Conservative columnist Bret Stephens ignited a firestorm Friday when his debut op-ed for the New York Times tried to conflate pollsters' confidence in Hillary Clinton winning the election to climate scientists' assurances that global warming is a dangerous reality.
The former Wall Street Journal columnist argued that faulty polling data during the 2016 election proves that science can be wrong in other areas.
"There’s a lesson here," the new Times columnist wrote about Clinton's flawed polling numbers. "We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris."
In essence, Stephens asserted that climate change's "certitude" made some Americans less keen on believing in it.
In response to the column, many climate scientists took the step to cancel their subscriptions, while progressives and leftists grumbled about their lack of representation on The Times' editorial page.
The New York Times newsroom, meanwhile, found their own way to promote opposing views to Stephens.
Shortly after Stephens' column went online Friday, The New York Times Twitter handle devoted to climate news shared a link that directed its readers to the climate and environment webpage. The main New York Times Twitter handle retweeted the link as well.
— NYT Climate (@nytclimate) April 28, 2017
Other journalists at The Times subtly — and not so subtly — commented on the op-ed.
— Sopan Deb (@SopanDeb) April 28, 2017
*bangs gavel* both sides heard
— Greg Howard (@greghoward88) April 28, 2017