LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics

[Soggy in NOLA]

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!!!!!!

The problem is the media rarely, if ever, says anything about leftwing stupidity. hence, bias.

 

[ClosedCaption]

No you resorted in saying because a model was wrong ALL of it is wrong. How? You dont know, you have just determined that's the case.

THEN SAID Ok even if its true it COULD BE GOOD. Since posiblities work both ways it COULD BE BAD ALSO. But you cant fathom that because you only see it two ways bringing up another logical fallacy

And saying hey if it happens it could be good uses another:

Don't like these pics? Stop emulating them.

 

[orogenicman]

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

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

 

[martybegan]

No you resorted in saying because a model was wrong ALL of it is wrong. How? You dont know, you have just determined that's the case.

THEN SAID Ok even if its true it COULD BE GOOD. Since posiblities work both ways it COULD BE BAD ALSO. But you cant fathom that because you only see it two ways bringing up another logical fallacy

And saying hey if it happens it could be good uses another:

Don't like these pics? Stop emulating them.

If we were just discussing models you might have a point, but AGW people are discussing MASSIVE changes to our way of life BASED ON these models. At that point it sure as hell does matter if they are working or not.

If this were a debate at a Climate scientist function it would be one thing, however they and thier ilk are asking us to change our way of life based on thier theories.

THAT is where I want undeniable proof that 1) its happening and 2) we 100% will not be able to withstand it without those massive socialistic changes.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Yep. Ignoring the loony's who think that there is no evidence that human activity has effected the climate. That's a good thing.

They said nothing about not printing letters about the response to GW.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

They have trouble modeling 10 days out on the weather, what makes you think they can model for climate change that takes decades? Observation shows that warming has continued.

Who knows what changes will take place. I suggest we focus on adaptation.

 

[ron4342]

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!!!!!!

The problem is the media rarely, if ever, says anything about leftwing stupidity. hence, bias.

What, limbaugh is off the air. savage is off the air. fox is off the air. What do you mean you never hear about left wing stupidity?
Here is a thought, maybe there is less stupidity coming from the left. After all, how can we compete with such mental heavyweights as cruz, palin, bachmann, boehner, perry, angle, gingrich, cain, romney, o'donnel, george w., et al. Face it, anyone who shows the least bit of common sense in your party is immediately branded a RINO and thrown under the bus. Let me pose this question to you: Suppose one party values intelligence and tries to make the best decisions regarding the country and suppose another party is running around like a chicken with its head cut off, SHOULD THE MEDIA TREAT BOTH OF THESE PARTIES EQUALLY OR SHOULD THEY TELL THE TRUTH (even though it will be called media bias.)

 

[HenryBHough]

One might but wonder how one 13-year old leftist puppet finds enough to listen to ALL those conservatives in order that he/she/it might be able to describe their content!

Maybe because puppets don't have to sleep?

 

[mamooth]

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.

Any time a person invokes the great global socialist conspiracy, you know you're reading the words of a sputtering 'tard.

Non-'tards don't need to manufacture 'tard conspiracy theories. 'Tards do. Because they're 'tards, so 'tard conspiracy theories are all they have.

 

[Dante]

LA Times bans letters from climate skeptics | Fox News

The liberal media is getting so much worse every day

And in other news the LATimes bans letters from 911truthers, Psychics, Psychotics and [MENTION=28394]JRK[/MENTION]

 

[martybegan]

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.

Any time a person invokes the great global socialist conspiracy, you know you're reading the words of a sputtering 'tard.

Non-'tards don't need to manufacture 'tard conspiracy theories. 'Tards do. Because they're 'tards, so 'tard conspiracy theories are all they have.

Then why is the solution to AGW always more government control of people, industry and commerce?

Answer that one, dippy.

 

[ron4342]

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.

I hardly think 90+% of the scientists in the world can be called "cultists." When you have that many people saying the same thing and when one piece of evidence after another starts appearing it makes it look like what the paper is doing is going with main stream science. Call it cultists if you wish but the case continues to build that we are heading for climate change and the proof continues to come in that our use of fossil fuel is the prime reason (contrary to what the energy companies say).
Say, did you know that back in the 50's and 60's big tobacco spent millions to purchase scientists who would say that tobacco did not cause cancer. In fact, some of these scientists went as far as to say smoking was good for a person. Did you know that? Does the possibility exist in your world that the energy companies might be doing the same thing today? Just wondering.....

 

[mamooth]

Then why is the solution to AGW always more government control of people, industry and commerce?

That odd belief is part of your conspiracy, hence it's not possible to convince you otherwise. Your conspiracy is very important to you, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior. You're just so much smarter and better than all the other people, since only you and the few other chosen understand the RealTruth.

 

[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.

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.

Okay fine
then there not a news paper and should not pretend to be
there a tabloid

 

[JRK]

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.

I hardly think 90+% of the scientists in the world can be called "cultists." When you have that many people saying the same thing and when one piece of evidence after another starts appearing it makes it look like what the paper is doing is going with main stream science. Call it cultists if you wish but the case continues to build that we are heading for climate change and the proof continues to come in that our use of fossil fuel is the prime reason (contrary to what the energy companies say).
Say, did you know that back in the 50's and 60's big tobacco spent millions to purchase scientists who would say that tobacco did not cause cancer. In fact, some of these scientists went as far as to say smoking was good for a person. Did you know that? Does the possibility exist in your world that the energy companies might be doing the same thing today? Just wondering.....

