LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics

[BlindBoo]

Why do opposing views scare you libs so bad?
BTW suppose to be in the 20s here by Friday
20 degress below normal for the low

It doesn't scare it entertains. Include it under entertainment and we're good.

Place it in the science section and that's the problem.

Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
you know the difference in a Lib and me?
I know that every action has a re-action
So putting CO2 in the atmosphere has to cause a re-action
problem is that your side thinks carbon offsets is the answer to this event

My side is not sure there is even an event yet and if there is money is not going to fix it

http://imageshack.us/a/img594/7655/5vb.gif

 

[Uncensored2008]

We get it the Times banged your mum. Get over it

No you don't "get it."

The Times is irrelevant. It's a defunct propaganda rag from an era that is gone. It is a holdover of the old USSR and has no place in the modern world.

 

[francoHFW]

The perfect example of the power of the greedy idiot billionnaire Pub propaganda machine. Good for the Times....

 

[Mustang]

We get it the Times banged your mum. Get over it

No you don't "get it."

The Times is irrelevant. It's a defunct propaganda rag from an era that is gone. It is a holdover of the old USSR and has no place in the modern world.

Yeah, the old media and their silly fact checkers. Who needs fact checkers when a person has the courage of their uninformed opinions?

But whatever else may have been true, the old media was NOT like the former USSR because they didn't give a rat's ass about facts.

In fact, the former USSR reminds me very much of the NEW media.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah, the old media and their silly fact checkers.

The Times? Fact Checkers? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Times prints what the party tells them to print - end of story.

Who needs fact checkers when a person has the courage of their uninformed opinions?

But whatever else may have been true, the old media was NOT like the former USSR because they didn't give a rat's ass about facts.

Neither do you - or the party press.

Pravda under Stalin was more reliable for accurate and honest reporting than the LA or NY Times, or MSNBCBSABC...

There is nothing "factual" about the party press, they are a blatant propaganda group who piss in the face of the public.

In fact, the former USSR reminds me very much of the NEW media.

You mad that the media no longer has a lock on what the public can see? Joseph Goebbels and his American clone, Edward R. Murrow are dead - so is managed information.

Bummer....

 

[Mustang]

Yeah, the old media and their silly fact checkers.

The Times? Fact Checkers? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Times prints what the party tells them to print - end of story.

Who needs fact checkers when a person has the courage of their uninformed opinions?

But whatever else may have been true, the old media was NOT like the former USSR because they didn't give a rat's ass about facts.

Neither do you - or the party press.

Pravda under Stalin was more reliable for accurate and honest reporting than the LA or NY Times, or MSNBCBSABC...

There is nothing "factual" about the party press, they are a blatant propaganda group who piss in the face of the public.

In fact, the former USSR reminds me very much of the NEW media.

You mad that the media no longer has a lock on what the public can see? Joseph Goebbels and his American clone, Edward R. Murrow are dead - so is managed information.

Bummer....

I like the old print media if for no other reason than they respect(ed) the line between news and opinion which was clearly marked by giving different sections of the paper over to each. There was a clear line of demarcation that allowed newspapers to provide a place where people could express an opinion and support that opinion by stating their reasons for why they believed what they did instead of trying to shout down their opponents like on TV. A great deal of what's on TV and virtually everything that's on radio no longer even acknowledge a difference between the two as if it didn't even exist.

But I dont even watch TV anymore. I just couldn't stand to have it on anymore because it got increasingly worse over the years. That was one of the better decisions I've made in the last few years.

 

[JRK]

LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics | Fox News

The liberal media is getting so much worse every day

Well, they can't ban letters or email from anyone about any subject under the sun. However, they can absolutely choose to not reprint letters with factually inaccurate information which I wholeheartedly support when it comes to any topic.

So, here was an excerpt from the article. Do you have a problem with the message it conveys?

“Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” Thornton wrote

. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”
​

Or do you support letters that say anything and defend it just because it's an expression of an opinion? Keep in mind that would include letters that might say that Senator Ted Cruz is a child molester or that the Holocaust never happened. How much trouble do you think it would be to create a website dedicated to either of those two opinions? In fact, I'm sure there are already web pages devoted to the latter.

Really?
so those experts who dis agree with your position have no say in this?
there is no agreement that climate change is even an issue much less who is causing it
his opinion makes him biased
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists
Global warming? No, actually we're cooling, claim scientists - Telegraph
BTW it is going to be 15 degrres below normal here for the next week starting Thursday

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey lets print articles from other wack a doodles like Holocaust Deniers and Lizard Politicians.

Lets just make the news convoluted as fuck where there is no true or false. That'll be great!

 

[LordBrownTrout]

It's pretty much like russias old pravda. Everyone knew it was all lies and they found the truth elsewhere.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Meh.... who cares... only the terminally stupid are clinging to the AGW thing anyway. IT's been proven a complete fraud.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Meh.... who cares... only the terminally stupid are clinging to the AGW thing anyway. IT's been proven a complete fraud.

