Hi everyone! You may have seen that Liz Spayd, the Public Editor of The New York Times, has published a column addressing the widespread outrage over the hiring of Bret Stephens. (A link to her column: http://nyti.ms/2qI952W) Here's a short response saying her column was inadequate. If you agree, please tweet to Ms. Spayd and James Bennet, the Editor of the Opinion Page, using this link. Let's keep up the pressure! Tweet: http://bit.ly/2qDSqAu Thank you for fighting for our future! "To the Editors of The New York Times, Thank you for listening to your readers and considering their arguments. It is encouraging that Ms. Spayd questioned Bret Stephens' baldly false claim he doesn't speak to his critics with contempt. It is also good that Ms. Spayd is now on record as saying she's worried that Stephens minimizes the serious risk of climate change. But by continuing to represent Stephens' arguments as safely within "a range of views" that lie inside the bounds of reasonable discussion, you still amplify the fossil-fuel disinformation campaign saying that there's enough uncertainty in the climate science to give us pause while we continue to debate whether we need to phase out fossil fuel consumption. So while your column was a positive start, it doesn't repair what we see as the central breach of The New York Times' integrity. We ask that at the very least you pledge to fact-check Stephens' columns before they are published, and publish an unsigned editorial reiterating the presumably reality-based understanding of climate change held by The New York Times as an institution. Climate change is a moral issue. Left unchecked it will cause economic catastrophe and untold human suffering. We ask you, again, to right your mistake and stand on the right side of history."