If a power provider has to add scrubbers, they past that cost on to the consumer
it has no effect on there bottom line
you really think they care?
Why you libs trust any-thing that has an agenda attached to it (money for carbon offsets) and then claim the ones who are not asking for any-thing is lying is kind of confusing to me

 

[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

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth's atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at The Right Climate Stuff - NASA scientists review climate change data

1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.

2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.

3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.

4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.

5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth's habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.

6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently "greening" significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.

7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.
Former NASA Scientists Conclude: No Evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming


That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not

Might want to do some DD next time before you make claims of an EX DJ and who ever as being the people who dis agree with you

 

[Uncensored2008]

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science.

Science is not dogma.

The AGW cult relies on dogma, rather than science. Of course there is no debate of dogma, what is divinely revealed cannot be challenged.

You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result.

Ah, so you think science is a political process where the most popular position is "right?"

Sigh; cultists....

And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support.

ROFL

You've never met a "scientist."

Most of those pushing AGW are academics. In academia, the grant is god. You live and die by the grant. If you can pull in grants, your department gets funded, you get chairmanships. You get published in journals, you get rich.

If you don't pull in grants, you languish in obscurity or you get fired. AGW is a grant cash cow. Of course you have to play the game - you MUST return the results those funding the grants want. IF you produce findings that question or even hint at questions in AGW dogma - you WILL be defunded - and black listed.

It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

There is no science involved in this. Politics and dogma are 100% of the AGW catalyst.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

Science is not a democracy, and certainly not a debate club. You can debate facts, but you cannot debate the science. You can only publish results. If those results are opposed to some other result, then you must convince other scientists to line up in support of your result. And that is not an easy proposition because scientists are actually conservative about what they support. It takes sound science and consistently reproducible results conducted by reputable scientists, properly certified in their respective fields. The rants of an ex- DJ and a massage therapist (two of the prime movers of the AGW denier circuit) don't amount to a hill of beans, and never will.

Beginning in February 2012, the group of scientists calling themselves The Right Climate Stuff (TRCS) team received presentations by scientists representing all sides of the climate change debate and embarked on an in-depth review of a number of climate studies.

Employing a disciplined approach of problem identification and root cause analysis honed from decades of dealing with life threatening safety issues in successfully sending astronauts up through Earth's atmosphere and returning them safely home, the TRCS team concluded that no imminent threat exists from man-made CO2.

TRCS team is comprised of renowned space scientists with formal educational and decades career involvement in engineering, physics, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, geology and meteorology. Many of these scientists have Ph.Ds. All TRCS team members are unpaid volunteers who began the project after becoming dismayed with NASA's increasing advocacy for alarmist man-made climate change theories.

H. Leighton Steward, chairman of CO2isGreen.org as well as the educational non-profit, PlantsNeedCO2.org, makes the following comments regarding the TRCS posting, which can be found at The Right Climate Stuff - NASA scientists review climate change data

1. The science of what is causing global climate change or warming is clearly not settled and never has been.

2. There is no convincing physical evidence to support the man-made climate change hypothesis. The standard test of a hypothesis is whether it is supported by real observations, which seems to have been ignored by climate alarmists.

3. Claims made by proponents of catastrophic man-made warming are dominantly supported by non-validated computer models and the output of these models should not be relied upon by policy-makers. Some TRCS team members have been making critical decisions using complex computer models for decades.

4. There is no immediate threat of catastrophic global warming even if some warming occurs. The sea level is not going to suddenly begin a steep acceleration of its 18,000-year rate of rise. Global sea level rise is not currently accelerating despite what climate change alarmists claim.

5. The U.S. Government has overreacted to a possible catastrophic warming. The probable negative impacts to the economy, jobs and an increased cost of food, transportation and utilities will be severe and hurt the poor and middle class the most. Real experiments show that Earth's habitats and ecosystems could be damaged if CO2 levels are actually reduced. Environmentalists have been grossly misled to believe CO2 is a pollutant.

6. Empirical evidence shows that Earth is currently "greening" significantly due to additional CO2 and a modest warming.

7. Money saved by abandoning a premature rush to lower CO2 emissions could be better spent by continuing research on alternative energies that are not currently competitive or reliable.
Former NASA Scientists Conclude: No Evidence of Catastrophic Global Warming


That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not

Might want to do some DD next time before you make claims of an EX DJ and who ever as being the people who dis agree with you

That group did no research at all.

Climate Denier at CPAC: Trust Me, I'm an Astronaut | Mother Jones

 

[Uncensored2008]

That group did no research at all.

Climate Denier at CPAC: Trust Me, I'm an Astronaut | Mother Jones

Ohhh, a hit piece at the radical left Mother Jones - dayum, I'm convinced - sporky....

You ******* cultists are a hoot.

 

[martybegan]

Then why is the solution to AGW always more government control of people, industry and commerce?

That odd belief is part of your conspiracy, hence it's not possible to convince you otherwise. Your conspiracy is very important to you, because it makes you feel morally and intellectually superior. You're just so much smarter and better than all the other people, since only you and the few other chosen understand the RealTruth.

How is it a conspiracy when the government is mandating that incandescant lightbulbs have to be banned, the EPA has to regulate carbon as a pollutant, and democrats are just ITCHING to get a carbon tax in place.

Trying to pooh-pooh the concept of governmental control increases via AGW advocacy just makes you look foolish, considering it is already happening.