Patterico's Pontifications

10/7/2013

L.A. Times: We Don’t Print Letters That Deny Manmade Climate Change

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:35 am



Because of The Truth, you see:

Regular readers of The Times’ Opinion pages will know that, among the few letters published over the last week that have blamed the Democrats for the government shutdown (a preponderance faulted House Republicans), none made the argument about Congress exempting itself from Obamacare.

Why? Simply put, this objection to the president’s healthcare law is based on a falsehood, and letters that have an untrue basis (for example, ones that say there’s no sign humans have caused climate change) do not get printed.

Yes, the L.A. Times has a firm policy: “If anyone is going to make up stuff, it’s us!”

Via Newsbusters.

62 Responses to “L.A. Times: We Don’t Print Letters That Deny Manmade Climate Change”

  1. House organ of the Democratic Party. So, you got a problem with that?

    nk (dbc370)

  2. do not get printed.

    Such groups within the left (ie, the LA Times) have become as shameless and brazen as the disgusting pile is in the White House. I used to think that having at least one viable newspaper per community/city was a good thing, but I now actively hope for the LA Times ongoing decline (ie, advertising revenues and circulation), if not demise.

    Mark (58ea35)

  3. The defecating birds are not amused and may seek a more amenable environment.

    Colonel Haiku (ee5253)

  4. We tolerate open debate, as long as everyone agrees with us!

    This is part of the left’s “there is no debate” tactic.

    CrustyB (69f730)

  5. There are probably numerous errors and incorrect statements on the other side. You could probably pick a few out and asked thjem why they printed it.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  6. On the Obamacare matetr indeed it is really unfair. In order to complain that Copongress exempted itself from something, you have to ignore the fact that members of Congress and their staffer previously had their health insurance subsidized. All they are doinjg is NOT dropping it – or not dropping the dollar value of their subsidy, or hat somebody calculates as that. Why it shouild be a consequence of Obamacare that Congress loses its employer provided health insurance. The bill actually enalizes employers who don’t give their employees health insurance (it should be noted this cpoverage can very well not be free, and usually ins;t, and may have high copayemnts and deuctibles)

    If you were to be completely consistent, the federal government should pay the penalty too! (this is not absurd, because in government accounting, the budget of one part of the government is charged for moeny paid to another part of the government – I believe the government pays rent on the White House to the GSA)

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  7. The science is settled, beeyotches.

    JD (8935bd)

  8. * the bill actually penalizes employers who don’t give their employees a health insurance plan, if even one of them gets a subsidy on the exchange.

    If you were to be completely consistent, the federal government should pay the penalty too!

    Being on the exchange but having the employer make a contribution to the cost of the insurance bought on the exchange is an irregular situation, but not really unfair, nor is it against the basic philosophy of the law, which didn’t want employers to drop the money they provided for health insurance (and they are pre-tax dollars by the way.) and in most cases levied a penalty/tax on the employer if they did.

    The proper way to completely equalize the situation would be to allow employers to provide employees money to be used to buy policies on the exchange. And also not get a penalty, provided that the employees would not be eligible for a subsidy or perhaps that the amount given was at least the size of the fine..

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  9. Censorship of dissenting opinion … that’s really scientific.

    SPQR (768505)

  10. They are redefining their ideological opinions as facts.

    JD (8935bd)

  11. The reason why the Congress should lose the dollar value of their subsidy is because they passed a law saying they would go onto the exchanges. That law supercedes the law that gives them a subsidy. So, no subsidy.

    luagha (dc7bcf)

  12. what do they imagine they accomplish by pretending climate change is some sort kind of super-important issue or whatever?

    they don’t set anyone’s agenda at best they *may* help sell a few mattresses and oil changes to the senior citizens what read their paper but even among useless codgers mobile is eating their lunch

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  13. sort

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  14. It works with this slight adjustment to the dictionary:

    True – adj. In conformance with current Democratic Party dogma.

    Amphipolis (d3e04f)

  15. 11. Comment by luagha (dc7bcf) — 10/7/2013 @ 8:51 am

    The reason why the Congress should lose the dollar value of their subsidy is because they passed a law saying they would go onto the exchanges. That law supercedes the law that gives them a subsidy. So, no subsidy.

