How the left seeks to censor challenges to man-made global warming
Category: Environment/Climate
Via: donald-j-trump-fan-1 • 4 years ago • 58 commentsBy: Robert Knight
This article is so right on. The so called pro science crowd are not really for objective research but are narrow minded bigots using censorship and terms like pseudoscience and conspiracy and questionable to censor and content control silence all who dare to disagree with their rigid orthodoxy and biased world view. The attempts to censor Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute are the tip of this iceberg of censorship.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Now that Punxsutawney Phil has made his annual forecast from Gobbler’s Knob despite PETA’s best efforts to replace him with a robot, it’s a good time to issue another forecast.
I predict the progressive left will work even harder to crush dissent, especially when it comes to climate change.
For years, this quasi-religious movement has throttled university professors and dissident scientists who dare to question the accuracy of computer-model-generated forecasts of doom.
But Congresswoman Kathy Castor has gone further. The Florida Democrat, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, wrote to Google CEO Sundar Pichai on Jan. 27, asking that the giant search engine crack down on YouTube videos that convey “climate denial and climate misinformation.”
She wants him to remove videos questioning climate change; list “climate misinformation” as “borderline content”; “stop monetizing” such videos; and “take steps to correct the record for millions of users who have been exposed to climate misinformation on YouTube.”
In other words, Google, which owns YouTube, is supposed to censor any views that conflict with Ms. Castor’s religion of man-made global warming. She wants an answer by Feb. 7.
This is her second venture into burning dissenters at the stake. Last October, she wrote to Mr. Pichai to demand that Google “stop investing in organizations that deny the existence of climate change, or that are actively working to block progress on climate legislation.”
So, this powerful government official tells a private corporation not to send its privately-obtained money to other private entities with which this government official disagrees. Then she follows it up with a call three months later to try to bankrupt the entities by effectively pulling the plug on their most visible online presence.
Might this qualify as an abuse of government power?
In her Oct. 16 letter, citing an article from the left-wing British paper The Guardian, she singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the few major think tanks that compiles and disseminates information conflicting with that of the global climate establishment. Her reasoning deserves a closer look:
“I understand that Google may be supporting CEI and like-minded organizations for their work on issues other than climate change,” she wrote. “It is impossible, however, to separate your support for one sliver of CEI from the whole. Your financial contributions support the organization’s infrastructure, augment its political influence, and, in turn, legitimize all of its activities — not just the ones you like.”
This is a handy quote next time someone insists that the $500 million annually that Planned Parenthood receives in taxpayer money goes only toward “health care.” Sure it does.
In her Jan. 27 letter to Mr. Pichai, Ms. Castor cites a report by Avaaz, a hard-left environmentalist group, which criticized Fox News, PragerU and others, along with corporations whose ads have run alongside the posts.
Avaaz shares Ms. Castor’s penchant for censoring opposing views. In Canada, for instance, Avaaz waged a campaign against a proposed television station called Sun TV, which Avaaz claimed would become “Fox News North.” That would be a welcome corrective for our northern neighbors, who are drowning in a deep sea of political correctness.
“Avaaz accused the Canadian Harper government of conspiring with media mogul Rupert Murdoch to create a Conservative Party propaganda outlet that would bring ‘American-style hate media’ to Canada,” according to discoverthenetworks.org, which tracks leftist groups and their financing.
It’s not surprising that Avaaz has a totalitarian streak, given that it’s funded by a bevy of Marxists, including philanthropist George Soros, the SEIU and MoveOn.org, according to ABC News.
The thing is, if Google takes Ms. Castor seriously, they’ll also have to remove Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and other alarmist videos on YouTube that have proved to be inaccurate at best, scare-mongering at worst.
In 2007, a British court found 11 falsehoods and inaccuracies in Mr. Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, which has not fared any better more recently. In 2011, British journalist Christopher Monckton, an adviser to the Heartland Institute, listed 35 inaccuracies.
Mr. Gore’s film featured an animated polar bear slipping off melting ice and a picture of an emaciated bear with the caption, “This is what climate change looks like.” However, thwarting dire predictions, polar bears are thriving. Susan Crockford, a renowned expert on the animals, estimates that the polar bear population has now quadrupled or even quintupled since Mr. Gore’s film was made.
The current population — 22,000 to 31,000 — is the highest it’s been in 50 years, so it was not surprising that the bears have been banished from climate change propaganda, including Mr. Gore’s follow-up film in 2017, “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power.”
