In an article for The Hill, Opinion Editor Joe Concha laments "The death of civil discourse: Twitterverse eviscerates Bret Stephens over climate column."
It is extremely ironic that liberals would skewer a prominent #NeverTrump Republican like former WSJ columnist Bret Stephens in his first piece since switching to the New York Times for exactly the principles that made him #NeverTrump in the first place. Stephens basically proposed civil, intelligent discussion and debate on climate change--the opposite of the Trump approach. Stephens' article on climate change may be off base in some ways, such as the unfortunate title "Climate of Complete Certainty." But Stephens is absolutely correct to suggest that the effects of climate change are not entirely predictable and that we need to have better dialogue and discourse to bring about the kinds of policies needed to confront the threat.
Stephens main sin was to suggest #1 we should debate how to confront climate change and #2 to recognize that the science of predicting the seriousness of the threat is uncertain. You can argue with those points, but they'd be a great step forward from the status quo, where too many deny the reality of man made climate change or that it is a threat.
In the harsh over-reaction to seeing Stephens' nuanced approached in their beloved New York Times, some liberals did much to solidify the impression of climate change deniers that the whole thing is some global UN conspiracy to jack up taxes and create a one-world government. Some people even threatened to cancel their New York Times subscriptions, a cut off your nose to spite your face move that would certainly make our "Failing New York Times" President very happy. Nice going, jerks. Way to broaden be effective and broaden the #NeverTrump coalition.