L.A. Times Bans Climate Deniers - When Will the Rest of the Media Follow Suit?

Thrasher · October 15, 2013

Interesting. A return to true journalism instead of sensationalism? Amazing. :party:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...s-When-Will-the-Rest-of-the-Media-Follow-Suit

[W]hen deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts — in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review. And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world's top climate scientists — said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy. [Emphasis added]

joxer · October 15, 2013

The rest of the media will not follow. Why would they? Their job is to write and publish, who cares if it's quality writing, currently it's quantity you're after. The majority doesn't want new Shakespeares, they want Danielle Steels.

But then again, recent anti GMO worldwide protests may prove me wrong. Perhaps the world is changing. Perhaps we'll dump the junk and buy/keep only quality stuff. Just perhaps.

dteowner · October 15, 2013

Since global warming is 95% certain to be man-driven, I'm looking forward to someone kicking the crap out of the cavemen for driving their cars so much to get us out of a global ice age. Fucking Fred Flintstone. Oh, you mean there might be more inputs to the system, and man might not even be the dominant one? Oh, sorry, I'm not following the party line again. My bad.

ChienAboyeur · October 15, 2013

dteowner said:
Since global warming is 95% certain to be man-driven, I'm looking forward to someone kicking the crap out of the cavemen for driving their cars so much to get us out of a global ice age.

That is a fair point. Man made global warming is just a PC way to telling the responsible. It is casting the responsibility of a planetary change on the whole of humanity when actually,only a part of it is responsible of it.

Mankind has nothing to do with it. Sub saharan Africans or Aborigenous Australians are all part of Man but they hold no responsibility in this change. Some others among humanity though, also part of Man, have responsibility for it.

Have you noticed how some are so prone to take responsibility for sending people into space? It will never come to their minds to include sub saharan people in sending people out in space. Sending people into space was their doing. But suddenly, when it comes to climate change, it has to be man made. Including people who are suddenly responsible.

Of course, all those people who do that are firm advocates for personal responsibility.

Lucky Day · October 15, 2013

in other news, Sensational Headlines Attract Readers
related news
newspapers continue to lose subscribers
Editorial Section - media has never been about freedom to express differing views,
Business Section-Niche readership the future of American Publishing

Roq · October 21, 2013

It gives me a warm (but not too warm as yet) feeling to appreciate that RPG fans are not climate change deniers. There has to be something good about that.

Thrasher · October 21, 2013

Most aren't deniers, hopefully. But some are, as seen above, despite 99% of the scientific community (minus a couple frauds and corporate shills) saying otherwise. It's hard to kick the addiction spewed out of the rich right-wing propaganda machine, apparently.

Damian · October 22, 2013

First a couple of links.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html

https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/deconto_tectonics&climate.pdf

Meh, as usual we resort to intellectual bullying now. While i agree that climate is changing, i am unsure how much of it is man made. When tectonic plates move it can cause major changes in climate. Until you can "prove" that it is cause by man and by what percentage and how much per year, this sort of intellectual bullying should be unacceptable.

Roq · October 22, 2013

Science isn't about "proof" or absolute certainty it's about evidence and peer review. That uncertainty, which is a part of science has always being confusing to the general public who imagine that their opinion or desires are somehow of some relevance in evaluating the truth.

dteowner · October 22, 2013

Roq said:
Science isn't about "proof" or absolute certainty it's about evidence and peer review. That uncertainty, which is a part of science has always being confusing to the general public who imagine that their opinion or desires are somehow of some relevance in evaluating the truth.

Indeed. So when the infamous hockeystick researcher admits that his findings were fraudulent, that should probably be written off as right wing propaganda, right?

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how it could possibly have happened that we emerged from a global ice age while man was still in caves if man is, in fact, the dominant factor in global warming. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Is it possible that there's really more to the equation that we don't really understand and perhaps man's influence, while certainly undeniable, is being wildly overstated?

Roq · October 22, 2013

Individual scientists can be wrong, fraudulent, or both, but that doesn't invalidate the scientific method as a whole or the preponderance of good science. The piltdown man didn't invalidate the theory of evolution, for instance, and it's science that cures it's own misconceptions, not the tabloid newspapers.

In the case of global warming, one might suspect that firing off most of the planet's fossil fuel reserves into the atmosphere over a short period would have some consequences (in the same way that industrial emissions are believed to be responsible for acid rain) and so it's hardly surprising that the scientific consensus indicates that to be the case.

