UN 95% certain that climate change is caused by humans

[Phatscotty]

L.A. Times Bans Letters from Climate Change Skeptics

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... 1615.story

Gotta love it when the science is so in your favor you have to ban the other point of view

[_sabotage_]

BBC decided to side with global warming scientists from the 90s, nothing new here, PS.

[Lootifer]

L.A. Times Bans Letters from Climate Change Skeptics

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... 1615.story

Gotta love it when the science is so in your favor you have to ban the other point of view

Private organization hedges with a 95% statistic produced by scientists.

Nothing wrong with that, just dont visit their site; *shrug*. Freedom/Liberty/etc.

[Dukasaur]

L.A. Times Bans Letters from Climate Change Skeptics

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion- ... 1615.story

Gotta love it when the science is so in your favor you have to ban the other point of view

Unfortunately nutcases are persistent to the point of being spammers, and it's reasonable for any media outlet to protect its readers from being annoyed by lunacy.

Look how persistent the creationists are in this forum. No matter how many times their bullshit "arguments" are disproven, they will come back the next day and post them again, completely unfazed by evidence.

It's one thing to have unorthodox views. It's quite another to constantly regurgitate the same long-disproven "facts" over and over again like an automaton. That's just spam, and a particularly annoying form of spam at that.

[john9blue]

this is a perfect example of the difference between me and a modern leftist. i think AGW is happening, but i would never outright censor opposing points of view.

[_sabotage_]

BBC had a formal policy to ignore any scientist for nearly twenty years if they didn't promote climate change.

Hard to say which side you are calling nut cases, Duke.

[Dukasaur]

this is a perfect example of the difference between me and a modern leftist. i think AGW is happening, but i would never outright censor opposing points of view.

I guess I must be the modern leftist.

I would never "censor" opposing points of view either, in the sense of bringing the power of the police state to someone else's media outlet and telling them what they can or cannot print. But as the owner of said media outlet, one is primarily sensitive to the desires of the paying customers (ie. subscribers) and they are paying good money for someone to exercise discretion in printing information they can use. If you want to call that censorship then go ahead, but it isn't. It's just the proprietor of a business looking out for the interests of his customers.

[_sabotage_]

Modern? Last time climate change was proven was following the last ice age, and God and gods were a given throughout most the world. Let's keep the the nut jobs away from starting all this we're here for no reason nonsense.

[Metsfanmax]

this is a perfect example of the difference between me and a modern leftist. i think AGW is happening, but i would never outright censor opposing points of view.

Would you publish a letter to the editor suggesting that gravity is a liberal conspiracy and does not really exist? Refusing to publish factually incorrect information is not censorship, it's basic journalism style.

[_sabotage_]

Factual incorrect? Where did you get this fact?

[Metsfanmax]

Factual incorrect? Where did you get this fact?

The following things are absolutely indisputable, as empirical facts determined by direct measurement:

1) The last three decades were the hottest in recorded history, and each was hotter than the last. Temperature increased at an average rate of about 0.01 degrees Celsius per year in the last century.
2) We are pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. The concentration is currently 400 ppm and increasing at a rate of about 2 ppm per year.
3) The carbon dioxide concentration was about 280 ppm before the industrial revolution.
4) Carbon dioxide is effective at absorbing and re-radiating infrared radiation. Therefore, the more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the more energy (heat) is trapped on the Earth.

Any letter that publishes something contrary to any of these is simply factually inaccurate, and therefore it would be bad journalism to publish it. Specifically, if someone were to say "global warming is not happening," that would be in contradiction with point 1 and therefore incorrect.

Now, the comment in the LA times article was, letters that say "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" do not get printed. This is also factually inaccurate, as there is a very large body of evidence and a high degree of certainty in this hypothesis by people who study it. This is not to say that we are 100% certain that humans have caused climate change -- just that we are 100% certain that scientists are 95% certain

[Phatscotty]

so then global warming and it's cause is no longer a theory, it is a fact? Doesn't that mean that every single study done that has a different conclusion than the 'fact' is incorrect? So then why should we continue studying it on either side? If it's already settled, than how come all of global warming predictions over the decades turned out to be bogus.

