Not only that, but a leftist who writes for The New York Times…

Bill Nye recently launched a new show on Netflix called “Bill Nye Saves the World.” It kicks off its first episode on an intentionally controversial topic: global warming and climate change. Yet, in 30 minutes, he never tells us how to save the world from this so-called disaster.

The closest he comes to calling us to action is to “vote.”

Anyway, the episode’s theme is that global warming is producing rising ocean levels. He uses a neat experiment to illustrate the concept in a test tube. He goes on to show what the consequences of global warming will be, the supporting evidence that proves the theory is true, and finally how “we” can stop it.

As water heats up, it expands. If humans are responsible for global warming, then as the average global temperatures increase, the ocean levels should rise. To prove that this is actually happening, he sends his fashion-model reporter to Venice, where she reports on the rising tides. She tells us that “For over a thousand years, Venice has been known throughout the world as the city of water. But now, in an age of global warming, that water has become a big problem.”

Of course, floods in Venice go back almost 1,500 years. It’s not a new problem, for sure. Are the floods getting worse? Possibly, at the margin. Seems like it, but it’s hard to say for sure. There’s lots of uncertainty.

TOO MUCH CONFIDENCE IN THE UNCERTAINTY

And that’s the point that a new writer for the New York Times made recently.

Brett Stephens penned his first-ever column for the Times on April 28, 2017. Like Nye, he, too, opened on the controversial issue of global warming. A Trump-hating Clinton-supporter, when it comes to climate change and science, he sounds just so darn reasonable:

Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.

Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

Well, not entirely…

Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the earth since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities. That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

…

Let me put it another way. Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong. Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.

He never actually denied climate change, or even that mankind is affecting it, in his article. He clearly says humans have influenced the indisputable warming since 1880. He’s simply pointing out that there are few hard facts, and much speculation that is being passed off as “certain.”

The response from the left?

Crucifixion.

WASH THE UNWASHED

The NY Post captures some of the vulgar tweets launched against him.

“After 20 months of being harangued by bullying Trump supporters, I’m reminded that the nasty left is no different. Perhaps worse,” Stephens tweeted Friday afternoon, as the hateful messages kept rolling in.

“Go eat dog d—s,” fumed one Twitter user.

“When is the Times going to get rid of you?” another asked.

Stephens even managed to tick off fellow journalists.

“You’re a s–thead. a crybaby lil f–kin weenie. a massive tw-t too,” tweeted Libby Watson, staff writer at Gizmodo.

“I’m gonna lose my mind,” seethed Eve Peyser, politics writer at Vice.

“The ideas ppl like @BretStephensNYT espouse are violently hateful & should not be given a platform by @NYTimes,” she said.

How’s that for rational discourse? The man is a leftist. He didn’t even deny climate change. But he dared to point out just confined the facts are, and just how widespread the myth that’s painted by liberal media. He represents a schism in the body, a stain on the white dress that must be cleansed.

But whereas Christians are washed in water to symbolically cleanse them of their moral pollution, leftist writers like Stephens are washed in the vile repugnance that spews forth from the angry fingers of liberal tweeters everywhere.

It’s true that no clean thing can be brought out of an unclean thing. The liberals are counting on it. They see something here that is clean.

It must be washed.

So what happens when a Leftist denies climate change?

I don’t know. But just imagine if Stephens actually did.