Perhaps the New York Times was trying to show some balance. They're generally so unabashedly Democrat that conservatives have written them off as the masthead of the liberal media. However, for some reason they hired Bret Stephens away from the Wall Street Journal. But it seems to have backfired on them.
Stephens wrote a column questioning the global warming mantra typically trumpeted by Democrats, and the excrement hit the fan. See People are furiously canceling their New York Times subscriptions after an op-ed disputing climate change was published:
In his column, Stephens compared the "certitude" with which Hillary Clinton's advisers believed she would win the 2016 election to climate scientists' repeated warnings about climate change risks. As evidence, Stephens said that inaccurate polling data during the 2016 campaign proves that science can miss the mark in other fields as well.
"There’s a lesson here. We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote.
Stephens' column evoked a swift and angry response from many of the paper's subscribers, who promptly canceled their subscriptions and bashed the Times' decision to hire Stephens as a writer.
I believe there is such a thing as the religion gene which predisposes people to believe in some power that can't be proved. Furthermore, it seems that many Democrats have redirected that predisposition of religious fervor toward politics, the progressive agenda, global warming, and things such as that. If he didn't know it already, Mr. Stephens is learning that to enter a church and disparage the beliefs that brought the congregation together will get a reaction.
------
1:49 PM 4/30/2017
Comments