Thread by @leahstokes

You know what's "radical"? Burning the entire planet down to line the pockets of a few wealthy fossil fuel executives.

Dear @nytimes editorial board: you are still ignorant of the magnitude of the climate crisis. I really struggle to understand why.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1219109858957496321

@nytimes You know what's not "realistic"? Burning the entire planet down through continuing extraction and leakage of fossil gas.

Dear @nytimes editorial board: you are still ignorant of the magnitude of the climate crisis. I'm still struggling to understand why.

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1219109858957496321

@nytimes In their 3,500 word endorsement, the @nytimes editorial board mentions climate change a total of three times. What do they say in their brief treatment of the problem affecting all living beings on this planet? Let's find out...

@nytimes First, they claim that Warren is wrong to blame fossil fuel companies for climate change.

Who exactly should she or any other candidate blame? Have they missed the last decade of research on climate denial funded by fossil fuel companies? Appears so...

@nytimes Next they say that Biden's climate agenda doesn't go far enough. Except, his plan really isn't that different from Klobuchar's plan... which they then praise...

@nytimes I would agree that Klobuchar speaks about climate change with empathy -- fair enough.

But her constant emphasis on fossil gas as a bridge fuel is downright dangerous.

Nice words, that are not backed up with solid plans, are simply insufficient.

@nytimes Does the @nytimes editorial board think we have another decade to waste before we act on climate change? Because newsflash: we do not.

They would know that if they read the great reporting from the @nytclimate section of their own paper.