OUR VIEW LOGO (NEW)

As we have written from time to time, the first year of a new local news organization is a fluid process — and since the launch of the Rogue Valley Times, no section of this ‘new’spaper has evolved more consistently than this Opinion page.

From the beginning, we have wanted to have an open-door policy when it comes to engaging with the public and hoping to stimulate discussion. It would be foolish of us, for instance, to believe that in an area as politically diverse as Jackson County, that we would not receive Letters to the Editor and Guest Columns representing opposing opinions on local, state and regional issues.

We have stated previously that our Opinion page is not open for business on national politics, but that submissions on national issues that have a local or regional connection would be considered for publication.

Which brings us to one issue in particular where lines of demarcation have long been clearly drawn.

Climate change denial.

The Rogue Valley Times is of the unequivocal editorial stance that climate change — global warming — exists, and that human activity is playing a role in its expansion. The overwhelming preponderance of scientific evidence supports this assertion.

Recently, we have run Letters to the Editor that cast doubt on these truths which, in turn, brought submissions from others wondering why we would publish them.

We’ve heard you.

In keeping the door open to community viewpoints, we’ve kept it open too wide.

When addressing the same issue on its Opinion pages five years ago, the Bulletin (our sister paper in Bend) used an oft-repeated quote that, in these times of entrenched debates, also fits our current situation:

“Letter writers are entitled to their own opinions … but not their own facts.”

Letters and other submitted opinions that simply dismiss the idea of climate change, or those that state that we are not responsible for its escalation, only muddle the issues surrounding the reality as they dispense misinformation.

Any submission making “scientific claims” to the contrary must be rooted in fact, from documented sources that can be deemed as legitimate.

If we determine that the opinions expressed are not based on legitimate science, those opinions will not be published.

To continue to allow unsubstantiated claims, or parroted political talking points, is not in the best interests of our paper, our readers or the public at-large.

This does not mean there are not avenues to have healthy debate over the impacts — environmental or economic — of global warming.

For example, the city of Ashland is considering whether to institute limits on the use of natural gas in new residential and business construction, as a way to lessen environmental impact. There are issues related to this matter that can be debated, even within the framework of accepting climate change as established fact.

Just as our newspaper is evolving, so too is what we learn about climate change. Predictions and time frames suggested years ago must be amended as data surfaces over time and visible evidence appears before our eyes.

An open exchange of viewpoints is essential to democracy, and to the validity of a newspaper’s Opinion page — but only if those viewpoints stem from accepted reality.