It's nice to hear some sensibility instead of the too common false equivalence of presenting both sides as some vacuous form of even-handedness that actually abandons reasonable efforts to prevent misinformation.

[URL="http://www.salon.com/2013/10/09/the_la_times_wont_publish_letters_from_climate_deniers/"]The L.A. Times won’t publish letters from climate deniers[/URL] [noparse][salon.com][/noparse]

[URL="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-climate-change-letters-20131008,0,871615.story"]On letters from climate-change deniers[/URL] [noparse][latimes.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]As for letters on climate change, we do get plenty from those who deny global warming. And to say they "deny" it might be an understatement: Many say climate change is a hoax, a scheme by liberals to curtail personal freedom.

Before going into some detail about why these letters don't make it into our pages, I'll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. I'm no expert when it comes to our planet's complex climate processes or any scientific field. Consequently, when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on such weighty matters as climate change, I must rely on the experts -- in other words, those scientists with advanced degrees who undertake tedious research and rigorous peer review.

And those scientists have provided ample evidence that human activity is indeed linked to climate change. Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- a body made up of the world's top climate scientists -- said it was 95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming. The debate right now isn't whether this evidence exists (clearly, it does) but what this evidence means for us.

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

On Global warming: I'll let you folks know if we fail to reach minus forty degrees (Fahrenheit and Celsius are the same at this point; fun fact) this winter or not. (EDIT: I don't count Wind Chill. Minus 69 Celsius (-92 Fahrenheit) just doesn't even compute)

I'm afraid I'm too lazy to sift through ninety-two pages of posts to see if this thread is a bunch of people who actually believe in global warming, or if we're all making fun of people who do, or what.

I can't decipher the last post. Is only_human saying it's great that the LA times has stopped posting letters from people who aren't convinced? That free speech bullshit, eh?

[QUOTE=TheMawn;355898]the LA times has stopped posting letters from people who aren't convinced?[/QUOTE]No, that's a distortion of the new LA Times policy.

Note that the factually-incorrect headline "The L.A. Times won't publish letters from climate deniers" is on the salon.com article, not the latimes.com article. The LA Times can't prevent factually-incorrect headlines on sites that are not their own.

The LA Times _has_ stopped posting letters that contain certain counter-factual statements about AGW:
[quote=latimes.com]Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.[/quote]That example saying ("there's no sign humans have caused climate change") is counter-factual because [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm"]there _are_ signs[/URL] that [URL="http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html"]humans have caused climate change[/URL].

They'll still publish letters that are factually correct, whether the authors are "convinced" or not.
[quote=TheMawn]That free speech bullshit, eh?[/quote]Free speech doesn't obligate the LA Times to publish factually-false statements, nor does it prevent salon.com from publishing factually-incorrect headlines on its articles.

via [URL="https://plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/TnLjMpaoVMv"]Jennifer Ouellette[/URL] on G+

This new article better explains the point about false balance that I was trying to make.

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/oct/11/climate-change-political-media-ipcc-coverage"]Conservative media outlets found guilty of biased global warming coverage[/URL] [noparse][theguardian.com][/noparse]
[QUOTE]
New studies show conservative and politically neutral media outlets are creating false balance in climate change reporting

There's a 97 percent consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed climate science literature and among climate experts. There's a 96 percent consensus in the climate research that humans are responsible for most of the current global warming. The 2013 IPCC report agrees with this position with 95 percent confidence, and states that humans are most likely responsible for 100 percent of the global warming since 1951.

Yet a new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows that in stories about the 2013 IPCC report, rather than accurately reflect this expert consensus, certain media outlets have created a false perception of discord amongst climate scientists.
[/QUOTE][QUOTE]This practice is known as "false balance," where the 3 percent of climate contrarians are given a disproportionate amount of media coverage, creating the perception that there is a significant divide amongst climate experts. In their purported efforts to be "fair and balanced" and represent "both sides," these media outlets are actually creating an unbalanced perception of reality. The reality is that 97 percent of climate experts and evidence support human-caused global warming. The findings in the IPCC report are consistent with that expert consensus, as we would expect, since the IPCC report is simply a summary of the body of scientific research.

Unfortunately this practice of false balance appears to be spreading to politically neutral media outlets. The BBC has been heavily criticized for its interviews of climate contrarians leading up to the publication of the IPCC report. BBC editor Ehsan Masood attempted to defend the network's false balance coverage this week, arguing that there is a difference between climate contrarians and skeptics, and that it's important to cover the latter to avoid "shutting out dissenting voices."

There certainly is a difference between biased contrarians and open-minded skeptics. The problem is that the BBC can't seem to tell the difference. For example, they granted an extensive interview to Bob Carter, a marine geologist with minimal experience in climate science, who works for numerous conservative think tanks including the Global Warming Policy Foundation. In fact, the interview largely centered on the right-wing think tank response to the IPCC report, the NIPCC report, which is neither a legitimate scientific document, nor skeptical. Rather it is the epitome of cherry picking and myth regurgitation.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]Giving space to those like Bob Carter that reject the expert consensus on human-caused climate change is no different. It amplifies the voices of the 3 percent minority and creates the false impression of a division amongst climate experts. As a result, only 45 percent of Americans are aware of the 97 percent expert consensus on human-caused global warming.