    It’s posisble, that legally, that’s exactly what they did. Not that the law supercedes thye law that gioves them a subsidy, because it doesn’t say they should NOT get it, it’s just that the old way of covering members of Congress snd their staff has been cancelled.

    And what should happen is that Congress should pass a law continuing the subsidy in another way than what it used to be.

    The House bill that reverses Obamacare’s ruling that allowed it to continue, also takes away federally prvided health insurance from the White House staff, who were not inclued in the 2010 bill. Now I guess some people put that in to make sure that never really becomes law. Or they got confused or hoped to confuse people into thinking some NEW benefit was being provided. It’s demagiguery that’s going on here. An appeal to the low-information voter (Republican version)

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  16. Sammy – this is really very simple. No employer in the country, except for Congress, is able to dump their employees on the exchange and still provide the employer contribution.

    JD (8935bd)

  17. Is there someplace we can sign a petition to ask the Koch’s to reconsider purchasing the LAT?

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  18. If you’re truly confident in your views, you will welcome a good faith argument that is wrong, because it is an opportunity to explain the evidence that supports your view and refutes the wrong argument. This is interesting and what an op ed section should be used for.

    Unfortunately, the LA Times uses editorials for the same purpose as the rest of the paper: propaganda.

    Dustin (303dca)

  19. Comment by JD (8935bd) — 10/7/2013 @ 9:38 am

    No employer in the country, except for Congress, is able to dump their employees on the exchange and still provide the employer contribution

    If they are providing a contribution, especially the same contribution as before, they are not really dumping them.

    The reason they can’t use the exchange is that the exchanges can provide a subsidy (if someone picks a silver, or third tier out of four plan) and they’d rather have the employers pay.

    Also, since the insurance on he exchanges might cost less to the employee than an employer provided plan they don’t want people using the exchange if they have an alternative. They can only use the exchange if the actual cost to the employee would amount to 9.5% of gross income. Cost for an individual plan, that is, but all members of a family are supposed to be covered!

    This is another thing the unions want changed.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  20. The LA> Times has this (arrogrant and inconsistent) policy with regard to letters to the editor.

    So they say now they don’t wan letters to the editor that use false or misleading facts. I said they are probably not so careful with letters that are on the other side of issues. I bet anyone could find many letetrs loaded with inaccuracies and wrong “facts.”

    They could easily run counter-letters.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  21. Why does it seem like Sammy is trying to muddy the water to the point where it makes it hard to discuss? Facts are facts, Sammy. If Samsung dumps employees on the exchanges, they cannot contribute. Congress can. It really is that simple.

    JD (8935bd)

  22. The Times needs a new motto. Here are several suggestions:

    Diversity is a one-way street.

    Tolerance doesn’t mean accepting things we don’t like.

    We’ll tell you what you need to know, now shut up.

    We respect your opinion when it agrees with ours.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  23. They could also, of course, run a reply by the editors to a letters to the editor, where they have what they see as a wrong argument or factually misleading argument used. It’s been known to happen in some publications, although not usually newspapers.

    Sammy Finkelman (3fda43)

  24. The left really has a hard time with those who disagree. I read Huffington Post and sometimes comment although I have never seen one of my comments posted. Now I just post hellos to the moderators. The Times is one more leftist source. I do read the sports page, though.

    Mike K (dc6ffe)

  25. I have not missed the times for a single day since I unsubscribe a few years back. Considering that reading that paper was part of my morning routine for almost 30 years, I thought I’d have some kind of withdrawal.

    But no. Not even a single day.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  26. I found it interesting that the LAT go-to authority for Obamacare clarification is Jon Healy:

    He is a member of the editorial board at the Los Angeles Times, which means he is one of a nameless, faceless group writing screeds that, technically speaking, reflect the views of the publisher (whoever that happens to be at the time). His main contributions to the editorial page are pieces about intellectual property, technology, the economy, regulation and general business issues. He also created the Bit Player blog in 2006 as a way to write more about the collision of entertainment and technology.
    Prior to joining the board, he spent five years as a business reporter at the Times covering the entertainment-technology convergence. As a result, he spent the bulk of his time writing about lawsuits. Other career stops include stints at the San Jose Mercury News, Congressional Quarterly and the Winston-Salem Journal.

    Dana (99e271)

  27. Dustin @ 8,

    If you’re truly confident in your views, you will welcome a good faith argument that is wrong, because it is an opportunity to explain the evidence that supports your view and refutes the wrong argument. This is interesting and what an op ed section should be used for.

