Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Media assisted control of the masses

Posted by on Oct. 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM
  • 7 Replies


L.A. Times Bans Letters from Climate Change Skeptics, Some Scientists Disgusted

climate change

Climate linked to conflict in new study (Shutterstock.com

In a stunning move that some scientists are decrying as blatant censorship, The Los Angeles Times is no longer publishing letters from those who deny climate change.

“Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published,” writes Times letters editor Paul Thornton. “Saying ‘there’s no sign humans have caused climate change’ is not stating an opinion, it’s asserting a factual inaccuracy.”

William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton, tells Fox News that the Times “should be ashamed of itself” regarding this decision.

“There was an effective embargo on alternative opinions, so making it official really does not change things,” adds 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 Fox News.

Happer, Breslow and Armstrong are among 38 climate scientists who penned a letter titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” for The Wall Street Journal in January 2012 which argued that the call to “decarbonize” the world’s economy isn’t supported by science.

But not everyone is outraged by the Times’ new editorial stance, Poynter notes.

Thornton’s decision could well leave a few editors wondering if they should follow suit,” Graham Readfearn predicts in the Guardian, adding that “wrongheaded and simplistic views like this are a regular feature” in hundreds of other newspapers worldwide.

Elaine McKewon authored of an Australian study of newspaper coverage of climate change and told Readfern she hoped the Times’ decision would provide “other mainstream media outlets the courage to stop appeasing the climate denial noise machine.”

In the scientific community, the debate about anthropogenic global warming has been over for decades. The scientific consensus on climate change is as strong as the consensus on human evolution or the link between smoking and cancer.

“The religion of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW] does not tolerate non-believers,” Breslow told Fox News.

The Times’ decision came earlier this month and was picked up by other news outlets days ago.

Minnow Slayer

by on Oct. 20, 2013 at 6:54 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-7):
UpSheRises
by Platinum Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 9:37 AM
1 mom liked this
Right, even scientists can be stupid. When they are, we dont have to give them face time. Thats not a conspiracy, thats editorial discretion.
.Bubbles.
by Silver Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 9:45 AM
Media on both sides of the political spectrum do this. Sometimes it is because they believe they are stopping the dissemination of false information. Other times it is blatant censorship. It is hard to say what this Editor's motivation was.
idunno1234
by Silver Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Well....I suppose when the LA times allows articles on creationism presented as science then they will allow articles from those who make idiots out of themselves by denying the absolutely undeniable regarding climate change. 

 

Carpy
by Ruby Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 4:16 PM
1 mom liked this
This is why the climate change hoax has been so successful.
Carpy
by Ruby Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 4:18 PM
2 moms liked this
I would call it censorship of information. Both sides should be heard.

Quoting UpSheRises:

Right, even scientists can be stupid. When they are, we dont have to give them face time. Thats not a conspiracy, thats editorial discretion.
coronado25
by Silver Member on Oct. 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM
1 mom liked this
Look, I don't want to live in a world full of trash and pollution. I do everything I can to be "green" and in the same breathe I say with full confidence that I do not believe that humans are responsible for earth's warming. Lighting a match in a broiler oven that is already on and cooking will not make it the oven hotter and blowing it out won't decrease the cooking time. That is how I see the human element of it.

Eliminate pollution and trash...the earth will keep going on heating and cooling...No one needs to "believe" anything at all about climate change one way or the other. Give a hoot, don't pollute. That goes for air sea and land.

It is not necessary to believe that humans cause global warming inorder to be desirous of being good to the planet.

Stupid ideologies!! Who cares WHY it is getting warmer. We should be looking for ways to keep our planet beautiful and safe as possible not matter WHAT the cause.
stormcris
by Christy on Oct. 20, 2013 at 5:54 PM

There was a reporter who made a report that did not go in line with protecting certain interests and she was fired for it. It is railroaded. They are a business and make the choice of what to print. They even do this with the gossip rags and such to protect high level interests. Editorial discretion is a long standing pc word for we protect who we want. If you find one in the last 50 years or more who have not done this I would be surprise. Why do you think McCarthyism was so well implemented?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN