If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics, however will still take letters from Clippers fans who say their team has a shot at winning the NBA Championship   (foxnews.com) divider line 210
    More: Repeat, L.A. Times, climate change skeptics, climate skeptics, Clippers, Wharton School, Poynter Institute, Australian newspapers, errors of fact  
•       •       •

2247 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2013 at 9:31 AM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



210 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-22 08:21:36 AM
People still write letters to the editor?
 
2013-10-22 08:35:16 AM

Gulper Eel: People still write letters to the editor?


Yes, mostly complaining about how old people are depicted on television, that they are not all vibrant, fun loving sex maniacs. Many of them are bitter, resentful individuals who remember the good old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive.
 
2013-10-22 08:35:28 AM

Gulper Eel: People still write letters to the editor?


LTE are awesome. Like the news only showing the biggest nuts, they only print the pants on head letters from either side

Actually, maybe that's not so great
 
2013-10-22 09:04:36 AM

Gulper Eel: People still write letters to the editor?


you can even do this on the computer now.
 
2013-10-22 09:11:10 AM
 
2013-10-22 09:35:33 AM

SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not


Gotta silence those dissenters.
 
2013-10-22 09:36:07 AM
this never happens...

img.fark.net
 
2013-10-22 09:37:29 AM
Duh--why would the LA Times start printing the truth now?
 
2013-10-22 09:37:46 AM

Gulper Eel: People still write letters to the editor?


Especially Drudge readers.
 
2013-10-22 09:37:56 AM
So kind of like FARK? If you dont like something muddying up your echo chamber then you can just ignore it
 
2013-10-22 09:38:12 AM
Young-earth creationists still get to write in, I assume.
 
2013-10-22 09:39:10 AM

Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.


They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.
 
2013-10-22 09:40:27 AM
So when the hoax that is AGW is revealed to be a moneygrab by Al Gore, the Jews and the Illuminati the LA Times will miss out on the scoop.
 
2013-10-22 09:40:55 AM
Good.
 
2013-10-22 09:43:01 AM
This has nothing to do with climate science and everything to do with a newspaper man on the ropes trying desperately to generate some interest.  It looks to be working.  When the paper inevitably goes under, an imaginative chap like that should do just fine in the job market.
 
2013-10-22 09:43:58 AM
Obey, follow, and do what you are told, citizen.

Why would you write a letter to a propaganda medium and expect any sort of fair treatment?

There is no "journalism" anymore.
 
2013-10-22 09:44:21 AM

Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.


There will be no disagreement.

/Conservative corporate interests have the most to gain by carbon controls.
 
2013-10-22 09:44:31 AM

SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not


Because if there's one magazine I consult about the interests of science, it's the Economist.

/eyeroll
 
2013-10-22 09:44:50 AM
You have to think in geologic terms,
the planet heats up and cools all the time,
you just cant see it when you measure temps only in decades...

it doesn't matter, the sun will burn out or an asteroid will flatten us, maybe alien zombies will harvest our tasty brains.

Doomed, I say....Doomed

go have a beer
 
2013-10-22 09:49:01 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.

They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.


Or as HWC demonstrates here you can just pretend that anything that doesn't confirm your bias doesn't exist.
 
2013-10-22 09:51:46 AM

Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.

They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

Or as HWC demonstrates here you can just pretend that anything that doesn't confirm your bias doesn't exist.


Oh, please do show me the research papers written by climate change denialists that submit letters to the editor of the LA Times.
 
2013-10-22 09:52:43 AM
They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears
 
2013-10-22 09:53:01 AM
The real story is that green ink is getting expensive.
 
2013-10-22 09:53:34 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.

They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

Or as HWC demonstrates here you can just pretend that anything that doesn't confirm your bias doesn't exist.

Oh, please do show me the research papers written by climate change denialists that submit letters to the editor of the LA Times.


You'll never know because the LA Times won't publish it.
 
2013-10-22 09:58:01 AM
Not surprising this Fox News writer equates the banning of factual inaccuracies with the banning of discourse.
 