    This. I would also stipulate that if you *respect* your readers, you would welcome all manner of letters and debate. Because you (LAT) might even glean something.

    Their response only puts a spotlight on their own fears and insecurities within a smart readership.

    Dana (99e271)

  28. Anthropogenic Climate Change is deader than Generalissimo Franco.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  29. do not get printed.

    Shut up, they explained.

    Thresherman (8ec7ac)

  30. 22. Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 10/7/2013 @ 9:58 am

    Proposed L.A. Times motto:

    Tolerance doesn’t mean accepting things we don’t like.

    Make that:

    Tolerance doesn’t mean accepting things we don’t like, it merans you accepting things you don’t like.

    Sammy Finkelman (5a5e76)

  31. Press: “We refuse to print things that are factually untrue.”

    Reublicans: “How DARE you discriminate against us!”

    The jokes write themselves.

    Tlaloc (504b91)

  32. projecting troll projects.

    redc1c4 (abd49e)

  33. Tlaloc – “The jokes write themselves.”

    Self-description at its most ironic.

    SPQR (768505)

  34. Denial, now a river in L.A.

    htom (412a17)

  35. The Times employees all have a bumper sticker saying “we will defend the one true god, and Climate Change is its name”

    EPWJ (f44e22)

  36. The Times employees all have a bumper sticker saying “we will defend the one true god, and Climate Change is its name”

    EPWJ (f44e22)

  37. I’m embarrassed for the LA Times.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  38. 21. Comment by JD (8935bd) — 10/7/2013 @ 9:57 am

    Facts are facts, Sammy. If Samsung dumps employees on the exchanges, they cannot contribute. Congress can. It really is that simple.

    This is all because some of their employees might be eligibkle for a tax credit/subsidy if they buy a silver policy on the echange. They wanted to limit the outlay to the federaal government, and they wanted to make employer arranged health insurance the first choice.

    Sammy Finkelman (5a5e76)

  39. Yes, the L.A. Times has a firm policy: “If anyone is going to make up stuff, it’s us!”

    The entire staff must be filled with aspiring screenwriters.

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  40. It seemed like there were a few days without many annoying (not disagreeing, mind you, but annoying) comments.

    Does that mean it took a few days to get the talking points agreed upon and distributed?

    I need to get back to work now.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  41. MD in Philly (f9371b) — 10/7/2013 @ 1:00 pm

    There was some major confusion in Dem camp over (very unexpected) narrative fails.

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  42. DRJ, why? They’ve been beyond embarrassment for decades.

    SPQR (768505)

  43. Recent happenings in the field of climatology give cause for complaint, as do the approaches of some of its practioners, especially those who, lacking any real qualification, claim to belong to the climatological community, but give it an erroneous image. It is galling to see the media ‘hype’ which ensues every time a meeting of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is announced, every time an extra drop of rain falls here, or fails to fall there, or every time a door slams because the wind is blowing a bit more strongly than is ‘normal’. How irksome it is to hear the simplistic slogans, and sometimes barefaced lies, churned out yet again; to have to put up with the Diktat of an ‘official line’ and the parroted pronouncements of the ‘climatically correct’, numbing all reflection. It becomes over more difficult to stomach the kind of well-intentioned naïvety or foolishness which, through the medium of tearful reportage, tugs at our heart strings with tales of doomed polar bears, or islanders waiting for the water to lap around their ankles …Hardly a week goes by without some new ‘scoop’ of this nature filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers. ‘Global warming’, caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’, is our fault, just like everything else, and the message/slogan/misinformation becomes ever more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be simpler: if the rain falls or drought strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all; whether it’s heat or hard frost; it’s all ‘because of the greenhouse effect’, and we are to blame! An easy argument but stupid! The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatological textbooks, and replace them in our schools and universities with its press communiqués!

    – The late Marcel Leroux, Professor of climatology at the University Jean Moulin Lyon, Director of the laboratory of climatology, risk and environment. Appointed Knight in the Order of academic palms on October 31, 2002. Member of the Société Météorologique de France and the American Meteorological Society.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  44. This is all because some of their employees might be eligibkle for a tax credit/subsidy if they buy a silver policy on the echange. They wanted to limit the outlay to the federaal government, and they wanted to make employer arranged health insurance the first choice.

