Newspaper closes mind: will no longer print skeptical AGW opinions

From the newspaper SouthCoastToday.com

Our View: There is no debate on climate change

The “debate” over the reality and cause of climate change stopped being scientific long ago. Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment. 

One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.

The point was made in the meeting that it is not typical that scientists would agree so broadly. There’s a reason for that: Theories aren’t agreed upon in the scientific community, but facts are.

Theories are debated. Facts are facts.

The UMass scientists were invited to discuss three undeniable, provable effects that burning fossil fuels has on our oceans: acidification, warming, and sea level rise.

Read the rest here: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20140205/OPINION/402050305

===============================================================

When the public’s right to know is threatened, and when the rights of free speech and free press are at risk, all of the other liberties we hold dear are endangered. -Christopher Dodd

Source h/t to WUWT reader “Vico”

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Kaboom

Stuffing newspapers in the cracks to keep reality out.

RaiderDingo

They don’t even seem to understand what is in dispute.

Tim Walker

Just wow. The ability of people to close their minds to dissenting opinions is alive and well. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler takes over.

James Ard

This story reeks of desperation. The double down tactic will not end well for those who yell consensus the loudest.

TRG

Move along; nothing to see here.

I didn’t see CO2 referred to in the article. They label it carbon which is the first lie. And they just go on from there with some more lies.

hunter

Like a pre civil War southern paper refusing to discuss the issue of slavery. Will they just ignore the news that the IPCC is now, by their ‘news’ standard, a skeptical organization?

“Today, the “debate” is nothing more than a distraction that serves a political purpose for those who would stand to lose the most by policies that would curtail the release of carbon from its restful, stable location below the surface of the earth, in the form of fossil fuels, into our environment.”
People who stand to lose the most by these policies include, for example, anyone who drives a car, uses air travel, has products shipped via truck or ship, travels, camps, uses a refrigerator, or has a home which is heated and lit by inexpensive electricity.
100% of progressive scientists agree that purchasing electricity and fuel to use just as the individual who purchases it needs and likes, is killing the planet.

liberator

the death of the printed paper sees another nail knocked in the lid of its coffin. You cant handle the truth, you will believe what we tell you to believe!

” One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.”
Please obtain the names and qualifications of the participants at the editorial board meeting.

hunter

This does underscore the post regarding how the climate obsessed are winning the war on pretending CO2 is a pollutant. The clowns at this faux new outlet are now labeling carbon itself- the molecule of life- as the problem.

Dr Burns

Let’s see if this makes it past their moderator:
Consensus means politics, not science.
Perhaps the SouthCoast Today can explain EXACTLY WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE has that’s man’s CO2 has caused any of the warming since the Little Ice Age. Naturally I don’t expect an answer because there is not a shred of evidence of eny kind.
The paper might also like to explain:
1. The lack of global warming for the past almost 2 decades, despite man having pumped out 1/3 of all his CO2 in this period.
2. The recent 50% INCREASE in Arctic sea ice.
3. The current record high in Antarctic sea ice.
4. The fact that the holocence, Minonan, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than now.
5. The fact that CO2 levels have been 7 times as high as currently since mammals first walked the Earth.

Brad Rich

Newspaper editors have a right to print whatever they want. Perhaps the meteor strike that will precipitate their extinction is their own stubbornness about Global Warming. It was a goldmine for so long they are reluctant, to the point of destruction, to give it up.

sophocles

Is it the ostrich which is supposed to hide by burying its head in the sand?
Won’t they look silly when the sea fails to flood the coastal cities, winters are
much colder and summers cooler, and the ocean remains resolutely alkaline
over the next few decades?

E. Martin

One more small step to help those who are intent on making this country into a third world dictatorship!

albertalad

This is funny especially during a US and Canadian winter breaking so many cold records, so many snow records across an entire continent. And this is only February. This is not remotely local. If I didn’t know any better I swear I can smell the desperation from here to keep the AGW money train on track. The claims are getting wilder and more outrageous. So desperate in fact they can no longer tolerate rigorous science, nor questions that may question the science itself they so loudly yell – welcome to Obama’s America. If we had relied on consensus the world would still be flat among other silliness.

100% of progressive scientists have a five-year plan to re-make agriculture and the energy sector.
100% of progressive scientists believe that electricity is a luxury item for progressive scientists.

pdtillman

Remarkably effective agitprop by the CAGW “Cause”. It really is like a religion to those folks.
“It is dangerous to be sincere unless you are also stupid.”
–George Bernard Shaw

JackT

Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.

Only one “scientist” was named. How big was their sample of selected “scientists”? This was a very political editorial with no scientific objectivity.Who are they trying to replace in congress? Who are they trying to get elected?