Media false balance as illustrated in the IPCC reporting by outlets like the BBC, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News is largely to blame for this "consensus gap." This practice of false balance misinforms the public and does us all a disservice.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;355898]I'm afraid I'm too lazy to sift through ninety-two pages of posts to see if this thread is a bunch of people who actually believe in global warming, or if we're all making fun of people who do, or what.[/QUOTE]

[Channeling 22 Minutes]So then what you're saying is you believe that humans can actually walk on water?[/channeling]

(Some might not get this sense of humor....)

[QUOTE=chalsall;355909][Channeling 22 Minutes]So then what you're saying is you believe that humans can actually walk on water?[/channeling]

(Some might not get this sense of humor....)[/QUOTE]

Of course they can. What's so hard.

[QUOTE=davar55;355953]Of course they can. What's so hard.[/QUOTE]
The question phases some people.

I should have made myself a bit clearer regarding the free speech thing. Not so much that papers are forced to publish whatever letters they want but it kind of does look bad when you publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions.

My local newspaper will hardly ever publish any economic right-wing stuff but continually posts anything half-decently written which supports the economic left-wing. Back in our latest federal elections, about 19 out of 20 letters were for the NDP, which proceeded to get absolutely demolished by the Conservative Party during the actual elections. Either 19 out of 20 people were going to vote NDP but all changed their minds (impossible as you cannot change those people's minds, ever) OR 95% of the letters came from 20% of the population meaning only 1 in 100 letters were sent in by conservative supporters OR the paper filters their let's-hear-what-you-think because they don't like your opinions. Looks pretty bad.

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356004]Either 19 out of 20 people were going to vote NDP but all changed their minds (impossible as you cannot change those people's minds, ever) OR 95% of the letters came from 20% of the population meaning only 1 in 100 letters were sent in by conservative supporters OR the paper filters their let's-hear-what-you-think because they don't like your opinions. Looks pretty bad.[/QUOTE]

It could also mean that few conservatives read that newspaper, thus few of an opposing viewpoint would write.

I acknowledge that selection bias and cherry picking picking opinions for print are problems and that much of the contemporary "news" coverage could be more objective.

Back on the other point of printing counter-factual opinion letters, if an opinion is obviously wrong enough to not deceive readers and possibly pisses off editors too, they might print it anyway as happened in this case (in print AND web editions of the paper):
[QUOTE=only_human;353675]Speaking of facepalms: [URL="http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/labor-still-doesnt-get-it--members-need-to-be-canvassed-20130915-2tspz.html"]Letters to the Sydney Morning Herald[/URL][QUOTE][B]Stick with facts, not sci-fi[/B]
I do wish that the Herald editorial team would stop presenting Carl Sagan science fiction gibberish dressed up as if it were fact (''The little spacecraft that could'', September 14-15). It occurred over the weekend, when we were fed a far-fetched story about a space vehicle named Voyager and interstellar exploration.

This is the same type of pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo that exploiters of the public purse have been doing with climate change over many years. It is arrant nonsense and has to stop right here and now. The Herald does itself no favours by printing it, pretending that the sci-fi exaggerations are factual.

[B]Bill Thomas[/B] Cabramatta[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=TheMawn;356004]I should have made myself a bit clearer regarding the free speech thing. Not so much that papers are forced to publish whatever letters they want but it kind of does look bad when you publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions.[/QUOTE]"Looking bad" isn't a free-speech issue. :-)

As for "publish only the stuff that coincides with your own opinions", I pointed out that it was only a different site, not the LA Times site, that (erroneously) stated that the LA Times would not publish letters from "climate deniers". The LA Times wasn't refusing to publish letters from "climate deniers" or letters that didn't coincide with editorial opinion; it was refusing to publish factual errors.

A "climate denier" may opine that the signs of human influence on climate change are not sufficient to convince himself that the AGW theory is correct, but stating that there are no such signs is a counterfactual statement, not an opinion.

If a "climate denier" opines that the signs of human influence on climate change are not sufficient to convince himself (or anyone else) that the AGW theory is correct, that opinion can be published and legitimately debated.

If a "climate denier" (or anyone else) claims that there are no such signs, a generous first response could be to link to lists of such signs (as I did above, as an example) in order to correct a possible case of ignorance (which is not a sin). If the "climate denier" (or anyone else) thereafter continues to assert that no-such-signs claim after being shown that it is factually false (which could be from general public information or the paper's archives; the paper is not obligated to keep repeating that to each new claimant), then he is closing the door to legitimate debate and needs to yield editorial-page space to fact-acknowledgers.