LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics

[JRK]

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.

But it does show how bad media bias has got

 

[ClosedCaption]

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

Op-eds?

Dude stop spamming. I said tell these guys to put their work out there to be judged by science testing and for some reason this upsets you.

I'm all out of tissue and I'm all out of fucks

 

[ClosedCaption]

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.

They are ignoring the bullshit. There isn't two sides to everything. One side is proven the other side is made up or at very least "unproven"

News papers aren't for that purpose. That's where we differ. GW is about science. Not motives, not secret wants and desires you make up in your own head.

Science, only. That's what GW is about.

And no, I dont engage fools. Its a waste of time.

 

[ron4342]

The First and Second amendments really piss off the Left.

RoadVirus shows his lack of knowledge regarding freedom of the press.
YOU have the right to say what you want both in public and in private. You can set a soap box on the corner and rail at the government all you want to and no one can stop you. However, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO HAVE YOUR OPINION PRINTED IN THE NEWSPAPER. The newspaper is a PRIVATE company and they are under no obligation to print anyone's opinion or blathering. Who ever owns the paper controls what is in the paper and has a perfect right to print what THEY want to print. This is important and I am sure you will miss it: The newspaper is a PRIVATE enterprize and they are under no obligation to print any of your trash. If you want to see your opinion printed in a newspaper, start your own newspaper <PERIOD>

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its like a news story about Israel must include EVERY side of "the debate" like the Holocaust never happened. Jews and the New World Order. Jews run America. Palestinians and what they think. Why Does Israel exist? etc etc etc

We must include every wack a doodle or we're not being fair. News papers are supposed to be the size of hay bales too apparently to fit all these "sides" into it

 

[martybegan]

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.

They are ignoring the bullshit. There isn't two sides to everything. One side is proven the other side is made up or at very least "unproven"

News papers aren't for that purpose. That's where we differ. GW is about science. Not motives, not secret wants and desires you make up in your own head.

Science, only. That's what GW is about.

And no, I dont engage fools. Its a waste of time.

LOL. Its not about science anymore. Its about more control over people's lives, more government regulation, and lessening peoples quality of life over a phenomenon that progressives like you treat like a religion, complete with heresy and heretics.

But keep living in your ivory tower, thinking YOU ALONE know all, and have the answers.

 

[ron4342]

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.

Excuse me, but yes they can. They can "ban any letters or email from anyone about any subject" for the simple reason that THEY OWN THE PAPER. The newspaper is a privately owned business and they DO NOT have to print anything they do not want to print. If a person wants their idiot and moronic views printed in a newspaper they should look around until they find a paper that agrees with them or they should start their own paper.

 

[martybegan]

Its like a news story about Israel must include EVERY side of "the debate" like the Holocaust never happened. Jews and the New World Order. Jews run America. Palestinians and what they think. Why Does Israel exist? etc etc etc

We must include every wack a doodle or we're not being fair. News papers are supposed to be the size of hay bales too apparently to fit all these "sides" into it

I prefer holocaust deniers be allowed to speak, it exposes them to the world, and makes thier position look stupid.

With regards to AGW, the "proper" position is that eevul hoomans are destroying the planet, thus we must give more power to government, tax people more, and lower our standards of living so we dont piss off "Gaia." This based on models that so far are not doing a very good job of predicting the actual trends we have seen in the past decade or so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If they want it in the science section or speaking about science then yeah its about science.


See you are trying to turn science into a debate on politics. I'm not. I'm talking about a debate on science. Things that can be proven or unproven.

You keep arguing against this, that's fine but dont pretend someone is afraid of a fact free debate because they are interested in facts

 

[martybegan]

If they want it in the science section or speaking about science then yeah its about science.


See you are trying to turn science into a debate on politics. I'm not. I'm talking about a debate on science. Things that can be proven or unproven.

You keep arguing against this, that's fine but dont pretend someone is afraid of a fact free debate because they are interested in facts

If it was just science then why are people proposing we massively change our economies and our way of life?

Science is one thing, massive governmental changes is another.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its like a news story about Israel must include EVERY side of "the debate" like the Holocaust never happened. Jews and the New World Order. Jews run America. Palestinians and what they think. Why Does Israel exist? etc etc etc

We must include every wack a doodle or we're not being fair. News papers are supposed to be the size of hay bales too apparently to fit all these "sides" into it

I prefer holocaust deniers be allowed to speak, it exposes them to the world, and makes thier position look stupid.