That title is exactly opposite the truth. The powers that be have bought into many leftist schemes to remake reality, from climate change hysteria to transgender insanity to Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Those actually speaking truth to power have to buck a cabal of media, academia, entertainment and corporate elites who march in lockstep.
The left’s agenda is so bizarre that they have to keep “canceling” anyone who poses a threat to their funhouse version of reality.
Which is why polar bears have been relegated to starring in Coke commercials.
Tags
Who is online
543 visitors
So, this powerful government official tells a private corporation not to send its privately-obtained money to other private entities with which this government official disagrees. Then she follows it up with a call three months later to try to bankrupt the entities by effectively pulling the plug on their most visible online presence.
Might this qualify as an abuse of government power?
In her Oct. 16 letter, citing an article from the left-wing British paper The Guardian, she singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute, one of the few major think tanks that compiles and disseminates information conflicting with that of the global climate establishment. Her reasoning deserves a closer look:
“I understand that Google may be supporting CEI and like-minded organizations for their work on issues other than climate change,” she wrote. “It is impossible, however, to separate your support for one sliver of CEI from the whole. Your financial contributions support the organization’s infrastructure, augment its political influence, and, in turn, legitimize all of its activities — not just the ones you like.”
This is a handy quote next time someone insists that the $500 million annually that Planned Parenthood receives in taxpayer money goes only toward “health care.” Sure it does.
In her Jan. 27 letter to Mr. Pichai, Ms. Castor cites a report by Avaaz, a hard-left environmentalist group, which criticized Fox News, PragerU and others, along with corporations whose ads have run alongside the posts. ....
In 2007, a British court found 11 falsehoods and inaccuracies in Mr. Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary, which has not fared any better more recently. In 2011, British journalist Christopher Monckton, an adviser to the Heartland Institute, listed 35 inaccuracies.
CEI = carbon energy industry
Competitive Enterprise Institute—-a great all American think tank. One I proudly endorse in every way.
CEI made millions from the tobacco industry by promoting propaganda denying the dangers of smoking.
CEI now makes millions from the fossil fuel industry promoting propaganda denying the scientific reality of anthropogenic global warming.
CEI is a for-profit propaganda mill with no moral code that doesn't care who it sickens and kills with their disinformation and lies.
Quite the sweeping 🧹 generalization there.
No, that term doesn't exist anymore.
Democrats have been abusing government power since the day Trump was elected President.
I don't recall them extorting a foreign country for personal political gain, either.
That never happened here since Jan 20, 2017.
Even trumps defense team admitted he did it, they just argued that it wasn't impeachable.
I agree, I mean trump and rudy have totally convinced me to not vote for Hunter Biden in 2020! Oh, BTW?
I am sure rudy will be tripping over his own dick to get the investigation into Eric Trump going....right away.. /yawn
A very short video debunking most of the rights talking points.
Our disappearing polar ice... The pictures don't lie.
CFCs responsible for half of Arctic sea-ice loss
Ozone-Depleting Chemicals Led 20th Century Arctic Warming: Study
Overlooked greenhouse gases may have driven extreme Arctic warming
"In fact, ozone-depleting gases can warm the atmosphere thousands of times more efficiently than carbon dioxide."
"And let’s not forget that the hydrofluorocarbons introduced to replace CFCs are still more potent than carbon dioxide."
I'll post this again....just for you....watch, and LEARN.
It explains EXACTLY what you are talking about.
Fluorocarbon refrigerants are man-made synthetic chemicals; they do not occur naturally. The NASA link is not only irrelevant to CFCs and HFCs, it's a deliberate attempt to deny human impacts on climate.
The Greenhouse Gas No One’s Talking About: Nitrous Oxide on Farms, Explained
Note the N 2 O emissions are the result of microbial action; it doesn't matter if the fertilizer is man-made synthetic chemicals or organic material from natural sources.
Global warming potentials
Notice that the most potent greenhouse gases are man-made synthetic chemicals. NASA's little factoid dump may be politically appealing but isn't very informative. What are we getting from NASA other than infotainment?
Co2 in the atmosphere, lots of it = global warming.
What happened with OCO-2? Why do we need computer simulations when OCO2 was intended to provide real time measured data? Where's the reporting on that data?
What happened with the ATTREX program? NASA deployed a global hawk for long duration observation of the tropopause and stratosphere. Where's the reporting on that data?
What happened with Aqua, CALIPSO, CATS, CLARREO, PACE, RainCube, SMAP, SORCE, and a host of other NASA earth science missions related to climate change? What are we getting for the money that is being spent?
Nothing but propaganda from progressives using so called science to impose socialism upon us by other means while censoring dissent
You didn't watch the video, obviously. If you had you would know it wasn't propaganda.
