…then those with an opposing view become apostates.

That’s especially true if the topic is one with very high stakes, such as AGW (anthropogenic global warming). Think about it this way: if a person is—(a) convinced that AGW has been proven beyond any doubt (b) threatens life as we know it all over the globe; and (c) can be halted and/or decreased by measures we understand and can control if only we had the will to implement them—then if follow that anyone who disagrees is a person who is endangering life on earth.

Science, of course, is not a religion, and the history of science is littered with theories that have been considered proven and then are disproven. So scientists must remain skeptical and open to any evidence that would challenge their theories and their findings. That’s difficult enough to do when the topic is an abstract one with few practical applications. But when a topic is highly highly politicized (as with AGW), the difficulty increases exponentially and the public also becomes very much involved.

Which brings us to an article Bret Stephens wrote in his new venue, the NY Times. It was really a rather modest suggestion that people listen to both sides of the issue—not so much on AGW (which he himself seems to believe is true) as on whether we know enough to accurately predict the future of AGW and/or to fix the problems it may cause.

The Twitter storm this caused has been virulent. But if AGW (and intervention to halt or slow its effects) is your religion, then someone like Stephens becomes the AGW devil. Then this sort of response seems perfectly reasonable (if crass):

“You’re a s”“thead. a crybaby lil f”“kin weenie. a massive twat 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.

Not only has Stephens been excoriated, but that last sentiment—that he shouldn’t be at the Times—has drawn enough support to be expressed in a petition, that now has about 27,000 supporters, asking that he be fired. It’s especially ironic, not only because Stephens just arrived there but also because the main thrust of his column was to ask people to listen to opposing voices. And although Stephens is voicing only the mildest of opposition to current AGW thought, his voice is intolerable to many people who like their echo chambers particularly echo-y:

“Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts,” [Stephens wrote]. “None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know ”” as all environmentalists should ”” that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.” But social media users didn’t care, with some ”” including several scientists ”” going so far as to order a subscription boycott of the Times on Friday. “Each and every one of us should fully boycott the NY Times ”” don’t link to them, don’t click on their links. Their actions are inexcusable,” wrote one Twitter user. “You cannot be an ostensible paper-of-record and allow a science denier to spread propaganda.” Adriana Heguy, a genomics scientist and professor of pathology at NYU, urged her colleagues to scrap their subscriptions, as well. “Composing my letter to the editor today and canceling @nytimes,” she tweeted. “”˜Balance’ means a VALID alternative opinion, not pseudoscience. I’m so sad.”

There’s room for plenty of sadness to go around. I certainly feel it, although I’m used to it, and I’m used to the sentiments expressed there.

The left has always had aspects of a religion, although many on the left don’t believe in religion. Or maybe because they don’t. Human beings apparently have a need to believe, whether they believe it or not.