- Posts: 3444
- Thank you received: 11
Something the Dog Said wrote: 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
Sci'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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
There is no desire for honest debate in this forum as it has degenerated into an echo chamber of right wing haters. It is obviously full of unemployed right wingers who have nothing better to do than post serial cut and paste right wing blogs which are quickly followed up by echoes with not a single factual back up other than hate speech directed at the President, "libruls" and the "gubmint".whitegp wrote: Well Fred
Debate ? How ?
What I have read on this and the Pine Study is a slow spiral into a right wing circle where debate is a long lost memory. Few of the Independent, Unafiliated or even Liberal posters have bothered with the same old right wing dogma. You guys just make stuff up. Then personally come after anyone who has an opinion that differs. Facts?
Look at this thread.
The Rev fails to read his own data from reliable site, the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
When questioned goes into a juvenial rant calling any and all he can children.
This is debate?
In a mature debate the Rev would have retracted any impression he may have given that the Artic Sea Ice is increasing when the Data Center clearly does not support that as factual.
You guys want to whine about Gore. Go for it. But do not pretend that this is some real and factual debate about climate change. Because the debate on the facts has long been settled, and you deniers --- lost---lost because the facts do not support your beliefs.
Debate? No thanks Fred. I read the same old same old on here enough to know where your debate will wind up. I got much better things to do.
But do not be supprised when us Independent and Unafiliated voters vote against the Repubs again, and again and again. Your 1/3 is hardly inclusive to other viewpoints. I would call it snarky to outright hostile.
Debate from this Forum and the Pine Study disappeared under the landslide of right wing snark long ago. Who needs it?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote:
I have tried to engage these haters...
This forum has become a hate filled echo chamber...
a pseudo-journalist with over 6500 posts attempting to pass himself off as a religious sanctimous twit...
how idiotic their "facts" are...,
but is simply a forum for haters to hate...
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating. Attacking the poster personally rather than responding to the opinion in the post. Does that come from within your "journalistic integrity (as you attacked *****)" or your religious sanctimony in your latest posing?Reverend Revelant wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote:
I have tried to engage these haters...
This forum has become a hate filled echo chamber...
a pseudo-journalist with over 6500 posts attempting to pass himself off as a religious sanctimous twit...
how idiotic their "facts" are...,
but is simply a forum for haters to hate...
There's the dog calling the kettle black. I'm surprised you didn't add "hypocrite" to your list. You seem to be so good at it.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
So ******, do you rebut my opinion that this forum is just for hating? Do you believe that the conservatives here actually respond to honest debate with facts backed up by credible sources? Or do you just prefer the hating to debating?Reverend Revelant wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.
Yep... just following the lead dog.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Something the Dog Said wrote:
So ******, do you rebut my opinion that this forum is just for hating? Do you believe that the conservatives here actually respond to honest debate with facts backed up by credible sources? Or do you just prefer the hating to debating?Reverend Revelant wrote:
Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.
Yep... just following the lead dog.
I am quite willing to engage in honest debate with credible facts but have yet to find any but a very few able to formulate an honest opposition. Care to engage in honest debate? Or just go on hatin'?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Can you show actual evidence that distraught letter writers are using factually inaccurate statements, where the overwhelming evidence disproves their statements in order to deflect from the issues caused by the actual scientifically verified facts? Where there is an actual honest debate on the facts, then opinions should be published. As to gun violence, the facts are all over the board depending on how the issues are framed.FredHayek wrote: Not interested in honest debate? You assume a lot. I am asking if people here think climate change deniers should be silenced in the letters to the editor page and it looks like you do support censoring views that are not supported by science. Interesting take.
So when a distraught letter writer proclaims that gun violence is peaking, when it is actually declining, his letter shouldn't be printed either?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.