow or you are an embarrassment

We defend the truth, but if we print obvious falsehoods and you don't want to pay us for it, you're an embarrassment. Pathetic.

You didn't read the column.

I did. He makes points that are contradicted in his own hyperlinks

E.g claims 0.85 dog rise in temp since 1880 on Northern Hemisphere when report says this is global

One example

I love how he stared ignoring you once you gave him a concrete example to show you did read the column! Lol

His only defense over & over is "you didn't read it", when clearly many did. He'll be right about me, tho, I've no intention of reading it.

NYT has had plenty of conservative voices. I'm fine with those. Not fine with co-signing nonsense. What's next - a flat earth columnist?

You didn't read the column.

You mean the comparison re overconfidence in climate science and hubris of the Clinton campaign? Yeah... I read it. thx.

It was an invitation to discussion, to spark interest in climate change. I'm amazed that the response has been to refuse discussion.

It was an invitation to dismiss established science not to search for possible solutions to catastrophe-it's disingenuous to claim otherwise

It would have been more legitimate to print "I don't think we should act on climate change because I'll be dead before it hits the fan"

It would have been more legitimate to print "the fossil fuel industries provide too many jobs so we just have to trash planet"

It even would have been more legitimate to print "it's too late to do anything about climate change so let's ignore it"