New York Times Defends Hiring of Climate Science Denier Bret Stephens, Claiming 'Intellectual Honesty'

authordefault
on

The New York Times has been defending the paperโ€™s hiring of a climate science denier, fighting off its critics with what it claims is a standard fashioned from hardened โ€œintellectualย honesty.โ€

The controversial hire in question is that of Bret Stephens, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, who has joined the NYT as a columnist and deputy editorial pageย editor.

While at the WSJ, Stephens consistently undermined and disparaged climate change, one time describing it as an โ€œimaginary enemyโ€ and another comparing it to religion with a โ€œdoomsaying prophecy and faith in things unseen.โ€

Stephens’ย new boss, editorial page editor James Bennett, told the paperโ€™s public editor Liz Spayd: โ€œThe crux of the question is whether his work belongs inside our boundaries for intelligent debate, and I have no doubt that it does. I have no doubt he crosses our bar for intellectual honesty andย fairness.โ€

Suffice to say, there are plenty who disagree. One climate scientistย has already canceled his subscriptionย in protest, with others watching closely.ย ย ย 

No doubt that Stephens can write โ€” he won a Pulitzer in 2012 for lots of opinions on stuff other than climate.

But like other conservative columnists admired for their poetic prose and strident opinions while attacking climate change, the methods used by Stephens might be compared to those of a fake chef producing a lumpy and unsatisfying wordย soup.

Crapย Soup

Thereโ€™s no real care with the preparation and no quality control over the freshness or blending of the ingredients, but these indiscretions are suitably masked with enough flavor-enhancers to give some short-term satisfaction to unsuspectingย diners/readers.

But the New York Times should probablyย be serving up something far more substantial than crap soup and three-day-old bread to its massiveย audience.

Letโ€™s take, for example, a November 2015 columnย whichย Stephens wrote in the build up to the United Nations climate negotiations inย Paris.

Stephens wrote that a trend in rising global temperatures was โ€œimperceptibleโ€ and that the โ€œhysteriaโ€ around climate change ignored how this trend could be โ€œa product of naturalย variation.โ€

There is a mountain of evidence that global warming is not caused by โ€œnatural fluctuations,โ€ and this evidence has been in existence for decades. To suggest that it isnโ€™t, would be to fall below any bar ofย intellectual honesty erected in the newsroom of the New York Times or in any science academy around theย globe.

In the same column, Stephens chose to highlight โ€œthe hyping of flimsy studies โ€” melting Himalayan glaciers; vanishing polar iceโ€ that he said were being used to push a politicalย viewpoint.

Stephens was referring to an error on Himalayan glaciers buried away in a UN report, while choosing to ignore the decades-long trend of melting that has been recorded at glaciers all over theย planet.

Climateย Agnostic?

Stephens himself has told Huffington Post that he’s an โ€œagnosticโ€ on climate change and saidย while it โ€œseemsโ€ the weight of scientific evidence points to human causes forย global warming, that evidence might be wrong because โ€œthe history of science is replete with consensus positions that haveย evolved.โ€

Now, the New York Times’ own defense of its hiring of Stephens is almost as redundant as the arguments that Stephens borrows from climate scienceย deniers.

In an interview with the Huffington Post, the NYTโ€™s Bennett said there was โ€œmore than one kind ofย denial.โ€

โ€œAnd to pretend like the views of a thinker like Bret, and the millions of people who agree with him on a range of issues, should simply be ignored, that theyโ€™re outside the bounds of reasonable debate, is a really dangerous form of delusion,โ€ heย said.

Letโ€™s think about what the NYT opinion page might look like if we based it on the beliefs of millions ofย Americans.

According to Gallup polling data, some 20 percent of Americans believe in witches, which is roughly half the number of people who think extrasensory perception is actually aย thing.ย 

A poll conducted by Harris in 2016 found that two out of five Americans think ghosts are real. Belief in evolution? Thatโ€™s at 49 percent. Creationism? Some 37 percent are down withย that.

Lizard people controlling societies? ย One in 25 Americans fear their presence, but where’s their representation in the NYTย editorials?

Arguing that someone should be hired to the editorial desk of one of the worldโ€™s most influential newspapers because โ€œmillions of peopleโ€ hold a particular belief is a clear path to supporting the sort of delusional thinking that has more Americans believing in the paranormal than accepting that climate change is mostly human-caused.

That 1970s Coolingย Myth

Opinions are worth printing when theyโ€™re based on the preponderance of credible evidence, not the self-interests of fossil fuelโ€“funded โ€œfellowsโ€ at so-called think tanks or the whimsy of attention-seekingย contrarians.

In an August 2011 interview on Fox News Business, Stephens told viewers โ€œin the 1970s we were supposed to believe in globalย cooling.โ€ย 

Were we?ย Well, if you want to base your intellectually robust opinion on a moldy-old myth based on a couple of 1970s news items, thenย fine.

Alternatively, read a 2008 review of science papers published between 1965 and 1979 finding that only seven papers were predicting cooling against 44 saying temperatures wouldย rise.

Also in that interview, Stephens lauded an essay by the late author Michael Crichton that attacked the consensus on globalย warming.

In that essay, based on a lecture, Crichton said: โ€œWhenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re beingย had.โ€

So letโ€™s just stop a second and think about what Crichton was advocatingย here.

The consensus of medical science says smoking will massively increase your risk of getting cancer and heart disease, even if you canโ€™t say exactly which cigarette killed your wheezy relative.ย Youโ€™re being had,ย folks.

Crichton was putting up a straw man argument โ€” that science is done by consensus โ€” in order to then attackย it.ย 

Climateย Consensus

When people talk about a consensus on the causes of climate change, theyโ€™re describing the collective findings of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published in leading scientific journals over decades using multiple methods from a diverse set ofย observations.

The consensus that climate change is caused by humans comes from the long-studied physical properties of greenhouse gases to the measurements of warming oceans, the atmosphere, and the places on the planet where there is, or was,ย ice.

Donโ€™t get me wrong here, folks. Youโ€™re free to choose a glib sound bite from a science fiction writer based on a misrepresentation of the concept of scientificย consensus.

But take care not to be had by charlatans promising to chat to your very dead Aunty Betty or save your soul from the claws of the lizardย people.

I think it might be time someone broke into the editorial office of The New York Times and raised that bar of intellectualย honesty.

Main image: The New York Times offices. Credit: Flickr/Jason Kufferย (CC BYSA 2.0)

Related Posts

on

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.

The new leader of the opposition has regularly criticised the UKโ€™s green ambitions.
on

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.

Lucy von Sturmer and Duncan Meisel are building communities of creatives dedicated to preventing the advertising and public relations industry from casting polluters as climate saviours.
Opinion
on

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.

It's time to come together to collectively work through the anxiety, grief and overwhelm so many of us are experiencing.
on

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.

UCP pledges to abandon the provinceโ€™s net zero targets, and remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant.