What a big surprise that The New York Times' resident climate science denier Bret Stephens thinks the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. EPA to end the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to broadly impose reductions in power plant emissions was the best decision of the court this session:
You are referring to the ruling that says the Environmental Protection Agency can’t unilaterally reinvent the entire energy economy with an expansive interpretation of the Clean Air Act that Congress did not intend when it wrote the bill? I’d say the decision was the best thing the court did this term.
Before he was at the Times, Stephens was one of The Wall Street Journal’s leading climate science deniers. It should be noted that he is not merely a columnist at the Times, he’s also deputy editorial page editor.
His Times’ columns have been toned down from what he was writing before 2017 at the Journal. Here’s one example: “Liberalism’s Imaginary Enemies,” The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30, 2015:
“The hysteria generated by an imperceptible temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880—as if the trend is bound to continue forever, or is not a product of natural variation, or cannot be mitigated except by drastic policy interventions. The hyping of flimsy studies—melting Himalayan glaciers; vanishing polar ice—to press the political point. The job security and air of self-importance this provides the tens of thousands of people—EPA bureaucrats, wind-turbine manufacturers, litigious climate scientists, NGO gnomes—whose livelihoods depend on a climate crisis. The belief that even if the crisis isn’t quite what it’s cracked up to be, it does us all good to be more mindful about the environment.” ...
“Here’s a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same.”
I’m a big believer in the media presenting a wide range of opinions. I’ve also served as a deputy editorial page editor at the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner and as one of the editors of the op-ed pages of the Los Angeles Times. Plenty of conservatives got space to present their views—most of which I found wrongheaded, often profoundly so. But none spouted a constant fountain of disinformation. On the other hand, when it comes to the climate crisis, Stephens is just another mouthpiece for the fossil fuel industry. He might as well be on the payroll of Charles Koch.