"Useless Discourse", perhaps?
That was the phrase used by representatives of Jewish Voice for Peace a couple of years back when they came to the UC Irvine campus and referred to opinions of those who support the state of Israel. That meant that Israel supporters really shouldn't have a right to free speech nor a right to feel comfortable on college campuses.
Now LA Times editor Paul Thornton has apparently made a similar decision when it comes to skeptics of global warming.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/10/18/la-times-bans-letters-from-climate-skeptics/
It comes down to this: When one sides decides to censor or silence the other side of a debate, it should give you an idea of who is on the wrong side. One of the issues in that E Anglia University bunch that came up with all that GW data that led to a couple of bogus Nobel prizes being given out was that opposing opinions were censored. It's not bad enough hat those who maintain that GW is all bogus are being censored; even those who say, "prove it" before we turn the world and its economy upside down are censored.
What does that tell you?
3 comments:
First, The L.A. Times knows that they cannot win the debate on the bogus Global Warming issue. Too many real scientists have come forward to discredit the "Warmers" and their false, skewed data. As an example, Al Gore predicted that 2013 would be the worst years for disastrous weather in the form of hurricanes and tornados. As it is reported, so far, 2013 has had historically low numbers of tornados and hurricanes. In fact, 2013 was one of the coolest years in decades.
Second, the L.A. Times cannot accept real science and facts, so they will refuse to publish the truth. They are following the lead of the Obama administration to push for another expensive effort to control the ecomony, business and America's properity by false regulation of air.
Where is the ethics and accountability in this position? The answer is there is none.
Cancel your subscription to the L.A. times, as I did decades ago.
Squid
Perhaps LA Times editor Paul Thorton is preparing the road, by clearing it of real scientists who would eviserate Al Gore, when he plans to doa 24 hours push on Global Warming do-do October 22nd in L.A.
This is an interesting set of dates and position statements. Check the link for information on the Gore visit to L.A.:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2013-10-18/gore-says-u-s-likely-to-beat-inadequate-carbon-target.html
Squid
At this point, denying that global warming is happening, is due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations, and is due to human activity, is about as credible as the flat earth theory.
Even newspaper editors have to draw the line somewhere.
Now if a reputable scientist has something to say about all the sources of greenhouse gases, and variables in assessing how much the global temperature might rise, and which of many ways of responding to it might be most effective, I would be shocked at any editorial decision to exclude such a voice from the debate.
When I was in high school, there was an annual debate topic as to whether congress should adopt legislation to control air and water pollution in the United States. Fossilized misanthropes like Miggie were actually saying no. What could I do when it was my turn to argue in the negative?
Well, I actually tried to make the case that air and water pollution were not a problem, which seemed more honest than quibbling over the feasibility of the affirmative team's plan for HOW to control it. I actually found quotes saying that most of the sulphur dioxide in the air was from natural sources, and human-generated emissions were of negligible significance. If there is money to be defended, someone will be found to say whatever is convenient, and the Miggie's of the world will parade it as "real science and facts."
Once upon a time, the Republican Party took pollution seriously enough to boast about how their "market based" methods were more effective, and cheaper, than the Democrats' "command and control" methods. They were particularly proud of the way acid rain was brought under control using their preferred method, "Cap and Trade." Just try to find a Republican supporting "Cap and Trade" to control carbon dioxide emissions.
The Republicans of yore were correct: cap and trade is a very effective method, and while it requires some monitoring to work, its worth applying to many other fields.
Post a Comment