[Metsfanmax]

so then global warming and it's cause is no longer a theory, it is a fact? Doesn't that mean that every single study done that has a different conclusion than the 'fact' is incorrect? So then why should we continue studying it on either side?

It is a fact that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming for many decades and are presently warming on a global scale. If that is what is meant by "global warming," then yes, that is a fact. It is a result of measurement by thermometers. It is not an empirical fact that humans are the primary cause of the warming (and if you read my post again, carefully, you'll see that I didn't say it was); that is a scientific deduction based on our knowledge of output of carbon dioxide and our knowledge of the temperature rise. What is a fact is that there is a very strong link between the two, and that scientists have high confidence in the hypothesis that humans play a dominant role in the present warming. Disagreeing with this makes you factually incorrect.

[john9blue]

I would never "censor" opposing points of view either, in the sense of bringing the power of the police state to someone else's media outlet and telling them what they can or cannot print. But as the owner of said media outlet, one is primarily sensitive to the desires of the paying customers (ie. subscribers) and they are paying good money for someone to exercise discretion in printing information they can use. If you want to call that censorship then go ahead, but it isn't. It's just the proprietor of a business looking out for the interests of his customers.

private enterprises can censor, as i understand the meaning of the word. just semantics, though.

Would you publish a letter to the editor suggesting that gravity is a liberal conspiracy and does not really exist? Refusing to publish factually incorrect information is not censorship, it's basic journalism style.

terrible comparison. gravity is scientific fact, and climate change is not. i choose to believe that AGW is real because most of the evidence points towards it, but i realize this is just a belief, so i'm tolerant of other points of view. why can't others do the same?

[Metsfanmax]

Would you publish a letter to the editor suggesting that gravity is a liberal conspiracy and does not really exist? Refusing to publish factually incorrect information is not censorship, it's basic journalism style.

terrible comparison. gravity is scientific fact, and climate change is not. i choose to believe that AGW is real because most of the evidence points towards it, but i realize this is just a belief, so i'm tolerant of other points of view. this is where i seem to differ from most people...

Climate change is scientific fact. It is empirically true that the global climate is significantly different than pre-industrial times; in particular, that temperatures are higher, sea levels have risen, total ice volume has decreased, etc.

If we are going to have any discussion like this, it is crucial that we understand the difference between scientific fact and scientific hypothesis/theory. A fact is any statement that is the result of an actual direct measurement of the environment. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is, on average, hotter in this decade than in the last decade." A hypothesis is any statement that attempts to explain a piece of data in the context of some causal relationship. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is hotter in this decade than in the last decade because humans are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases." It is completely legitimate for a journalistic enterprise to not publish any content which is factually incorrect. For example, the statement that "there are no signs that humans have caused climate change" is simply not correct. It is not an opinion that we have found a number of links between human actions and climate change; it is fact. You can know this by picking up the IPCC report or any scientific journal.

[BigBallinStalin]

It's a bit embarrassing when some claim that humans have no role in the past increasing temperatures. It's true that humans do play a role in the rising temperatures, so if we can get past that, then we can get to the more important debate: what should we do about it? What are the best means? What are the consequences of various plans? And what are the net effects of those various plans?

Those are really the questions which should be addressed, and please enough with the nonsense.

[Phatscotty]

so then global warming and it's cause is no longer a theory, it is a fact? Doesn't that mean that every single study done that has a different conclusion than the 'fact' is incorrect? So then why should we continue studying it on either side?

