Surprise: Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Debate

But don’t say that Progressives hate free speech, because they’ll tell you to shut up

(Moscow-Pullman Daily News) You printed a letter to the editor titled “Not all the facts are in on climate change” (April 26). At the least, that headline should have read, “Reader still doubts evidence on climate change.” Better yet, climate change denial letters could be refused altogether. Then you could help move the conversation quickly to solutions in the face of overwhelming (international, national and local) evidence and scientific consensus climate change is happening now and will get much worse quickly without immediate action.

As a science and environment writer for almost 20 years, I’ve also confronted climate change denial. A related letter I wrote, in response to another climate change denial letter, was recently printed by the Lewiston Tribune. My letter concluded with a reminder that “leading newspapers now refuse to print letters of climate change denial and misinformation or, at the very least, have a clear editorial policy for how to deal with such letters and views.” See the Los Angeles Times decision to refuse letters from deniers ( Even Popular Science now refuses online comments – in part because people’s ill-informed comments dangerously skew conversations about scientific certainty into shadows of nonexistent doubt ( CBSNews further explains these crucial editorial decisions at this shortened link:

The rest is buried behind a paywall, but, I think we get the drift. No dissent is allowed.

(Note: the paper is from Washington State)

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “Surprise: Another Warmist Wants To Shut Down Debate”

  1. Trish Mac says:

    The science is in; Warmists are fascists.

  2. david7134 says:

    The next time you see someone write that there are no contrary opinions in the peer review literature, you simply show them the evidence that the scientific discussion process has been abolished.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Here’s what leading skeptic, Dr. Roy Spencer wrote on his blog, referring to commenters arguing that CO2 can’t be a greenhouse gas, that the Earth isn’t warming etc.

    “I have allowed the Sky Dragon Slayers to post hundreds of comments here containing their views of how the climate system works (or maybe I should say how they think it doesn’t work).

    As far as I can tell, their central non-traditional view seems to be that the atmosphere does not have so-called “greenhouse gases” that emit thermal infrared radiation downward. A variation on this theme is that even if those gases exist, they emit energy at the same rate they absorb, and so have no net effect on temperature.

    I have repeatedly addressed these views and why they are false…

    But my blog is no longer going to provide them a platform for their unsupported pseudo-scientific claims…they can post their cult science on their own blog. They have taken far too much of my time, which would be better spent thinking about the more obvious shortcomings of global warming theory.”

    If the leading climate skeptic scientist no longer allows pseudoscientific “letters to the editor”, why should newspapers?

    Please read Dr. Spencer’s “Top Ten Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water” over at WUWT (

Pirate's Cove