Author Topic: LA Times will no longer publish letters to the editor questioning Global Warming  (Read 1326 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Glock32

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 8747
  • Get some!
This could have also gone in the Weather/Climate section, but I think it more properly belongs under Media Bias since that's the real story here. Anyhow, the LA Times has announced that it will no longer accept letters to the editor that challenge manmade Global Warming. You know, the global warming that has not been happening for the past 2 decades.

You see, they have decided that there is no debate anymore. It's the classic exercise of the fait accompli by the praetorian media. Nevermind the fact that observed, empirical data disprove the climate models on their face, nope, the IPCC report has spoken and it is so.

Now of course, as an ostensibly private enterprise they have the right to publish or not publish whatever they want, but that's not really the point either. Just from the few slips of light that occasionally get through the curtain, we already have ample evidence at just how coordinated the media outlets are in setting and disseminating Official Truth. They largely accomplish this by taking advantage of their status as information gatekeepers. If they don't report it, it didn't happen; and the slant under which they do report things matters more than the who/what/where.

So what I'm getting at here isn't exactly a new revelation on this forum, but just a reiteration of the fact that these people are active enemies. In the grand scheme of things what they do isn't much different than throwing actual bombs. They are the enemy, and they will have to be dealt with alongside all the other forces that are working to corral humanity into a new techno-feudal serfdom.

http://freebeacon.com/la-times-will-not-publish-letters-to-the-editor-questioning-global-warming/
"The Fourth Estate is less honorable than the First Profession."

- Yours Truly

Online Pablo de Fleurs

  • Conservative Hero
  • ****
  • Posts: 3287
  • @PesoNeto3
    • Apologetics Workshop
This is one of the catalysts for provoking generally good natured people to thoughts of striking back in some tangible fashion. Cutting off debate and ending discussion on volatile topics with potential legislative outcomes that genuinely f*ck up our day-to-day lives.

Differences of ideology is one thing; dictating another. Of course we all see the trajectory plainly...it's the solution that evades.
2 Timothy 1:7
For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but of power & of love and of calm, a well-balanced mind, discipline and self-control.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
A natural progression...

The Idiots Guide to How a Libiot Wins a Debate -

1)  Lie

2)  Lie some more

3)  Personally attack your opponent and disparage their message and sources

4)  Remume lying

5)  In the case of unrelenting opponent declare the debate over and the issue settled and walk away

6)  Resume lying and attacking opponents ad hominem in propaganda releases

7)  Kill your opponent

See, we are only one step away from 100% fascism.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline whimsicalmamapig

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
you are forgetting the new phrase "settled law"
Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
Thomas Jefferson

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
you are forgetting the new phrase "settled law"

I wouldn't say forget...ignore and ridicule it, but never forget! 

Any scientist of integrity knows that declaring anything "settled" or "final" or "absolute" is an absurdity and those making such pronouncements are a complete and utter fraud!

There is scientific inquiry...naysayers and skeptics get their say!

There is scientific theory...if your theory has some bumps, guess what?  Back to the drawing board and try again!

If there is anything close to unsettled and non-absolute it is all of the bullsh*t ideas spawned from climate change!

Somebody wake me up when these clowns understand the full dynamics of the oceans and the sun.

(I'm in for a long sleep!)
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline richb

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1741
I imagine they printed few if any non-Alarmist warming letters anyway.   

FACT:  Global warming is not settled science,  and any newspaper reporter saying so is lying.  Including the reporter at the LA Times. 

If anything its not science at all.   Its more on the lines of the 21st centuries version of snake oil.    Appears to be science,  proclaims to be science,  lots of naive and stupid believe said claims,  turns out to be a scam.   

RickZ

  • Guest
I imagine they printed few if any non-Alarmist warming letters anyway.   

FACT:  Global warming is not settled science,  and any newspaper reporter saying so is lying.  Including the reporter at the LA Times. 

If anything its not science at all.   Its more on the lines of the 21st centuries version of snake oil.    Appears to be science,  proclaims to be science,  lots of naive and stupid believe said claims,  turns out to be a scam.

It's population control with the government making public policy under the guise of 'settled' science.  I can't imagine too many pols ever taking any hard science courses in their lifetimes, not when we have the likes of Sheila Jackson Lee taking up space in the House and overseeing policy:

Quote
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: “We just don’t teach enough science.” Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee. Perhaps some committee reassignments are in order…”


Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Jason Lewis is great at laying out the case that the Global Warming hoax is and always was a mechanism to bring about socialism. He says often (paraphrased) "It's no coincidence that every single solution to Global Warming proposed by the Left reads as a verbatim laundry list of their policy goals for the last 100 years."

LA Times is just doing their part. If they don't pay a steep and deeply understood price, they'll get away with it.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Finrod

  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Science is never settled, by definition.  Anyone who uses the phrase 'the science is settled' is implicitly saying that what they're talking about is not science.

What they have is Cargo Cult Science.  Richard Feynman coined that term in a speech in 1974: http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html

Some apt quotes:

Quote
But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science. That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying science in school--we never say explicitly what this is, but just hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now and speak of it explicitly. It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.

Quote
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you're talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you're not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We'll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of his work were. "Well," I said, "there aren't any." He said, "Yes, but then we won't get support for more research of this kind." I think that's kind of dishonest. If you're representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you're doing-- and if they don't support you under those circumstances, then that's their decision.

One example of the principle is this: If you've made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish BOTH kinds of results.

I say that's also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don't publish such a result, it seems to me you're not giving scientific advice. You're being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don't publish at all. That's not giving scientific advice.

Offline Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63663
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Great find Finrod!   ::thumbsup::
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.