It is a fact that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming for many decades and are presently warming on a global scale. If that is what is meant by "global warming," then yes, that is a fact. It is a result of measurement by thermometers. It is not an empirical fact that humans are the primary cause of the warming (and if you read my post again, carefully, you'll see that I didn't say it was); that is a scientific deduction based on our knowledge of output of carbon dioxide and our knowledge of the temperature rise. What is a fact is that there is a very strong link between the two, and that scientists have high confidence in the hypothesis that humans play a dominant role in the present warming. Disagreeing with this makes you factually incorrect.

It's also a fact the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming and cooling over and over and over again for many millions of years.

And it doesn't really matter too much how you say it if you are defending a ban against saying or writing or reading anything that disagrees. The defense says everything

[Metsfanmax]

so then global warming and it's cause is no longer a theory, it is a fact? Doesn't that mean that every single study done that has a different conclusion than the 'fact' is incorrect? So then why should we continue studying it on either side?

It is a fact that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming for many decades and are presently warming on a global scale. If that is what is meant by "global warming," then yes, that is a fact. It is a result of measurement by thermometers. It is not an empirical fact that humans are the primary cause of the warming (and if you read my post again, carefully, you'll see that I didn't say it was); that is a scientific deduction based on our knowledge of output of carbon dioxide and our knowledge of the temperature rise. What is a fact is that there is a very strong link between the two, and that scientists have high confidence in the hypothesis that humans play a dominant role in the present warming. Disagreeing with this makes you factually incorrect.

It's also a fact the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming and cooling over and over and over again for many millions of years.

What does that have to do with the present discussion?

And it doesn't really matter too much how you say it if you are defending a ban against saying or writing or reading anything that disagrees. The defense says everything

This is pretty simple. The job of a journalist is to educate the public on the facts. If a journalist publishes information that is incorrect, then that journalist is not doing his or her job. So let's turn it around: it doesn't really matter too much how you say it if you are defending the intentional publishing of a lie. The defense says everything

[john9blue]

Climate change is scientific fact. It is empirically true that the global climate is significantly different than pre-industrial times; in particular, that temperatures are higher, sea levels have risen, total ice volume has decreased, etc.

If we are going to have any discussion like this, it is crucial that we understand the difference between scientific fact and scientific hypothesis/theory. A fact is any statement that is the result of an actual direct measurement of the environment. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is, on average, hotter in this decade than in the last decade." A hypothesis is any statement that attempts to explain a piece of data in the context of some causal relationship. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is hotter in this decade than in the last decade because humans are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases." It is completely legitimate for a journalistic enterprise to not publish any content which is factually incorrect. For example, the statement that "there are no signs that humans have caused climate change" is simply not correct. It is not an opinion that we have found a number of links between human actions and climate change; it is fact. You can know this by picking up the IPCC report or any scientific journal.

by your definitions, AGW would be a hypothesis and not a fact. the example you gave of a hypothesis is basically exactly what the entire debate is about.

[Metsfanmax]

Climate change is scientific fact. It is empirically true that the global climate is significantly different than pre-industrial times; in particular, that temperatures are higher, sea levels have risen, total ice volume has decreased, etc.

If we are going to have any discussion like this, it is crucial that we understand the difference between scientific fact and scientific hypothesis/theory. A fact is any statement that is the result of an actual direct measurement of the environment. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is, on average, hotter in this decade than in the last decade." A hypothesis is any statement that attempts to explain a piece of data in the context of some causal relationship. This includes statements like "the atmosphere is hotter in this decade than in the last decade because humans are emitting a lot of greenhouse gases." It is completely legitimate for a journalistic enterprise to not publish any content which is factually incorrect. For example, the statement that "there are no signs that humans have caused climate change" is simply not correct. It is not an opinion that we have found a number of links between human actions and climate change; it is fact. You can know this by picking up the IPCC report or any scientific journal.

by your definitions, AGW would be a hypothesis and not a fact. the example you gave of a hypothesis is basically exactly what the entire debate is about.