One hundred percent of the
current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists
[AND] participating in an editorial board meeting
[AND] at The Standard-Times
[AND] on Tuesday
agree

How many could be included in that set? Two?

I’m sure the editors of the L.A. Times must feel all nice and warm and fuzzy inside knowing they aren’t alone anymore when engaging in self-censorship on the issue of CAGW. Who needs government censorship of the media when the editors of publications in this country seem content enough to impose it on themselves?
Since when to the editors of these publications have enough scientific information and enough of a scientific background to do this? The opinions of the “scientists” at just one university (in this case, UMass-Dartmouth) hardly form the basis to justify this action. Money talks, especially when its provided by government, and academia is all-to-easily corrupted by it — as is science itself.
If and when CAGW becomes widely known enough someday to be the fraud that it is, the editors of these publications are going to look and feel very foolish and idiotic. They are digging their own credibility graves, and I for one won’t stop them someday from having to climb down into it.

Taphonomic

What is the sound of one hand clapping in an echo chamber?

elftone

And here’s the money shot:
“One hundred percent of the current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists participating in an editorial board meeting at The Standard-Times on Tuesday…”
It’s an attempt to stifle debate by the UMass Dartmouth “scientists”. The editor sees it as a way to get the little rag of a publication into the limelight.
It will end up as a sad and forgotten footnote in a long, drawn-out and embarrassing period in the history of humankind. Or should I say “sheepkind”? Yes, I think I should.

elftone

JackT says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
Just nitwits proving that they are also intolerant nitwits.

You hit the nail on the head there :).

Taphonomic says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:27 am “What is the sound of one hand clapping in an echo chamber?”
A paradigm shift.

hunter

It would be intersting- maybe even news worthy- to know who arranged the meeting, who ran it, where it was held, when it was held, who managed the agenda, etc. Instead we get a poorly written article taht demonstrates ignorance of the topic, a lack of understanding of current events (ironic at a newspaper) and a commitment to suppress discussion of a topic of interest worldwide. This decision will require the paper to ignore a lot of news.
As Australia and canada seek to dismantle the big green AGW industry, will they simply ignore it? as the Germans build more coal powered plants, is that to be ignored as well?
as the ‘pause’ continues to extend out, will they close their editorial eyes and pretend it is not there? As news of big green corruption continues, will they cover it up for the sake of the settled science?
This editorial decision raises many challenges for a news organization. I look forward to reading how they meet those challenges.

climatebeagle

So, the same newspaper should now be calling for huge reductions in funding of climate science, as no research is obviously needed.That would obviously also be in the public interest.

cynical_scientist

sophocles says:
Won’t they look silly when the sea fails to flood the coastal cities, winters are
much colder and summers cooler, and the ocean remains resolutely alkaline
over the next few decades?

Will this newspaper even exist in a few decades?

John Boles

I would love to know, those who made that decision, what do they drive, Prius or SUV, and you know they all heat their homes and use electricity, have kids…

Thirsty

Time to get the names of the so-called scientists so we can get them on record if they agree with the contents of the editorial and proposed censorship.

pokerguy

I’ve been arguing for a long time that this is the beginning of a trend. They’re cutting their own throats of course, so as far as I’ concerned it’s good news.

And another mouthpiece for ignorance comes out of the closet.

“Theories are debated. Facts are facts.” Except when GCMs show a degree of warming which empirical measurement utterly refutes.

Clovis Marcus

Notice that after every catastrophe is says “scientists are unclear.”
Seems like the only thing they are clear about is that it is worse than we thought.

HGW xx/7

Oh man. They got us. The battle is over and we have lost. I suppose there will be no debate after all. 🙁
#sarc
I adore the logic of these fascist broadsheets: the theory of relativity, a topic that I’ve never seen debated in a newspaper, and would be hard to do so per the everyday citizen’s knowledge base, is welcomed, whereas with AGW, a topic common Joe’s can fact check via observation and public records, and have the ability to actively debate, is forbidden.
Someone (undoubtedly a leftie) once said the devil would appear draped in the American flag and holding a bible. I’m starting to think it will more likely be a power-thirsty, bearded, Prius-driving know-it-all carrying a degree from some “prestigious” university.

Dieter

I guess that means they no longer have any “op” in op-ed.

