The New York Times just reached a new level of stupidity

Leftists usually think it's great when they use government power to get what they want, whether it's questionable anti-carbon use of pension funds or all those silly 'state travel bans' that have become popular in recent years, mostly targeting other states whose school trans-bathroom policies don't follow the progressive line.

Whoa, that article in The New York Times about "How Republicans Are "Weaponizing" Public Office Against Climate Action" was really crazy. It was called "How Republicans Are "Weaponizing" Public Office Against Climate Action," and it was about how Republican state treasurers are planning to use government power and public money to punish companies that are trying to reduce greenhouse gases.

Yes, a lot of GOP officials are fighting back against the progressive push "to use government muscle and public funds" to destroy carbon-based fuel industries. They are also fighting against banks and investment firms that are using their power to do the same thing. And the Republicans are doing this with the help of think tanks, non-profits, and other groups.

Just like Democrats have been doing for a long time on their side. Just to start, the New York city and state comptrollers are proud of their anti-carbon strategies for investing huge pension funds, as are other Democrats in similar jobs across the country.

Even worse, Mike Bloomberg has been sending millions of dollars to the offices of state attorneys general to pay for special units that sue oil, gas, and coal companies. That is a much bigger attack on good government than anything else the Times found.

Leftists usually think it's great when they use government power to get what they want, whether it's questionable anti-carbon use of pension funds or all those silly "state travel bans" that have become popular in recent years, mostly targeting other states whose school trans-bathroom policies don't follow the progressive line.

Even the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, just said that Hollywood should stop making movies in states that are politically wrong. (It's good for "Ozark" that the series is over.)

The Times' bias is mind-bogglingly stupid. For example, its reporters and editors don't seem to know about the serious financial-governance arguments against the push to "make companies disclose climate risk," which is really about trying to force them to do business as if the worst climate change scenarios are certain and ignore what the best climate science says.

Which, by the way, means that if we don't do anything else about global warming, the planet will warm a few degrees and the seas will rise a bit, but people will still be in a much better position at the end of the century than they are now.

Climate change isn't even close to being a disaster, and acting like it is does a lot of damage (just fill your tank up for a small taste). Also, the whole West could be carbon-neutral by 2030, but that wouldn't stop global emissions from hitting what greens call a disaster, because China, India, and the rest of the developing world aren't on board. They're building coal plants faster than we can shut them down.

But you can't talk about these facts in the Times newsroom or in too many other elite places.

Because of this, the reporters and editors at the Times don't know much about American politics. As a result, they see the fact that Republican politicians and conservative think tanks are starting to fight back against Democratic and leftist pressure campaigns as a huge new violation of the country's norms.

Follow us on Google News