2013-10-22 09:58:01 AM
Hey guys, I'm SlothB77, and I'm going to conclude that the only people doing any sort of real research are wrong on the basis that people have been wrong before, but I will never, ever, ever, take such a critical approach to my own opinions.
 
2013-10-22 09:59:19 AM

SlothB77: Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not


Much like how democracy is the worst form of government that's still better than all the others, when I want facts about how the world works I'll stick to science until someone else comes up with something better.
 
2013-10-22 10:00:21 AM
FTFA:  Some climate skeptics said the move was an intentional effort to eliminate debate.

The debate is over. Only the deniers are left.

i560.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-22 10:00:54 AM

Savage Belief: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not

Gotta silence those dissenters.

They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

Or as HWC demonstrates here you can just pretend that anything that doesn't confirm your bias doesn't exist.

Oh, please do show me the research papers written by climate change denialists that submit letters to the editor of the LA Times.

You'll never know because the LA Times won't publish it.


Their opinions never seem to get them anywhere, so I guess crying about it in some old person media is fairly harmless. Still though, it's one newspaper. There's always those free papers that homeless people wipe with.
 
2013-10-22 10:02:43 AM

HotWingConspiracy: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.


Thing is, nobody really reads those.  A newspaper shouldn't be in the business of silencing dissent.  Even ridiculous dissent.
 
2013-10-22 10:03:11 AM
sissies
 
2013-10-22 10:04:03 AM

cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears


30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming
 
2013-10-22 10:04:19 AM

Uncle Tractor: FTFA:  Some climate skeptics said the move was an intentional effort to eliminate debate.

The debate is over. Only the deniers are left.

[i560.photobucket.com image 320x240]


As long as the defense attorney is in court and babbling, the jury won't have a chance to delivery the guilty verdict.  It doesn't matter if the prosecution has DNA evidence, fingerprints, 3 surveillance camera recordings, 15 eye-witnesses, 20 character witnesses, and you've not presented a dang thing, as long as you say you've got a case, you've earned yourself an indefinite stay of punishment.
 
2013-10-22 10:04:41 AM
What's awesome is that TFA refers to a professor of marketing as a "climate scientist" who disagrees with the LA Times.

But squashing dissent is not a good thing here. IMO, it'd be better to print this marketing asshole's rebuttal.
 
2013-10-22 10:05:14 AM
First the article starts with:

"In a word, the LA Times should be ashamed of itself," William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton, told FoxNews.com.

"There was an effective embargo on alternative opinions, so making it official really does not change things," said Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at The Rockefeller University in New York.

"The free press in the U.S. is trying to move the likelihood of presenting evidence on this issue from very low to impossible," J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told FoxNews.com.

Then the happy ending:

Happer, Breslow and Armstrong are among 38 climate scientists that wrote a widely discussed letter titled "The Wall Street Journal in Jan. 2012.


Wut?
 
2013-10-22 10:05:24 AM

MilesTeg: Obey, follow, and do what you are told, citizen.

Why would you write a letter to a propaganda medium and expect any sort of fair treatment?

There is no "journalism" anymore.


When your letter proclaims that oxygen doesn't exist, the sky is red, you have a 90 foot penis, global warming doesn't exist, or that you can crap fully cooked stuffed crust pizzas, santa claus and Barack Obama are the same person, or any such nonsense, I doubt they will print your letter bro.
 
2013-10-22 10:06:03 AM

Callous: cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears

30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming


Hey look, it's a link to a blog that makes a claim about Nature, and rather than linking to that, they link to brietbart, which in turn links to absolutely nothing.
 
2013-10-22 10:07:21 AM

SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Because if there is anything that is certain, it is that the science coming out nowadays is rock solid.

Scientists like to think of science as self-correcting. To an alarming degree, it is not


There are a lot of issues with the way science is done.  Namely the privatization of science and the shift to allowing corporations to control the research.  Which the economist would never dare to discuss since they essentially the propaganda arm of the chamber of commerce.

but none of this has anything to do with climate change.  The science was in at the first IPCC 20 years ago research since has only strengthened the original findings.  The LA Times should have done this a decade ago to make room for interesting discussion.
 