    Wrong. Some may be eligible for subsidies, many may not. That is not the basis for the objection. You are just throwing stuff against the wall. They are getting employer contribution instead of being subject to subsidies like everyone else on the exchanges Therein lies the difference, that you and the MFM refuse to acknowledge.

    JD (8935bd)

  45. These are people who are still going on about how the Patriot Act let Bush invade their library records.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  46. Someone (I won’t say who) ought to go through their last month’s letter column and post the factual howlers.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  47. Comment by Sarahw (b0e533) — 10/7/2013 @ 1:18 pm

    Judging by the quality of comments upon their resurgence, I think they are still confused.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  48. The remarkable thing about the hockey stick argument for global warming is that is has been carefully dissected and its failings explained very clearly to anyone with a college level math background by McIntyre and McKitrick. To suggest that someone who has gone to the trouble to understand what foolishness Mann, et al, have foisted on the policy-making community is nothing but a denier of settled truths is beyond the Pale. I always enjoyed the Pasadena Star News more than the LA Times back in the day. But the Times had a better comics section until I lost all patience with Doonsbury. And I think the Times had a columnist named Smith who wrote some good stuff. I recall something about a Mr. Gomez who enabled gringos to have a vacation house in the Baja, for example.

    With this proviso on college level math: having a degree in education or any of the soft sciences (political, sociology, psychology, etc.,) does not cut it as a qualification for understanding principle components. For those with such a background, additional preparation will be required. This is not to suggest that such pooly prepared students cannot master the work. It will just be more difficult than anything previously undertaken.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  49. I actually lost a childhood friend who just couldn’t see how slimey the LA Slimes really is.

    Dirty Old Man (4bf1c0)

  50. just checking to see if everyone is alright.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  51. Comment by JD (8935bd) — 10/7/2013 @ 1:59 pm

    They are getting employer contribution instead of being subject to subsidies like everyone else on the exchanges Therein lies the difference, that you and the MFM refuse to acknowledge.

    But the intention never was really to cut their compensation, and eliminating the employer contribution does that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  52. The Wall Street Journal had a lot of letetrs about global warming yesterday.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  53. SF, what was the pro/con breakdown?
    I would think that their readership would be highly critical of the concept (in general) and the latest IPCC report (specifically).

    askeptic (b8ab92)

  54. I bet they publish nearly everything the President says lies.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  55. Actually the latest IPCC report was pretty damaging to the consensus position, once you get past the media gatekeepers and the sliver of lies they latch onto to create a headline.

    Probably heard “Scientists are more certain than ever…blah blah blah.” Like Ivory soap, they’re 95 percent sure.

    What the papers didn’t say – CO2 had itself a downgrade. Use to be CO2 sensitivity was guessed at as being between 2 – 4.5 degrees of warming for a doubling of atmospheric co2.
    This new report drags that number downward to between 1.5 – 4.5 degrees.

    It might not seem like a big deal, but it is. It means that after 20 years of the Al Gore Movies, the endless articles by the cheerleader press, total buy in by democrat operatives, and literally billions of dollars in taxpayer funding being thrown at scientists, the overall state of climate science has regressed.

    Every other science has progressed with the advent of the computer age. Climate science went the other way.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. And the 95% confidence figure is totally meaningless – pulled out of the air. It sounds similar to statistical tests but it is nothing like that.

    It’s really like saying, as a Wall street Journal eeditorial (I think) said, Romney campaign aides give Romney a 95% chance of winning.

    Sammy Finkelman (2b1acb)

  57. You know Sammy, if you squish it all together the IPCC message is
    we are less certain about the CO2 effect, but we are 95% confident about that uncertainty.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  58. You have learned well, Comrade Times!

    TASS (116e7d)

  59. The Orwellian LA Times.
    Has a nice ring to it don`t it.

    nick (36ccce)

  60. Political Science… oops, I mean Popular Science also closed comments recently because people weren’t buying the bilge they were pumping.

    I never read news sources without comment sections because the press has been so completely co-opted that there is no corrective mechanism outside of the public. It is very common that something will be brought to light in the comments that will completely destroy the entire premise of the article, and it is usually something that would have been very easy to check.

    Thatch (0b86d9)

  61. here is our friend Ms. Althousers post about the Popular Science

    happyfeet (8ce051)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1893 secs.