It's so bad that even the introverts are marching

It was heatstroke weather for the Climate March, and I went with trepidation, fretting about how ironic it would be to be done in by the unseasonal weather. But it was a good march and made, I hope, a powerful statement about how much people care about climate.

The same day, the New York Times printed the first column by its new columnist, Bret Stephens, and its topic was climate. Stephens used his debut column to dig in on climate denial.

It was a dumb column, heavy on indignation and devoid of evidence (you can read about that here: https://thinkprogress.org/the-ny-times-promised-to-fact-check-their-new-climate-denier-columnist-they-lied-72ad9bdf6019) , but the saddest thing, for me, was that the nation's most important newspaper* would use its public position to spread climate denial on the day of the Climate March. But the editorial page staff of the NYT has always been alarmingly ignorant when it comes to science.

And yet, there's hope! At the same time, The Intercept has given us a jaw-dropping interview with a former professional propagandist, Jerry Taylor, who worked at the highest levels in the climate-denial machinery (at ALEC and the Cato Institute), who saw the light, got woke, and now works to lobby conservatives and Republicans to take climate change seriously.

His personal transformation is an inspiring story -- basically, he accepted a challenge to actually look at the facts -- but the best part is his assessment of how many Republicans are chafing under their party's climate denial orthodoxy.

"The wall of denial in the GOP looks awful frightening from afar but it is crumbling. And it can change quickly," says Taylor. (Full interview here: https://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science/)

[The photo below is taken in front of the Newseum, which celebrates the First Amendment, which guarantees the right of assembly and the right to petition the government, as well as freedom of the press.]

*a position that The Washington Post may be well-positioned to assume.