Yes, of course "AGW" (that is, the belief that humans have played the dominant role in the cause of the observed warming) is a hypothesis. The LA times editor didn't say he wouldn't publish letters that disagree with with the hypothesis -- he said he wouldn't publish letters that state (incorrectly) that the hypothesis has no evidence for it. For example, "the Earth has undergone many climate cycles in the past and therefore we shouldn't worry about the current warming, even if humans have caused it" is an opinion that would be allowed under this policy.

[Phatscotty]

so then global warming and it's cause is no longer a theory, it is a fact? Doesn't that mean that every single study done that has a different conclusion than the 'fact' is incorrect? So then why should we continue studying it on either side?

It is a fact that the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming for many decades and are presently warming on a global scale. If that is what is meant by "global warming," then yes, that is a fact. It is a result of measurement by thermometers. It is not an empirical fact that humans are the primary cause of the warming (and if you read my post again, carefully, you'll see that I didn't say it was); that is a scientific deduction based on our knowledge of output of carbon dioxide and our knowledge of the temperature rise. What is a fact is that there is a very strong link between the two, and that scientists have high confidence in the hypothesis that humans play a dominant role in the present warming. Disagreeing with this makes you factually incorrect.

It's also a fact the Earth's atmosphere and ocean have been warming and cooling over and over and over again for many millions of years.

What does that have to do with the present discussion?

And it doesn't really matter too much how you say it if you are defending a ban against saying or writing or reading anything that disagrees. The defense says everything

This is pretty simple. The job of a journalist is to educate the public on the facts. If a journalist publishes information that is incorrect, then that journalist is not doing his or her job. So let's turn it around: it doesn't really matter too much how you say it if you are defending the intentional publishing of a lie. The defense says everything

To do with the present discussion, it shows that global warming is and always has been a natural part of the earth's cycle.

I'm glad there is no such thing as bias journalism. I haven't defended any specific article, and I won't defend the LATimes banning anything that disagrees with them either. There is no defense for that.

If the science is as solid as you say it is (I haven't personally ruled that out) then it's only a matter of time, right? Because what I see happening here reminds me a lot of how the old Theocracies used to ban any science they thought would threaten their power structures. None of it is good

[Dukasaur]

It's a bit embarrassing when some claim that humans have no role in the past increasing temperatures. It's true that humans do play a role in the rising temperatures, so if we can get past that, then we can get to the more important debate: what should we do about it? What are the best means? What are the consequences of various plans? And what are the net effects of those various plans?

Those are really the questions which should be addressed, and please enough with the nonsense.

Exactly.

[chang50]

I would never "censor" opposing points of view either, in the sense of bringing the power of the police state to someone else's media outlet and telling them what they can or cannot print. But as the owner of said media outlet, one is primarily sensitive to the desires of the paying customers (ie. subscribers) and they are paying good money for someone to exercise discretion in printing information they can use. If you want to call that censorship then go ahead, but it isn't. It's just the proprietor of a business looking out for the interests of his customers.

private enterprises can censor, as i understand the meaning of the word. just semantics, though.

Would you publish a letter to the editor suggesting that gravity is a liberal conspiracy and does not really exist? Refusing to publish factually incorrect information is not censorship, it's basic journalism style.

terrible comparison. gravity is scientific fact, and climate change is not. i choose to believe that AGW is real because most of the evidence points towards it, but i realize this is just a belief, so i'm tolerant of other points of view. why can't others do the same?

Gravity is a theory,what weight you assign to it compared to any other theory is personal, most people accept it exists.Climate change is a fact regardless of who or what is responsible for it.Anybody with basic equipment can monitor it for themselves.

[_sabotage_]

Great, back to school again for me. I attended a double course on sustainability. The first week of lectures went through how all of the following concepts were based on models and how inaccurate they were.

The remaining weeks were spent explaining the variables, many of which showed we should be coming into an ice age; mocking skeptics and trying to show that their research was unbiased and that the oil companies were biased.

Any profession who in reaching their objective eliminates their position leaves me skeptical. They don't want to solve the issue, either side, as it would take away their livelihood. Grain of salt, stop saying fact.