Stephen Rasey says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:24 am
One hundred percent of the
current and former UMass Dartmouth scientists
[AND] participating in an editorial board meeting
[AND] at The Standard-Times
[AND] on Tuesday
agree
How many could be included in that set? Two?
*
Has to be a low number because “One hundred percent” sounds so much better than 3 or 5 or 10. Then again, maybe there was only one and he agreed with himself.

rabbit

I wonder what their policy is on the luke warmists — that is, those that hold that the climate’s sensitivy to CO2 is greatly overstated by the IPCC and others.
In my experience, such publications don’t bother differentiating once they’ve decided to reject “deniers”. Any opinion that deviates even slightly from a narrow range of views on climate is given the heave ho.

Why Warmists prevail…
“The concept of watchdog journalism is not free of criticism. The whole field of watchdog journalism has decreased over time and parts of journalism and in 2005 observers affirmed that the current period was “not a time of rich watchdog reporting in any media”. This comes with the framework and the problem that many journalists tend “towards reflecting the status quo, rather than radically challenging it”. This decrease, however, cannot lead to the presumption that there are not enough critical topics to write or report about. In fact, the opposite is the case, and there is enough material to work with. While watchdog journalism in the U.S. helped to force Nixon out of office in 1974, the situation presented itself differently in 2003. During the Iraq war part of the established media turned out to take more of a “pro-war attitude”, without adequately fulfilling their function of a critical watchdog. Many professionals in the media “appeared to feel that it was not their role to challenge the administration”. Critics direct the blame in part to the general public itself, however, since their interest in watchdog journalism is “inconstant and fleeting at times”. They also see the role of watchdog journalism as “driven by its own interests rather than by a desire to protect the public interest”.” Wikipedia

“Newspaper closes mind?”
Difficult to do when you clearly demonstrate that it has none to close!

MikeH

On their “Our View” web page is a little poll on climate change. Of the 249 responding to the poll:
Man Made = 31.7%
Real but natural = 12.9%
Real, A little of both = 35.3%
Hoax = 20.1%
So if one were to look at the Man Made vs the others, only 31.7% of their readers believe it’s man made, the other 68.3% must be fools for believing it’s not man made (and a little of both), according to their view. I think their view may be on the loosing end. But why should they listen to their readers anyway?

Kip Hansen

It’s not as bad as it seems. They would just like to shut down the obvious nonsensical ” ‘debate’
over whether climate change is real or a hoax, however, should be confined to conspiracy websites and political blogs where truth takes a backseat to ideology.”
I suspect that the number of readers here that think that climate change is entirely a “hoax” approaches zero. Opinions may vary, as always, but the vast majority realize the local and planetary climates change, at least incrementally, over time. Academia does tend to be presumptuous and sometimes preposterous, bless their big heads and egos.

It’s just an admission of FAILURE, they don’t have to announce closure of topics , when they have successfully explained something.
..and the usual projection.
– Quack, quack, quack..spot the SunCoastToday.com booth and the next carnival market
..do they by chance have advertisers who sell solar PV, windpower and other eco-products ? Quack science will help them sell more

Eliza

Simply dont buy or look at that newspaper anymore, really easy…..

Alan Robertson

cynical_scientist says:
February 6, 2014 at 11:32 am
Will this newspaper even exist in a few decades months?
__________________
fixed

u.k.(us)

My local newspaper’s “about” page:
“In an era of change, the independent and locally owned newspaper is becoming increasingly rare. Paddock Publications, Inc., an independent publishing company, is an exception and proud of its history.
Hosea C. Paddock started the company more than 120 years ago with the motto, “To fear God, tell the truth and make money.” Four generations of Paddocks built a chain of weekly newspapers into the Daily Herald, the third largest newspaper in Illinois.
The Paddocks have no plans to give up the reins. Their strategic plans include continued expansion in the growing suburban Chicago market and a strong commitment to the communities currently served.
The Paddocks see their publishing powerhouse growing well into the next century.”
==============
Seems like they are telling “the truth”, it’s on my driveway every morning.

physicsgeeky

I guess that this post would be labeled doubleplus ungood.

Ben

http://i.imgur.com/UxgeG.jpg <— Albert Einstein Image
"Albert Einstein's response to the 1931 pamphlet "100 authors against Einstein," commissioned by the German Nazi Party, as a clumsy contradiction to the Relativity Theory, said, "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough."
In this case, 100% of the conflict-of-interest compromised individuals, whose jobs and grants likely depend on perpetuating misinformation and censoring rebuttals, don't want honest facts and research getting to the public. It could change their state-dependent funding. Not a surprise.

rogerknights

This paper is on the south coast of WHERE?

. . . agree both that climate change is occurring and that human activity — particularly the combustion of fossil fuels — has a significant impact on it.

Did they also agree that there are strong net positive feedbacks that will relentlessly drive temperatures much higher? That’s the contrarian’s challenge, not these strawmen.