Can the Mainstream Media create a false "consensus"? Why, just watch!

Wanna see how a false consensus is created?  Try this:  The LA Times has announced that it will no longer print letters to the editor if they claim either that global warming isn't happening, or that humans aren't causing it.

You may be curious as to how this decision was made.  The guy who's admitted to making it is the letters editor, and here's how he says he made it:

I'm no expert when it comes to...climate...[So] when deciding which letters should run among hundreds on...climate change I must rely on the experts--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 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.

I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page... Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.

Now if you see this as just a nice guy explaining why he likes watching hockey better than football it seems like just another opinion--and as we all know, everyone's entitled to one.  But this guy is a gatekeeper, and he's unilaterally decided that one theory--human-caused global warming--is "settled science," and he won't allow any dissenting claim to be published in "his" newspaper.

But wait...if the science is so fucking *settled*, why is he unwilling to allow debate and dissenting data and/or opinions?  You'd think "settled science" could speak for itself, and wouldn't need a censor.

Well, you say, "that's just a newspaper in one state.  It doesn't mean the entire debate has been rigged."

Ah.  Well speaking of whether global warming needs a censor:  Would you believe GW pushers have openly bragged about being able to use their allies on the editorial staff of climate journals to turn down scientific papers questioning global warming?  Would it surprise you to learn that emails saying exactly that--from one of the main pushers of AGW, Phil Jones--were found on the servers of the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia?  Yeah, it probably would--not because you're dumb but because you don't have access to that sort of information.  How would you know about it?

So the letters editor of the LA Times--relying on alleged "settled science," based on bullshit, fabricated data--decides his page of the paper won't publish anything claiming his "settled science" conclusion is bullshit.

Fabulous.  Circular. 

"We are the gatekeepers.  We will tell you what to believe.  If you say something contrary to our instructions we will pretend you don't exist."