The bad part about the climate change scam is that when something really is going to happen, no one will listen now.

 

[martybegan]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

if you can't win an argument against someone, deny the argument exists at all.

Coward.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

if you can't win an argument against someone, deny the argument exists at all.

Coward.

That makes no sense what you said

 

[JRK]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

if you can't win an argument against someone, deny the argument exists at all.

Coward.

That makes no sense what you said

It makes 100% sense
the easiest way to win an argument is tp pretend there is only your side
that is what you and the times is doing
ignore what other experts are stating and only pay attention to your experts
we spend 3.5 trillion dollars a year, we bring in 2.5 and you do not see that as an issue
same thing

 

[ClosedCaption]

if you can't win an argument against someone, deny the argument exists at all.

Coward.

That makes no sense what you said

It makes 100% sense
the easiest way to win an argument is tp pretend there is only your side
that is what you and the times is doing
ignore what other experts are stating and only pay attention to your experts
we spend 3.5 trillion dollars a year, we bring in 2.5 and you do not see that as an issue
same thing

Oh, so you're going to show me where I pretended there was only one side then correct? Speaking of pretending...

Heres the problem. Those "experts" aren't experts at all. And if they want their bullshit to be included in science they should subject their findings to science testing.

They don't, they wont. So lets print the Holocaust deniers too while we're up for wasting newspapers

 

[JRK]

That makes no sense what you said

It makes 100% sense
the easiest way to win an argument is tp pretend there is only your side
that is what you and the times is doing
ignore what other experts are stating and only pay attention to your experts
we spend 3.5 trillion dollars a year, we bring in 2.5 and you do not see that as an issue
same thing

Oh, so you're going to show me where I pretended there was only one side then correct? Speaking of pretending...

Heres the problem. Those "experts" aren't experts at all. And if they want their bullshit to be included in science they should subject their findings to science testing.

They don't, they wont. So lets print the Holocaust deniers too while we're up for wasting newspapers

your comparing the holocaust to climate change?
Team of Former NASA Scientists Conclude: ?There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis? | Climate Depot


is an international panel of scientists and scholars who came together to understand the causes and consequences of climate change. NIPCC has no formal attachment to or sponsorship from any government or governmental agency. It is wholly independent of political pressures or influences and therefore is not predisposed to produce politically motivated conclusions or policy recommendations. NIPCC seeks to objectively analyze and interpret data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. This organizational structure and purpose stand in contrast to those of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is government-sponsored, politically motivated, and predisposed to believing that climate change is a problem in need of a U.N. solution.”

I can attest to you that the team of 50 scientists producing the 1,200 pages of calm, reasoned, dispassionate science in the report did achieve their goal of objectively analyzing and interpreting data and facts without conforming to any specific agenda. They carefully demonstrate the inconvenient facts about the world’s climate discussed below, and when you have that any politicization would just detract from the presentation, as Al Gore shows in his global warming political harangues.
Your Move, Global Warming Alarmists. Science Has Exposed Your Unwarranted Hysteria - Forbes

 

[Spiderman]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

Exactly all Op ed pieces should be banned too after all that's not news it's opinion.

No letters to the editor because that's not news either.

As my hero Joe Friday would say

 

[martybegan]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

if you can't win an argument against someone, deny the argument exists at all.

Coward.

That makes no sense what you said

The LA times is ignoring one side of a debate, thus denying the debate exists at all.

The debate of AGW isnt just about the science, its about the proposed response to it, which is really the crux of the situation. Progressives want more government control due to being afraid of the weather.

You seem to agree with the LA Times' position, thus making you a coward who can't stand up to someone disagreeing with you, much like the LA Times' editors.

 

[Katzndogz]

The LA Times is a dying paper. It periodically passes out free copies to entice people to buy. I got one, called the paper and read them the riot act. I demanded that someone come and take the paper "cleaning up their litter". Then the paper had the temerity to ask me to subscribe. I asked them in the Koch Brothers had bought the paper yet. No. Well call me when they do. Otherwise keep your asswipe to yourselves.

It doesn't matter what the LA Times has to say. Very very few people read it anyway.

 

[ron4342]

Good that's what they are supposed to do. Print news not articles from wackos because they want to be taken seriously.

They also don't accept letters from Pastafarians either. That too, is good

Why do opposing views scare you libs so bad?
BTW suppose to be in the 20s here by Friday
20 degress below normal for the low

Opposing views do not scare scare us. Stupid and ignorant views based on energy company propaganda is what scares us. When over 90% of respected scientists around the world are ignored so you can accept the bought and paid for trash science of the remaining 10%, that scares us. I fully believe that IF the energy companies started speaking about the earth being flat you would accept that without question.
Oh, and by the way, learn the difference between weather and climate. Your statement about it being 20 degrees below is a comment on the weather. Weather is what happens every day. Climate is what happens over dozens of years.