O'Brien mug

The Bulletin, along with its other newspaper partners in EO Media Group across Oregon, will be launching a year-long series of stories about how climate change is affecting Central Oregon and other regions of the state.

It is an update of a special publication that the family-run newspapers produced in 2006, winning the 2007 Grantham Prize Award of Special Merit.

This time around, the papers are partnering with entities such as the University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication, to create a more robust, multimedia presentation of the data and features. The stories will kick off in March, so keep an eye out for them.

Climate change is real and present danger. But there is much debate over how fast it is progressing and whether mankind is contributing to its rise in Earth’s temperatures.

We believe that the science bears out the fact that mankind’s actions are, indeed, a contributing factor.

One area where there has been much debate about this issue is on our editorial pages. The pro and cons of climate change have been written about for many years on the forum page, and readers have weighed in with their opinions.

But it is time to take a stand. As such, The Bulletin’s editorial stance is that climate change is real, and it is being accelerated by mankind. We have decided to limit our guest editorial space regarding this topic to those who are well-versed in the science of climate change. That means those who have opinions on the topic, but do not have the facts to back them up, will not have as much access to the page to voice their opinion here as they have in the past.

We will not publish columns or letters to the editor that reject the accepted science on climate change and its causes.

A writer may question a government’s actions on climate change or a proposed policy such as the Green New Deal. A writer may praise or criticize how businesses or leaders respond — or don’t respond — to climate change. But their submissions must be factual.

That is not to say we won’t publish commentaries that oppose climate change science, if that opposition can clearly be backed up by data.

We understand this is a shift in our editorial policy and the line drawn is a narrow one. However, it is in tune with our goal to inform the public with the facts. Many national papers have taken this stance, from The Los Angeles Times on down and we believe it is time we set that policy as well.

We hope you agree.

Gerry O’Brien is editor of The Bulletin.

(11) comments


IDC Việt Nam là 1 trong số ít các đơn vị thi công nhà lắp ghép chất lượng cao, được ghi nhận bởi nhiều giải thưởng từ nhà nước. Nhà lắp ghép giá rẻ tương đối so với nhà thông thường, với mức giá phổ biến như: nhà lắp ghép 100 triệu. Nhờ áp dụng công nghệ mới, IDC Việt Nam dễ dàng nâng tầng nhà lắp ghép với giá thành phải chăng.


IDC Việt Nam là 1 trong số ít các đơn vị thi công nhà lắp ghép chất lượng cao, được ghi nhận bởi nhiều giải thưởng từ nhà nước. Nhà lắp ghép với cấu tạo đơn giản, dễ xây dựng hơn hẳn nhà truyền thống nên ngày càng được sử dụng nhiều. IDC Việt Nam cam kết xây dựng nhà lắp ghép giá rẻ, nhanh, chắc chắn và đảm bảo tính thẩm mỹ chung. Website: http://nhalapghep.net


Excellent decision on not publishing anti-science claims; I wish more media outlets would follow suit. Just as we don't don't publish Flat Earth, 2+2=5, or vaccine denialism.


I am delighted with this editorial stance. One of the tenets of democracy is that we should agree on a basic set of facts. With the vast scientific consensus on climate change, it is sensible that my home town paper not promulgate nonsense. I accept there will be disagreement on how we all respond to these facts, but the earth is round. Thank you !


The Bulletin Ed Board taking "a stand". I'll believe it when I see the articles asking the hard questions of Walden, and the current administration and their non belief in climate change.


Good luck. As we've seen in the past both sides have mountains of opinions that can "clearly be backed up by data". Discussions of who's credentials or data are more valid do not advance meaningful action.


AGW is a hypothesis. Two decades actual climate data do not support predictions of global warming. And if you are intent on bringing facts to the table please do not rely on the IPCC. Their assumptions have been debunked by actual data.


Really, a hypothesis? Head in sand much?


That's kind of a cute rejoinder but it's really not an argument. I suggest you check out "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" by Idso, Carter & Singer. It may expand your mind a bit.


I'll stand by my cute statement. You might want to check out other sources than Fox and the Trump administration.


The source I suggested is not in the least associated with a news program or the current federal administration. I do not get AGW info from talking heads or political mouthpieces. I prefer highly credentialed astro physicists and climatologists. And no, the scientists are not associated with the fossil fuel industry either.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.