2013-10-22 10:07:37 AM

stewbert: What's awesome is that TFA refers to a professor of marketing as a "climate scientist" who disagrees with the LA Times.

But squashing dissent is not a good thing here. IMO, it'd be better to print this marketing asshole's rebuttal.


That's who is actually responsible for the other side.  It is marketing versus science.  It's always been marketing versus science.
 
2013-10-22 10:08:01 AM

Callous: cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears

30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming


Thanks for giving my computer cancer.
 
2013-10-22 10:11:28 AM
Onkel Buck


So kind of like FARK? If you dont like something muddying up your echo chamber then you can just ignore it

^ This.
 
2013-10-22 10:12:31 AM

Callous: cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears

30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming


I hope you are joking.
 
2013-10-22 10:12:55 AM

Savage Belief: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: HotWingConspiracy: Callous: SlothB77: L.A. Times bans letters from climate change skeptics

Oh, please do show me the research papers written by climate change denialists that submit letters to the editor of the LA Times.

You'll never know because the LA Times won't publish it.


Sadly, to a climate change skeptic a letter to the editor is exactly the same as a research paper.
 
2013-10-22 10:13:55 AM

stewbert: What's awesome is that TFA refers to a professor of marketing as a "climate scientist" who disagrees with the LA Times.

But squashing dissent is not a good thing here. IMO, it'd be better to print this marketing asshole's rebuttal.


FTFA - ""The free press in the U.S. is trying to move the likelihood of presenting evidence on this issue from very low to impossible," J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told FoxNews.com. "

Neither "climate" nor "scientist" appear in the paragraph.  Also he make no mention of the issue of climate change itself only the policy.  You need to work on your reading comprehension.
 
2013-10-22 10:15:45 AM

Digital Communist: Callous: cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears

30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming

I hope you are joking.


Oh I'm sorry is the  Nature Journal Of Science no longer considered a credibleperiodical   Or did you just look a the URL and apply your bias?
 
2013-10-22 10:17:34 AM
Until we start printing the "moon landing was a hoax" and "HAARP earthquake" letters lets not print the climate deniers either.

Fringe kookery is fringe and even a single letter's representation in a reputable newspaper is more representation than it deserves.  Get some scientific evidence on your side and *then* we'll talk.
 
2013-10-22 10:19:08 AM

Callous: stewbert: What's awesome is that TFA refers to a professor of marketing as a "climate scientist" who disagrees with the LA Times.

But squashing dissent is not a good thing here. IMO, it'd be better to print this marketing asshole's rebuttal.

FTFA - ""The free press in the U.S. is trying to move the likelihood of presenting evidence on this issue from very low to impossible," J. Scott Armstrong, co-founder of the Journal of Forecasting and a professor of marketing at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, told FoxNews.com. "

Neither "climate" nor "scientist" appear in the paragraph.  Also he make no mention of the issue of climate change itself only the policy.  You need to work on your reading comprehension.


"Happer, Breslow and Armstrong are among 38 climate scientists that wrote a widely discussed letter titled "The Wall Street Journal in Jan. 2012."

Do you want to try again?
 
2013-10-22 10:20:31 AM

Callous: Digital Communist: Callous: cranked: They can always write a rebuttal in science journals using all of their research. It's weird that they never do that.

/bears bears bears

30 seconds on Google.

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9353-nature-journal-of-sci en ce-discredits-man-made-global-warming

I hope you are joking.

Oh I'm sorry is the  Nature Journal Of Science no longer considered a credibleperiodical   Or did you just look a the URL and apply your bias?


There is no link to the actual Nature Journal article. You linked to two propaganda sites.
 
2013-10-22 10:23:47 AM

Callous: Nature Journal Of Science no longer considered a credibleperiodical


Maybe you could provide a link to that research on the Journal?   Your earlier link didn't even quote the Journal, but does helpfully mention "The research was conducted by CERN ... and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere".

Yes... precisely.
 
2013-10-22 10:24:00 AM
"The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
-Albert Einstein


Paul Thornton, editor, has an abundance of both.  Is this is what journalism is supposed to look like?
 
Displayed 50 of 210 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report