L.A. Times declares it will print letters that contain only the infallible truth about climate change

It is so reassuring to read that the L.A. Times has risen above the muck and mire of mere print journalism and declared itself to be the “News Bible” — containing only infallible, inerrant and unerring truths — especially when it comes to the gospel according to St. Gore.

In an Oct. 8 screed under the headline “On letters from climate-change denier,” letters editor of the Times Paul Thornton declares, “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.”

Photo accompanying piece declaring no letters to editor questioning climate change will be printed in the L.A. Times. (Getty Images)

He doesn’t say what he would do if he got a letter saying mankind has surely had some impact on the planet’s atmosphere but we’re still awaiting scientific evidence that the United States alone can return the climate to “normal” — whatever that is — by crippling the economy with carbon taxes and saddling businesses and residences with higher power bills due to the outrageous cost of wind turbines and solar panels.

No, Thornton will take his cue from the acolytes of the Church of Green.

“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,” Thornton writes.

“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.”

How about allowing a letter writer to point out that none of the infallible climate change models predicted that, despite huge increases in carbon output, that there would be no appreciable increase in global temperatures for 15 years? Would that be a heresy? Or a factual inaccuracy? Just asking.

Nothing to debate here. Move along now. The priests of global warming have spoken and let none utter blasphemy from the back pews. Besides, it is only those infidel conservatives who deign to question the divinely inspired scriptures according to St. Gore.

Yea, verily, yea.

22 comments on “L.A. Times declares it will print letters that contain only the infallible truth about climate change

  1. Wendy Ellis says:

    Apparently the LA Times only needs an editorial section to censor any views or facts which do not conform to their high journalistic standards.

  2. Rincon says:

    Mr. Thornton didn’t say that global warming deniers would not have their letters printed. Only that, as with other letters, those with misstatements of fact will not be published. You want him to publish those with errors?

    The question also rises, what would he do with your ridiculous statement that there has been no appreciable increase in global temperatures for 15 years. It’s not actually a total lie though; only a common journalist’s trick used to mask the truth. It’s very much like saying that March is colder than February was because February had one 65 degree day. 1998 was extremely high due to a major el nino event. After returning to the previous pattern, temperatures continued to rise until 2005, when they leveled off at near-1998 levels. 7 years kids, not 15

    I keep saying that the 15 warmest years since 1900 or so have all occurred in the last 16 years. Why don’t you correct me someone?

  3. Your as big a liar as your old boss. Sherm. You have spent a lifetime writing the most inane BS. Your just another self-centered, Koch Brother apologist and for the life of me I can not figure out why? Tom, WTF up. There is a finite amount of fossil fuels. Getting to them is destroying water tables and causing catastrophic changes in the structure of the planet. Global warming is real and even if you think it is not man made do you really want to take a chance? Doesn’t it make sense to try and take precautions just from the fact that we all want to breath clean air? You are really one stupid MF’er.

  4. Instead of “Your just another self-centered” … it should be “you’re.”


  5. Steve says:

    Good thing this site does NOT have an edit function, the idiot errors remain forever visible!

  6. Rincon says:

    There should be a period after “function” rather than a comma. None of us are immune 🙂 That being said, using words like MF’er and WTF are not wise. Gives you away as a liberal. Better to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Say, “sumbitch”. Sounds more conservative.

    I’m still waiting to hear a correction about the 15 hottest years being in the last 16. It certainly doesn’t prove that manmade global warming is occurring, but it does make the “15 years without warming” claim sound rather unimpressive.

  7. Joe says:

    Excuse me here, but aren’t letters published in the “opinion” section? Did the learned editor raise his hand and ask to be excused to go to the restroom right before they discussed the meaning of the word “opinion?”

  8. Steve says:

    Grammar Base found ZERO errors in my comment! :mrgreen: 😎


  9. Rincon says:

    Opinions are fine, but generally aren’t published by any newspaper or magazine if any misstatements of fact exist or if an opinion is unlikely to be shared by significant numbers of people. A letter advocating death by stoning for adultry would be unlikely to be published for example, even though it would be a bona fide opinion.

    Maybe it’s like new math Steve. In my day, it was called a runon sentance, which is two complete sentences separated by a comma rather than a period. We’ll let Thomas break the deadlock, but I’ll make a deal with you. I won’t look for mistakes in your posts if you won’t look for them in mine. I should come out ahead on that one!

  10. Winston Smith says:

    Y’know folkes, this whole AGW thing would have made a lot more sense, and seemed a lot more reputable if it wasn’t for a few small facts:

    1. Only 3.618% of the greenhouse gases is CO2, with water vapor being 95%.
    2. Only 3.225% of the CO2 is man-made, which is only 0.117% of all greenhouse gases.
    3. Plants live off of CO2.
    4. Certain governmental and U.N. organizations falsified data to create support for AGW.
    5. Blood and Gore (amongst others) were looking to make billions off carbon credits market, which hasn’t materialized (yet).
    6. There are many climate scientists that sent in their data and simply trusted the official aggregators to tell the truth about it, and then assumed that AGW was something to freak out about after the IPCC reports came out.

    Now, if every pro-AGW article would mention these actual facts upfront, instead of running around like Chicken Little, I might give more credence to them.




  11. Steve says:


    Seeing as few (if any) of us are professional writers, errors and typos are to be expected.

    Read through them they are not that bad.

  12. Rincon says:

    Winston, you’ve got to stop frequenting the global warming red light district 🙂 Whoever made whatever site you got this from knows full well that they are leaving out extremely important information. But they have a mission, so let’s not let a few facts get in the way of feel-good ideology! Point by point:

    1) Yes, CO2 is only 3% of the atmosphere, but potency has little to do with concentration. If there was 3% carbon MONoxide in the atmosphere for example, you wouldn’t consider it inconsequential because we’d all be dead.
    2) This “fact” is false, false, false. Historically, CO2 ranged around 280-300 ppm; today, it’s at 385 or so. All of the excess is manmade. This means an increase of around 28%.
    3) Plants live off CO2. Big deal. It has little to no impact on the warming potential of CO2.
    4) Other than the occasional mistakes, which were few, inconsequential, and quickly corrected, the data have never been falsified. Climategate in particular involved no falsification of data.
    5) Gore made lots on cable TV. Does this prove that cable TV does not exist?
    6) This is merely innuendo without a shred of evidence to back it up. I could say the same in spades about deniers.

    Now, try these on:

    1) CO2 warms the atmosphere. We don’t know how much.
    @) Man has raised the CO2 levels by 28%
    3) We don’t have any way of knowing how great the impact will be, yet we refuse to even acknowledge a risk.

    But Steve, nitpicking is so much fun!

  13. Rincon says:

    Sorry Winston. I misread the first one. Let me try again. Once again, we have a disagreement in fact. Water vapor is NOT responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect:

    Major Greenhouse Gas % of Greenhouse Effect
    Water vapor 36% to 66%
    Water vapor & Cloud droplets 66% to 85%
    Carbon dioxide 9% to 26%
    Methane 4% to 9%
    Ozone 3% to 7%

    Although water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, it’s academic since water vapor isn’t changing over time – unless the other greenhouse gases change it by initiating their own temperature change. Yes, without water vapor, the Earth would be very cold. So just what is your point here?

  14. Winston Smith says:


    My main point was that it is rare that AGW advocacy groups even mention those things.
    Secondly, are you disputing the Dept of Energy tables I referenced?
    Third, some AGW advocates act like CO2 is CO, i.e., is poisonous.
    Next, a few AGW advocates were planning on making millions, if not billions, in the carbon credit market, therefore bringing into question their motives.
    And lastly, if an individual scientist or team of scientists that are honest send in their data to be aggregated, along with hundreds, if not thousands others, should they automatically trust the conclusions made by the those that used their data? It is far easier to manipulate and control the conclusions at the top, than at the bottom.
    And I should have mentioned that when money and prestige are at stake, even within the scientific community, things need to be questioned, not just automatically believed.

    I’m not a climate scientist, just a mere systems analyst, and it is my semi-humble opinion that the AGW advocates have used emotionalism and scare tactics (Polar bears drowning, seas raising, etc.) to drive their agenda. And because I don’t trust government most of the time, such pronouncements of doom really don’t justify turning off power plants, the government taking over the energy industry, and all of us paying more just because some computer models say so.

    Sorry, and the more unconstitutional crap they pull (banning incandescent bulbs) to save the world doesn’t impress me one iota, because all too often, their motives are power and control.

