There's a direct link in the article you posted. Stephens ends his column (and only slightly more subtly, begins it) by likening AGW "certitude" to Nazi Germany.
When someone is honestly 55 percent right, that’s very good and there’s no use wrangling. And if someone is 60 percent right, it’s wonderful, it’s great luck, and let him thank God.
But what’s to be said about 75 percent right? Wise people say this is suspicious. Well, and what about 100 percent right? Whoever says he’s 100 percent right is a fanatic, a thug, and the worst kind of rascal.
— An old Jew of Galicia
. . . .
I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude.
And then he complains about the backlash.
Similarly (and slightly less offensively) he both begins and ends his column with references not just to Hillary Clinton's campaign, but suggesting that a few months of partisan pollsters' analysis of
human opinions and behaviour can be compared to the international scientific community's decades of observation, research, modeling, evaluation and refinement in our understanding of the physical climate system.
Hardly worthy of the nasty responses which have been alleged. Hardly worthy of any response at all :lol:
