Skeptics need to be hurdlers: LATimes says it would print letters from peer-reviewed skeptics with advanced degrees

The LATimes shames itself:

Before going into some detail about why these letters don’t make it into our pages, I’ll concede that, aside from my easily passing the Advanced Placement biology exam in high school, my science credentials are lacking. 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.

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.

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.

Read more…

7 thoughts on “Skeptics need to be hurdlers: LATimes says it would print letters from peer-reviewed skeptics with advanced degrees”

  1. “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — a body made up of the world’s top climate scientists”

    Nope. It’s a political body. Dumbass already violated his code.

  2. Three decades (air, NPDES, solid waste, hazardous waste, wastewater, remediation, etc) and two post graduate degrees probably don’t meet his criteria. Now, whom would we consider our peers?

  3. Why?
    They let every dufus with a pen and paper or e-mail account bloviate about everything else.
    Well, as long as the dufus agrees with them or makes the other side look bad with poor opposing arguments.

Comments are closed.