Climate Science Was Corrupted, Says Award Winning Climate Scientist
Editor’s Note: Timothy Ball, Ph.D., is a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba, Canada, with a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England. Much of his research has focused on the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history. Ball is also known for his academic and legal efforts to counteract what he calls the corruption of climate science. Ball was honored with the Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science award from The Heartland Institute at the 13th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-13).
Burnett: You’ve written books on climate science, including Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. What is the thesis of the book?
Ball: The original claim made was that global warming was inevitable due to increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide from human activities, especially from industry. This hypothesis was based on the assumptions that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that such an increase would result in a temperature increase.
The hypothesis ignored key facts. There are three main greenhouse gases: water vapor is 95 percent, carbon dioxide 4 percent, and methane 0.4 percent. The official position is humans produce water vapor but the amount is so small relative to the atmospheric total it is reasonable to ignore it. In every historic record, temperatures have increased prior to increases in carbon dioxide. Human production of carbon dioxide is within the error factor of estimates of carbon dioxide emissions from two natural sources: the oceans and rotting vegetation.
These facts, among others explored in my book, undermine the claim human carbon dioxide emissions are driving present climate change.
Burnett: You’ve written a book titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, in addition to giving presentations on this topic at various ICCC events. What facts lead you to believe climate science has been corrupted?
Ball: Starting in 1998, the global temperature stopped increasing and began to decline slightly, despite the fact carbon dioxide levels continued increasing.
By 2004, the trends continued to contradict the assumptions. For example, the level of severe weather failed to increase.
In other words, the empirical evidence completely contradicted the hypothesis.
Instead of considering the null hypothesis, namely that carbon dioxide from humans was not causing warming, the claim was changed from human-caused “warming” to human-caused “climate change.” In fact, the null hypothesis was never even considered.
Most people think the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) examined all climate change. In fact, they were restricted by the definition given to them by the world Meteorological Organization (WMO) to only examining human causes. Water in all its forms is a critical part of the Earth and atmosphere systems, yet it is ignored.
There is insufficient data at the surface [of the Earth] to build an accurate computer model of global climate. The situation is even worse above the surface. All computer model predictions of the UN IPCC since 1990 have been wrong.
H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D. (hsburnett@heartland.org) is a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.
Heartland Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute are the best sources for info on the global warming hoax and climate change frauds.
Not even a little. Those are biased institutions with ZERO credibility.
Which is why they're perfect for the willfully ignorant. Avoiding facts is critical for these people. Remember, intelligence and facts are their enemies.
Surge Summary: The totalitarian Left continues to demand views that challenge “global warming” orthodoxy be shut down, cut off, silenced. No alternate views are to be allowed on the issue – which suggests dark prospects for the future.
Speech should be countered with speech, not censorship. Censorship just makes it look like you don't have any real conviction in your own position and can't support it. If Trump contacted a social media platform and told them who they should monetize or allow to use their platform, he would be accused of attacking the 1st Amendment, and rightly so.
There are groups we are familiar with who listen to and act on impulses like those of the stupid idiot Congress woman on a regular basis.
Anthropogenic global warming/climate change isn't 'speech' or opinion, it's science. If you want to 'counter' it find a climatologist with standing that hasn't sold his integrity to the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute.
So? Scientists disagree every day. Go to a conference if you ever get the opportunity. You'll see all sorts of people with PhDs being just as shitty and disrespectful to each other as any argument on NT.
As I said, if you are afraid of someone else's speech, - so much so that you want it censored - that says more about you and your convictions than it does about them.
The vast majority of scientists concur that AGW is reality and is happening even faster than the most pessimistic projections of just a few years ago.
Thanks to the many years of science denial from the Kochs, Exxon, ALEC, etc... we are 30 years behind where we should be in solving this ongoing climate catastrophe.
The bottom line with the rush to censor stuff we disagree with and hide behind community standards excuses to censor.
Guess what happens when either a government or a corporation identifies an agenda goal that could be achieved by persuading people it's scientifically important? They will promote false science and threaten, punish, or simply deny funding to anyone who would voice an opposing position no matter how scientifically valid.
Imagine those corporations you mentioned - Koch, Exxon, etc. - getting together and executing a hostile takeover of publishing companies or social media platforms (or creating their own) and then censoring anyone who says burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment. Imagine if they then lobbied the government to do the same thing in the public square.
You want to promote censorship today because you think it benefits a cause you support. But if you encourage it, then tomorrow, someone will find a way to use it against you. Trust me, it is in your best interest and everyone else's to be a champion of free speech.
