In the aftermath of the column, many people took to social media to yell at the Times and talk about canceling their subscriptions. The reaction of many in media, particularly those working at the Times, was fascinating.
Everyone should have canceled their subscriptions to the Times a long time ago. It isn’t journalism. It’s biased corporate shilling engineered to generate revenue, not an honest accounting of facts.
This is really the most important point of your article. We get it that people can fall into those four categories, but the important question is why so many people fall into the outright climate denial category. The answer is, of course, that Americans have crippled epistemologies, and our broken mainstream media apparatus is a large part of why.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, that the Times would hire a climate denier, because it just wants to maintain revenue from a populace rendered ignorant by deficiencies in education and media — problems, themselves, resultant from a corrupt political system infected with the disease of corporate greed. An infection they have been party to spreading for decades.
Global warming may very well be the largest problem looming over humanity (and all the other species that share Earth with us), but it’s not ever going to be addressed until we no longer have a corrupt government taking bribes from fossil fuel interests. The New York Times and so-called “climate skeptics” or “climate agnostics” are just lending their weight to the corporate machine to further bog down and muddle the discussion, dragging out the time it takes to resolve this issue.
No ethically-sound human being should be paying for a subscription to the Times. It was already the case before this recent hire, and it’s even more the case now. It may sound dramatic to say, but money that funds the Times is actively contributing to political corruption and the demise of human civilization.