Your last para is a misconception. Noone is denying that over the long term the Earth's climate has changed and will change in the future through natural causes. One problem with human induced climate change is that is happening on a timescale that doesn't allow the ecosystem to adapt. And I assume that although ice ages are natural events you wouldn't want to trigger one (or it's opposite!) artificially.

Damian · October 22, 2013

Roq said:
Science isn't about "proof" or absolute certainty it's about evidence and peer review. That uncertainty, which is a part of science has always being confusing to the general public who imagine that their opinion or desires are somehow of some relevance in evaluating the truth.

And we are cutting out part of the peer review with things like this. I mean do we know what part of global warming can be attributed to CFCs that were used in the 50 odd years before last decade and opening the hole in the ozone layer. I agree that definitely cause some increase in the temperature on earth. However since then the ozone layer has been repairing itself i dont see global evidence to suggest that climate is rather being erratic than increasing. I mean we had snow in the Sydney(Australian) beaches like a few days ago. Yet there were fires the next day.

I just want to see some GLOBAL evidence instead of changes in the tropical areas.
I mean a long long time ago the Australian deserts used to have rivers and such, could it be we are dawning at a time period where a change like that happens? I dunno. But any such research saying that is the case would be shut down by the media and the scientific community as global warming naysaying. Which is very wrong to me.

Thrasher · October 22, 2013

It's a chaotic system. Some areas will be affected before others. The first is the artic, which has already shown dramatic changes.

All scientific results ARE peer reviewed. If you knew anything about the process, then you would know that claims that are not supported by enough evidence are disputed.

Damian · October 22, 2013

Thrasher said:
It's a chaotic system. Some areas will be affected before others. The first is the artic, which has already shown dramatic changes.

And the antarctic is on a 35 year high in ice. As i said without a global temperature study which is apparently stable for the last 15 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...tic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

All scientific results ARE peer reviewed. If you knew anything about the process, then you would know that claims that are not supported by enough evidence are disputed.

I am aware of that. However what happens when scientists are stopped from sending in their research articles because of stuff like this? That is bullying and wrong.

Thrasher · October 22, 2013

You do know that sea ice is the result of calving glaciers and disintegrating ice shelves, right? That's evidence of warming not the contrary. :/

Damian · October 22, 2013

Thrasher said:
You do know that sea ice is the result of calving glaciers and disintegrating ice shelves, right? That's evidence of warming not the contrary. :/

What about this:

from: https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/how-much-has-global-temperature-risen-last-100-years

Damian · October 22, 2013

Should probably ignore this:

I just wanted to post this picture to show that fluctuations like these are normal on the earth. What cause the spikes in Earth's history? Those man made too? There is a reason why some people like "man made climate change" you know.

Perhaps i am wrong, apparently there is a correspondence between CO^2 and temperature as shown by this graph. But we are at the lower end of the spectrum. So basically even if we stop our CO^2 its only going to get hotter. :/

Misread that chart. :/ No need of alarm i guess.

Maylander · October 22, 2013

Roq said:
Your last para is a misconception. Noone is denying that over the long term the Earth's climate has changed and will change in the future through natural causes. One problem with human induced climate change is that is happening on a timescale that doesn't allow the ecosystem to adapt. And I assume that although ice ages are natural events you wouldn't want to trigger one (or it's opposite!) artificially.

Indeed, climate changes have always occurred, but they take centuries, allowing the world to adapt. Evolution takes time. The man made changes that are now occurring are too abrupt, and will no doubt cause a lot of damage as the ecosystems of the world will not be able to adapt in only a few decades.

Alrik Fassbauer · October 22, 2013

Maylander said:
Indeed, climate changes have always occurred, but they take centuries, allowing the world to adapt.

Usually, yes. There have been a few extreme events during the ice ages, though.
And the emphasis lies on "extreme". At least that's what I've learned at University 15 years or so ago.

The biggest problem still is - that we simply do not have any experience with man-induced climate changes. We simply have no earlier data to learn from.
Only natural events.
Thus, we simply cannot say how big the "human impact" really is.

Related :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard–Oeschger_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_event
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event

Hastar · October 22, 2013

The planet will right itself in a few thousand years after humankind is gone. The Earth is not endangered humankind is and I am not sure that is a bad thing.

L.A. Times Bans Climate Deniers - When Will the Rest of the Media Follow Suit?

Wheeee!

The Smoker

Shoegazer

SasqWatch

Daywatch

Seeker

Wheeee!

SasqWatch

Seeker

Shoegazer

Seeker

SasqWatch

Wheeee!

SasqWatch

Wheeee!

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

TL;DR

Unspeakable