It is by to them being a control freak in the here and now where they have power now is all they think about.
They have done all of that for far too many years now.
a cause you support.
Anthropogenic global warming is not a 'cause' it is scientific reality. AGW is likely the most studied scientific phenomenon ever. I went back to school as an adult just to study the specifics of it and earned a degree in environmental science.
Even if AGW deniers don't understand anything at all about science (which they obviously don't), the global empirical evidence is impossible for a sane person to ignore or refute.
Sure it's a cause! It becomes a cause when we start talking about public policy. When you start crafting laws that control behavior, it's a cause. If it were just science, the results would be published and that would be the end of it. No one would care.
By way of example for contrast, the latest findings on how gravity behaves around a black hole aren't likely to influence the lives of regular people. No one is going to propose legislation based on that science. And if someone disagrees with those findings, you won't care. You might think they are wrong, or even insane (to use your language) but you won't care because there is no "cause" attached to it.
You will bow down before and worship the Heartland Institute. 🤗
So, when science determined that cigarettes cause cancer, they should have just published the results and no one would care? No effort to reduce smoking should have occurred?
/smh
And here I was thinking that you didn't have a sense of humor.
I'll leave the bowing to and blowing of scumbag billionaires to you.
That certainly could have happened. What people decide to do as a response is a different matter. It's the decision to take action that turns mere science into a cause.
Aren't you glad to know that the debate over the effects of smoking was transparent and exposed to critical analysis? Aren't you glad that speech was free so that scientists finding that smoking caused cancer could actually publish their results? They wouldn't have been able to do that if tobacco companies controlled all scientific publishing.
Nope, I didn't say that. I didn't say anything like that. Go back and try again.
In your dreams. [deleted]
Apparently you haven't read much about climate change, if you don't think it's transparent and exposed to critical analysis.
You seem to be going out of your way to create straw men. Please stick to things I have actually said.
I never claimed climate change analysis hasn't been exposed to critical analysis. What is on the table in this seed is the suggestion that such critical analysis be censored going forward.
It's all about the evidence. There is lots of objective, empirical evidence to support climate change and none to discredit it. Mere opinion or belief about climate change is meaningless without the evidence to back it up. And right now, all the evidence points to climate change and warming, also heavily influenced by human activity.
The reply the AGW deniers like to use is "So? Scientists disagree every day" which is true. The problem comes in that some use that sliver of doubt to justify things they know are wrong but they refuse to admit it since it would require a huge amount of effort on their part and likely losing their current status quo of working with and for the non-renewable industry.
Take the debate on lead for example. Most know that drinking lead contaminated water can cause all sort of negative health effects for humans. However, logistically, we haven't been able to get rid of all the lead lined pipes around the country.
"Although Congress banned lead water pipes 30 years ago, between 3.3 million and 10 million older ones remain, primed to leach lead into tap water by forces as simple as jostling during repairs or a change in water chemistry."
That's why there are "experts" hired by industry and government that claim certain levels of lead exposure aren't that harmful, thus putting costly replacement, especially for low income areas, on the backburner.
"Both researchers and industry officials say problems extend well beyond lead. Many potentially harmful contaminants have yet to be evaluated, much less regulated. Efforts to address shortcomings often encounter pushback from industries like agriculture and mining that fear cost increases, and from politicians ideologically opposed to regulation."
"Rules and science are outdated. The E.P.A.’s trigger level for addressing lead in drinking water — 15 parts per billion — is not based on any health threat; rather, it reflects a calculation that water in at least nine in 10 homes susceptible to lead contamination will fall below that standard."
So even something that we can all agree on as being harmful, and none of us would knowingly pour lead contaminated water in our pregnant wives or children's glasses, is something not all scientists agree on and some are paid to minimize the potential harm for the financial benefit of a few. Millions of Americans drink tainted water every day because it's simply too costly to fix and the fallout from it is often random and rarely connected unless a large community suffers the effects like in Flint and it gets some media attention.
So while there is objective, empirical evidence to support AGW, those who profit from minimizing its impact or effects will continue to sow doubt and profit off the continued refusal to change by the dumb shits and dimwits who listen to them who, themselves, are a resource the fossil fuel industry is exploiting.
We will disregard and ignore the censors and find work around to get our point of view out there to be heard and to spite the would be censors.
That about sums it up.
Keep burying your head in the sand then. When your point of view lacks merit or facts, why would anyone listen, much less take you seriously?
Da Comrade!
[Deleted]