  15. Power, control and money.

  16. Rincon says:

    One can always pull out a conspiracy theory, but it’s rarely a convincing argument. I agree that, just as deniers stack the deck, so do the believers. Honesty isn’t particularly common in politics.

    For me, the bottom line is that manmade climate change is a clear and definite risk to our society. No more and no less. Anyone who claims that the risk is either massive or infinitesimal is lying through his teeth – or has a substantial lack of common sense with some ignorance of the science thrown in. Since we cannot know the future, minimizing the risk in inexpensive ways is the optimum approach. The earlier we start, the easier it will be. That’s why delaying a response for 30 years has already put us behind the 8-ball. We need more luck now than if we had begun 30 years ago.

  17. Rincon says:

    Oops, I forgot. The energy tables. Please avail me to them and we’ll compare our references.

  18. Rincon says:

    Look at the quality of the reference. Geocraft.com appears to be from an anonymous source. His sources of information include a personal communication with Richard Lindzen – can’t catch him on that one can we? They also include one reference that doesn’t appear to say anything at all about greenhouse gases (the EIA one). There is one reference taken from a speech by a Geology professor at Carlton University. Geology. Hmmm…I have a science phd. I suppose I’m as qualified as him. Is that the best you can find?

    My reference was from the National Earth Science Teachers Association. Wikipedia agrees with them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Impacts_on_the_overall_greenhouse_effect I wouldn’t expect them to have an ax to grind. Can we find a neutral, reputable source that says water is responsible for 95% of the effect?

    NEVERTHELESS, who cares what the percentages are? There’s no reason to suspect that water vapor will suddenly change its ways and cause a problem, so it’s not very relevant. The real question is, can a gas contributing a small percentage of the greenhouse effect cause significant warming if its amount is greatly increased? Consider that the average temperature of the Earth is 515 degrees F. above absolute zero. This means a 10 degree temperature rise would equal about a 1.9% change. It doesn’t take much to create a 1,9% change in much of anything. Adding this to the fact that 97% of climatologists believe mankind is contributing significantly to the observed warming makes me wonder how anyone can be supremely confident that it’s all impossible. The 97% must be part of a vast conspiracy! Remember, you claim to be absolutely certain that they’re all wrong.

  19. Winston Smith says:

    I never said 97% of the climatologists were all wrong, by definition, I have just been skeptical of the whole process, especially given the players and the circumstances. I’ve seen a stomach-full of manipulations by authority figures in my lifetime, and when politicians that want to “change the world” would just happen to make themselves filthy-rich in the process, I will examine their data, belief system, and who they’re beholden to before I buy into it.

    Using computer models to legitimize destroying our freedoms, in order to supposedly save ourselves, just doesn’t work for me. After all, I’ve been a database developer for over three decades, and you can make any software system come up with a desired result, it’s all in the code and data you hand it.

    Am I being an evil, short-sighted, global-warming denier? Maybe so, but there always seems to be some new manufactured crisis that my government wants me to give up my freedoms in order to stave off.

    See “Dialectic Process, Hegelian”.

    Meanwhile, I’ll steal this from Vin:

    “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

  20. Rincon says:

    You Conservatives have got to learn to relax! Where is it carved in stone that reducing global warming must also reduce our freedom? Luckily, the city fathers of Elmhurst didn’t think like you. They reduced CO2 long ago while INCREASING the freedom of their citizens.

    In the 1980’s, Elmhurst’s downtown was dying due to the emergence of nearby shopping centers. The city council decided to remove previous zoning restrictions against apartments and condominiums near downtown. There are now 8 or 10 large buildings up to 8 stories high and a city block long. They’re very popular and command a good price. This helped create a highly invigorated downtown today. Residents are a short walk from many businesses and the train station. Many commute to Chicago on the train, lightening the load on our expressways and they walk to and from the grocery store every day or two. The buildings are far more efficient for city services and utilities as well. Is this your idea of a threat?

    If we stop subsidizing the automobile, we would also see a great reduction in miles driven. For example, our gas taxes pay for only a third of road expenses, so those people in the condos in Elmhurst are subsidizing drivers. Freedom, my butt! That’s socialism, but Conservatives defend that kind of socialism because they get softheaded about oil. http://taxfoundation.org/article/gasoline-taxes-and-tolls-pay-only-third-state-local-road-spending

    If you stop painting with such a broad brush, you would find opportunities galore.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s