L.A. Times will no longer print letters that deny climate change

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by mocgator, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. gatorchamps0607
    Online

    gatorchamps0607 Always Rasta Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2007
    Messages:
    41,510
    Likes Received:
    1,361
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Ft. Myers, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +3,907
    We're talking about fred here tho... are you actually surprised?
  2. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,338
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    The good people at Exxon Mobil thank you.
  3. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,848
    Likes Received:
    2,819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,882
    LMFAO! :grin:

    This is an instant classic... Well done MichiGator.
  4. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    A hhh come on Freddy. Really?
  5. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,618
    And I thank them, for not being windmill twirling Luddites :). What does that have to do with the dial-a-name "science"?
  6. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,338
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    I wouldn't expect you to know.

    They are the leading funders of the deniers' "science."
  7. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,618
    Nobody with any respect for science, let alone, y'know, themselves, would treat a field no more than thirty or forty years old and which literally renames itself every decade or so, to be beyond scientific scrutiny or challenge. Period. What you have is a cult, sir.
  8. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    A hhh come on Freddy. Really?
  9. mocgator
    Offline

    mocgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,511
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The ATL
    Ratings Received:
    +731
    You have a place for the Neo hippies and anti capitalists to hang out. Where else can they go now that the Grateful Dead don't tour anymore.
  10. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,338
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    I'll take the word of 97% of scientists over the good folks at BP. You go worship on your own altar.
  11. AndyGator
    Offline

    AndyGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    63
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +251
    Personally I like opposing points of view. Especially when presented respectfully by both sides.
  12. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,618
    I wonder if your (completely preposterous) stat community would like to match actual accomplishments in science and engineering with the guys at BP and ExxonMobil...
  13. fredsanford
    Online

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    12,338
    Likes Received:
    231
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +1,693
    Or the Exxon guys could show off the whip marks on their backs.
  14. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,927
    Likes Received:
    819
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,618
    This post is totally stable.
  15. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,513
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +498
    Even you should not like censorship. Hell, we let you and Fred keep posting your silly opinions.
  16. geauxgator1
    Offline

    geauxgator1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2010
    Messages:
    6,855
    Likes Received:
    1,930
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,753
    Nothing like censoring a view you don't agree with, or more likely can't tolerate because it's making your own views look foolish. No wonder newspapers are falling out of favor.
  17. ufhomerj31
    Offline

    ufhomerj31 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2010
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +166
    People, people nothing to see hear. Science is always right.
    In early days, the world was made out of 5 elements: earth, fire, wind, water, and ether.
    Later the earth was flat, anyone who thought otherwise was crazy.
    Also, when Newtonian physics falls apart, lets invent a different laws in quantum physics.
    Light is a wave and a particle we are not sure.

    Point is science is never wrong. Can't have blasphemous opinions.
  18. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    If I am a newspaper editor and there is scientific evidence of some phenomenon occurring and then someone writes a letter that simply denies its existence, should I really feel obligated to publish it?

    What about Holocaust deniers? Flat Earthers?

    One can publish both the point and counter-point, but both should be based on empircal fact and reason. Not publishing a letter because the person simply denies the existence of something that is empirically documented seems perfectly fine to me.

    In any case, here is what the Editor of the LA Times actually wrote:

  19. JohnC1908
    Offline

    JohnC1908 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,064
    Likes Received:
    778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +788
    BTW, gentleman I'm well aware the LA times is private. When I use the term shady I'm not suggesting it's illegal. They are a news outfit and I think ignoring letters is not the right thing to do. Climate change has not been defined like gravity has, c'mon with comparing the two.
  20. JohnC1908
    Offline

    JohnC1908 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    22,064
    Likes Received:
    778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Neptune Beach, Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +788
    There are experts with advanced degrees who don't agree. Nobody can even define what this is. Seems to be a lot of faith and hope behind it.

Share This Page