With regards to AGW, the "proper" position is that eevul hoomans are destroying the planet, thus we must give more power to government, tax people more, and lower our standards of living so we dont piss off "Gaia." This based on models that so far are not doing a very good job of predicting the actual trends we have seen in the past decade or so.

You're not fooling anyone.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Excuse me, but yes they can. They can "ban any letters or email from anyone about any subject" for the simple reason that THEY OWN THE PAPER. The newspaper is a privately owned business and they DO NOT have to print anything they do not want to print. If a person wants their idiot and moronic views printed in a newspaper they should look around until they find a paper that agrees with them or they should start their own paper.

While true, it sure exposes them as frauds for giving credence to the AGW cultists and dispenses any notion that they are objective.

 

[ClosedCaption]

If they want it in the science section or speaking about science then yeah its about science.


See you are trying to turn science into a debate on politics. I'm not. I'm talking about a debate on science. Things that can be proven or unproven.

You keep arguing against this, that's fine but dont pretend someone is afraid of a fact free debate because they are interested in facts

If it was just science then why are people proposing we massively change our economies and our way of life?

Science is one thing, massive governmental changes is another.

I'm talking about just science. Try to keep up man dam

 

[orogenicman]

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 aren't the issue. When so-called skeptics create false controversies and more importantly, create their own "facts", then we tend to have a problem. It's like creationists arguments to "teach the controversy". There is no more controversy in evolution than there is in climate change. By the way, you do know the difference between climate and WEATHER, right?

 

[martybegan]

If they want it in the science section or speaking about science then yeah its about science.


See you are trying to turn science into a debate on politics. I'm not. I'm talking about a debate on science. Things that can be proven or unproven.

You keep arguing against this, that's fine but dont pretend someone is afraid of a fact free debate because they are interested in facts

If it was just science then why are people proposing we massively change our economies and our way of life?

Science is one thing, massive governmental changes is another.

I'm talking about just science. Try to keep up man dam

The science that has models that are not showing what they were supposed to show over the past decade? The models that gave us the hockey stick, now one of the more laughed at concepts when it comes to AGW.

But fine, say AGW is happening, so what? We can adapt, and do it without going all socialist, which is what you are aiming for, of course.

 

[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

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 aren't the issue. When so-called skeptics create false controversies and more importantly, create their own "facts", then we tend to have a problem. It's like creationists arguments to "teach the controversy". There is no more controversy in evolution than there is in climate change. By the way, you do know the difference between climate and WEATHER, right?

Do the people who call out every slightly stronger hurricane, or any typical flood that occurs from time to time and support AGW know the difference as well?

Evidently they don't, from some of the posts we get here.

 

[ron4342]

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.

But it does show how bad media bias has got

Media bias!!!! <sigh> Any time a media outlet says something the right does not like it immediately becomes "MEDIA BIAS!!!!!!!" And what is media bias??? It is a way for republicans to avoid having to see and hear the truth.
Here is a thought: What if the media says the republicans were stupid to shut down the government. You can scream "Media bias" at the top of your lungs but it does not change the fact that shutting down the government was a stupid thing to do!!!!!!

 

[ClosedCaption]

If it was just science then why are people proposing we massively change our economies and our way of life?

Science is one thing, massive governmental changes is another.

I'm talking about just science. Try to keep up man dam

The science that has models that are not showing what they were supposed to show over the past decade? The models that gave us the hockey stick, now one of the more laughed at concepts when it comes to AGW.

But fine, say AGW is happening, so what? We can adapt, and do it without going all socialist, which is what you are aiming for, of course.

 

[martybegan]

I'm talking about just science. Try to keep up man dam

The science that has models that are not showing what they were supposed to show over the past decade? The models that gave us the hockey stick, now one of the more laughed at concepts when it comes to AGW.

But fine, say AGW is happening, so what? We can adapt, and do it without going all socialist, which is what you are aiming for, of course.

So basically I won, you have no more argument, and have resorted to smarmy meme posts.

Thanks for playing.

 

[ron4342]

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.

What if something bad is happening now and you have been convinced by the energy companies to ignore it?