MoveOn.Org: Censor The Climate Change Deniers?

FredHayek wrote: Once again you are incorrect. A man can self censor himself. I know you have never considered this. American papers would self censor their coverage during World War II. For example not showing dead GI's.

Ha ha ha..Yes, duh huh... I can censor myself too, and The Denver post can turn into a teeny booper magazine if it wants to..

Its a private business- they publish lies and twisted facts all the time, if you don't like it, don't buy it

Rick
The Rev posted a completely bogus post and indeed I questioned if he had even read it.
It appears he did not.
If questioning a link posted to make a point is not acceptable then where should the debate start?
I admit to posting comments before you lured me into trying to elevate at least one thread on My Mountain to a debate level.
So lets keep it there.

If Global Warming is Bogus than refute the only posted facts on this thread from the NSIDC with comparable scientific data.

whitegp wrote: Rick
The Rev posted a completely bogus post and indeed I questioned if he had even read it.
It appears he did not.
If questioning a link posted to make a point is not acceptable then where should the debate start?
I admit to posting comments before you lured me into trying to elevate at least one thread on My Mountain to a debate level.
So lets keep it there.

If Global Warming is Bogus than refute the only posted facts on this thread from the NSIDC with comparable scientific data.

My point was that you jumped in and started complaining about snarky right wingers when it was you that started out making snarky comments unprovoked.

Rick wrote:

towermonkey wrote: I think you'd lose that bet Rick. WhiteGP is correct. Anyone who holds a different viewpoint will be piled on here as if they were LJ or VL. Its as if those two posters' tactics justify the same treatment to anyone on that side of the aisle.

I give back what I get. VL's style is to attack the person and bypass the debate... although today he seems to be a little more willing to discuss although tainted with plagiarism.

I really wasn't thinking of you when I posted that. You have always been one to debate issues on their merits instead of the poster's merits. I tend to value your input on subjects even if we don't always agree. VL's typical style is to simply provoke. He does it with amazing aptitude, much like Phil Hendrie. When he actually decides to talk about something, he is usually pretty knowledgeable about the subject and has some really good input, links whatever. Trouble is, by that time, he's already pissed everyone off...

Man I used to love Phil Hendrie, is that guy still on the air somewhere? He was pretty damn funny.

towermonkey wrote:
I really wasn't thinking of you when I posted that. You have always been one to debate issues on their merits instead of the poster's merits. I tend to value your input on subjects even if we don't always agree. VL's typical style is to simply provoke. He does it with amazing aptitude, much like Phil Hendrie. When he actually decides to talk about something, he is usually pretty knowledgeable about the subject and has some really good input, links whatever. Trouble is, by that time, he's already pissed everyone off...

Here's the thing..It's really hard to take the discussion here seriously sometimes and i'd actually be embarassed to participate in anything meaningfull with this bunch...I think i'm probably out of my league with most people, but here, I might be one of the smartest posters. Thats also pretty sad because I spend my days either golfing, or looking over sports statistics, racing forms and watching various sports channels.

Surely you understand

So no one supports not printing letters from climate change deniers?

This week some of the letters I have been reading in the Post have advocated that the paper no longer run front page stories on legal marijuana and/or swingers. So it looks like both sides want to restrict information.

Super Malta wrote:

towermonkey wrote:
I really wasn't thinking of you when I posted that. You have always been one to debate issues on their merits instead of the poster's merits. I tend to value your input on subjects even if we don't always agree. VL's typical style is to simply provoke. He does it with amazing aptitude, much like Phil Hendrie. When he actually decides to talk about something, he is usually pretty knowledgeable about the subject and has some really good input, links whatever. Trouble is, by that time, he's already pissed everyone off...

Here's the thing..It's really hard to take the discussion here seriously sometimes and i'd actually be embarassed to participate in anything meaningfull with this bunch...I think i'm probably out of my league with most people, but here, I might be one of the smartest posters. Thats also pretty sad because I spend my days either golfing, or looking over sports statistics, racing forms and watching various sports channels.

Surely you understand

If you don't like doing something but your body continues to do it anyway without a gun being put to your head, you have serious issues my friend. Since I can't imagine your're that insane, I believe you are a liar... you stick around for a reason. The reason you post here is obviously different than why everyone else does... I suppose one could consider you "special" in that respect.

This is where I live, and sometimes I like to hit a punching bag, other times its just too boring. This is one of those times. The same 5 dumb guys posting the same tired old proven wrong talking points gets old..

Sorry

Fred, you are not interested in honest debate on this issue. If you were, then you would research the issue rather than claim an undocumented link from a right wing radio host that Moveon is trying to censor climate deniers. If you had, then you would have found that many main stream media are moving to a policy not to post letters that merely claim factual inaccuries rather than honest fact based opinions. For example, the LA Times as well as Popular Science and others are no longer publishing letters that are based on clearly factual inaccurate statements such as global warming does not exist, or that man does not contribute to global warming, or that the earth is flat, or that the Holocaust did not occur, due to space constraints and that such statements deflects from the actual facts and concerns from those facts.

For example:
"Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published," said Thornton. "Saying 'there's no sign humans have caused climate change' is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy."

LA Times, September 8, 2013

PopSci's online content director Suzanne LaBarre wrote, "Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to 'debate' on television. And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a website devoted to championing science."
Popular Science, September 24, 2013.


Since AGW has been determined by climate scientists within a 95% certainty (scientific gold standard) to be a fact, are you now claiming that it is the duty of newspapers to publish factually inaccurate letters that deflect from the actual issues concerning the public?

Or should newspapers be forced to publish false facts by quacks and haters despite their obvious inaccuracies? Or only those false facts supported by conservatives?