MoveOn.Org: Censor The Climate Change Deniers?

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?

I guess they don't want their privatly owned newspaper to turn into what this board has become...5 guys spreading manure 24/7

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?

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".

I have tried to engage these haters in debate with facts backed up by scientific data in credible links. In turn, they cite right wing blog op-eds by fossil fuel lobbyists and even architecture professors for their scientific "sources" without even addressing the actual data. I have yet to get a single credible source for any argument that they made.

This forum has become a hate filled echo chamber for unemployed right wingers. You have a troll posting serial cut and paste blogs railing against the President and progressives with no indepth analysis, an echo who has yet to post a single link to his facts, individuals who pass of their opinions as "facts", a pseudo-journalist with over 6500 posts attempting to pass himself off as a religious sanctimous twit new to the board, etc.

I occasionally post responses here just to point out how fallacious these "posters" are and how idiotic their "facts" are, but this is not an honest forum promoting true debate, but is simply a forum for haters to hate.

I have yet to see Bob, Fred, etc. post a factually based opinion supported by credible data, but simply echos from right wing blog op-eds.

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.

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.

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?

Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.

Yep... just following the lead dog.

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.

Yep... just following the lead dog.

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?
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'?

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?

Something the Dog Said wrote:

Reverend Revelant wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: And ****** adds yet another example of hating rather than debating.

Yep... just following the lead dog.

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?
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'?

I think the conservatives throw as much hate toward the liberals as the liberals on here (present company included). You hide behind your hate with sarcasm and superior attitude. It's both sides of the same coin and you're guilty too!

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?

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.

In any event, I don't believe that a private company should be forced to publish any letter that they do not desire to, whether or not it is the LA Times choosing not to publish factually inaccurate letters or Fox News providing an opposing point of view to their slanted opinions. The public will ultimately make their decisions on which news source is credible or to simply choose media based on their own biases. I don't believe it is appropriate to force any media source into publishing particular viewpoints by any other force than the public itself. Particularly when the media source provides explanations as to their policies in publication of view points so that the public can determine as to whether that media source is credible.

Agree, they should be allowed to choose which letters they publish. But they shouldn't eliminate one side of a debate just because their views are politically incorrect.
Even in you believe in climate change but don't agree with the solutions, you are labeled a denier like you called me. Just because it is a problem, doesn't make it the number #1 problem for the world. Billions of people in the world have raised themselves above subsistence level and are using a lot of energy they can finally afford, and creating a lot of pollution. Do you think it is fair to push these people back down? Or should only the developed world bear the brunt of the costs of replacing fossil fuels with undependable wind and solar power?