[Metsfanmax]

To do with the present discussion, it shows that global warming is and always has been a natural part of the earth's cycle.

As the LA Times editor correctly points out, there are two separate discussions here. One is: is the Earth presently in a significant warming trend? The other is: are humans the dominant cause of this trend? The first one is a question of facts: it is easily determined simply by going out and measuring the temperature of the atmosphere and ocean with time, which we have done. The second one is a question of theory: does the explanation we have provided adequately explain the observed trend? Now, notice that the statement you have made here doesn't address the first issue. The Earth may have warmed globally in the past, but that doesn't relate to whether the Earth is presently warming, or in particular whether the rate of temperature increase is in line with natural Earth cycles (it's not). The statement you made is more likely to address the second issue, because if the Earth is warming then your claim might be that it's just part of a natural cycle and so there's nothing we can do about it*. Now, the important part is that the editor is not refusing to publish your statement as written. He would only refuse to publish your statement if you tried to use your claim as evidence that the Earth is not presently warming (which of course would be absurd).

*Of course, this is a huge double standard. You're essentially hedging your bets here: you're saying "I don't think the Earth is warming, but if it is, it has to be a natural cycle since those have happened before." One is: "the warming is neglible or non-existent." The other is: "the warming is huge." The only way a person could reach such a conclusion is if they have a personal stake in the truth being a certain outcome. (Obviously we all have a personal stake in it, in the sense that global warming will damage our livelihoods, but that doesn't mean we should close our eyes to it.)

I'm glad there is no such thing as bias journalism. I haven't defended any specific article, and I won't defend the LATimes banning anything that disagrees with them either. There is no defense for that.

The LA Times is not banning "anything that disagrees with them." They are taking the perfectly valid position of not printing anything that is factually incorrect. Whether or not the Earth is warming is not a question of opinion, it is a question of fact. It has nothing to do with whether you're liberal or conservative. If you make the statement that the Earth is not warming, you are on the wrong side of the facts as they are presently understood. If you don't want to see policy change as a result of these facts, then that is what you should be arguing about. As BBS indicates, continuing to demonstrate that you don't understand the facts means that you will be irrelevant when it comes time for policymakers to address this problem. You can't help anyone figure out what to do if you don't know what is happening.

Think about it this way: if the LA Times refused to print a letter to the editor saying that the archaeological record does not demonstrate different species existing at different times, would you claim the editor is "banning any mention of religion?" Of course not -- the only people who might see it that way are people who already have an axe to grind, and are less interested in facts and more interested in convincing people of their opinions.

If the science is as solid as you say it is (I haven't personally ruled that out) then it's only a matter of time, right? Because what I see happening here reminds me a lot of how the old Theocracies used to ban any science they thought would threaten their power structures. None of it is good

The solid science concludes that the Earth has been warming until now. Every projection of what will come later is inherently laden with scientific uncertainty -- we can't know exactly how much warming will happen in the future, we can just make our best estimate and a range of values in which the real result is likely to fall. The important thing is that if, say, we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide now, then the warming trend would be substantially mitigated and we wouldn't be headed for centuries of temperatures that are several degrees higher. This is our best understanding of the science. I'm not saying that this is a politically feasible solution -- just that in the best case scenario where we address the problem, we're not all screwed. The projections being right means that this trend is not inevitable but is a direct cause of our actions. If we caused the problem, what makes you think it's not in our power to stop it?

And think about what you're saying here. What do you think makes the LA Times more money -- continuing to provoke a non-existent controversy, or taking a stand that obviously seems to be seen as a political stance with one side of their readership? From the perspective of continuing to exist as a news entity, the LA Times is doing something that requires a bit of courage, not something that entrenches their power. They are likely going to read conservative readership as a result of this (how sad is that). It doesn't say a good thing about the place we're in if a news organization is described as reinforcing power structures simply by publishing only what it believes are basic facts.