This from The Big E at MPP:

The LA Times recently instituted a policy change: they no longer print letters to the editor from climate change deniers. The LA Times believes that peer-reviewed work by established scientists have overwhelmingly proven that our planet is warming and this is leading to significant climate change.

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.

The LA Times started this and I think that the Minneapolis Star Tribune should join them.

As recently as October 22nd, the Strib printed a letter from a climate denier crank from California.

On October 14th, they published an op-ed by former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson. Gerson isn’t exactly a denier, instead he’s trying to vilify the messengers and, via ad hominem attacks, show that climate change and global warming are not believable.

Generally, the Strib allows Republicans to tell any old lie they want to on their editorial page. But it’s time to tell them to put an end to the anti-science malarkey the climate deniers want printed.

Please sign the petition asking the Minneapolis Star Tribune to join the LA Times in no longer publishing climate denier letters…

PLEASE CLICK HERE, READ THE DETAILS, GET THE LINKS, AND SIGN THE DAMN PETITION!!!!

Comments

  1. #1 Lenketorsdag | Anna Blix
    October 31, 2013

    […] LA Times trykker ikke lengre innlegg fra såkalte klimaskeptikere. Noe for norske aviser? Vi vet at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte, så hvorfor skal ikke media også ta ansvar og heller bruke spalteplass på hva vi burde gjøre med klimaendringene? (Uenig i at klimaendringene er menneskeskapte? Les den nye norske boka «Klimaendringer i Norge» skrevet av blant annet Dag O. Hessen. Enig i at det er klimaendringer, og lurer på hvorfor vi ikke gjør noe? Les boka Drivhuseffekten. Klimapolitikken som forsvant av Erik Martiniussen) […]

  2. #2 Nicholas Schroeder, BSME, PE
    May 6, 2016

    The Great Climate Change Bamboozle
    “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”
    H. L. Mencken

    Earth’s carbon cycle contains 45,000 Gt (E15 gr) +/- 850 GT of stores and reservoirs with a couple hundred Gt/y +/- ?? ebbing and flowing between those reservoirs. Mankind’s gross contribution over 260 years was 555 Gt or 1.2%. (IPCC AR5 Fig 6.1) Mankind’s net contribution, 240 Gt or 0.53%, (dry labbed by IPCC to make the numbers work) to this bubbling, churning caldron of carbon/carbon dioxide is 4 Gt/y +/- 96%. (IPCC AR5 Table 6.1) Seems relatively trivial to me. IPCC et. al. says natural variations can’t explain the increase in CO2. With these tiny percentages and high levels of uncertainty how would anybody even know?

    Mankind’s alleged atmospheric CO2 power flux (watt is power, energy over time) increase between 1750 and 2011, 260 years, was 2 W/m^2 of radiative forcing. (IPCC AR5 Fig SPM.5) Incoming solar RF is 340 W/m^2, albedo RF reflects 100 W/m^2 +/- 30 (can’t be part of the 333), 160 W/m^2 reaches the surface (can’t be part of the 333), latent heat RF from the water cycle’s evaporation is 88 W/m2 +/- 8. Mankind’s 2 W/m^2 contribution is obviously trivial, lost in the natural fluctuations.

    One popular GHE theory power flux balance (“Atmospheric Moisture…. Trenberth et. al. 2011 Figure 10) has a spontaneous perpetual loop (333 W/m^2) flowing from cold to hot violating three fundamental thermodynamic laws. (1. Spontaneous energy out of nowhere, 2) perpetual loop w/o work, 3) cold to hot w/o work, 4) doesn’t matter because what’s in the system stays in the system) Physics must be optional for “climate” science. What really counts is the net RF balance at ToA which 7 out of 8 re-analyses considered by the above cited paper concluded the atmosphere was cooling, not warming. Of course Trenberth says they are wrong because their results are not confirmed by the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.

    Every year the pause/hiatus/lull/stasis continues (IPCC AR5 Box TS.3) IPCC’s atmospheric and ocean general circulation models diverge further from reality.

    As Carl Sagan observed, we have been bamboozled, hustled, conned by those wishing to steal our money and rob us of our liberties. Hardly a new agenda.

    BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.

  3. #3 Marco
    May 7, 2016

    “BTW I have a BSME same as Bill Nye so I’m as much a scientist as he is.”

    And still he understands the GHE better than you. Heck, even Fred Singer thinks you are a crank for denying the GHE (which you actually deny when discussing that Trenberth diagram).

    “the predicted warming, which hasn’t happened for twenty years.”

    One wonders why no one told the cryosphere and the ocean that they should not have been warming “for twenty years”.