They've lost the argument: Petition to ban 'climate deniers' from Facebook

Will hatred and intolerance of alternate viewpoints in science trump free speech? Some would have it that way.


Via Climate NEXUS, a well funded daily newsletter run by a Madison Avenue PR firm.

Will Facebook Ban Deniers? 

Breitbart brought our attention to a petition that calls on Facebook to ban climate change denial pages. With only 3,326 signatories out of a goal of 500,000, it doesn’t seem like the petition is going to accomplish its goal—and probably for good reason.

As bad as climate denial is, shutting them out of Facebook would justify their persecution complex, and might engender more sympathy for their position. Really, who treats Facebook as a place to discuss science? For the most part, we think denier groups are small enough that they pretty much serve as something to point and laugh at, because they’re not likely to be gain many converts when compared to the audience of Murdoch’s media empire.

That said, the petition actually has a point. Facebook doesn’t have too many rules, but the very last one reads that, “Pages must not contain false, misleading, fraudulent or deceptive claims or content.”

The question then, is whether or not claims that say global warming has stopped and an ice age is imminent, that climate scientists are fudging the data, or that Climategate showed wrongdoing would all fall under false, misleading and deceptive claims. We don’t know what else you would call them, so perhaps a ban would be warranted after all.

Though surprising, Facebook wouldn’t be the first social media site to crack down on climate deniers. In 2013, the science page of the social media giant reddit announced that any claims contradicting the consensus on climate change, evolution and vaccines must be supported by a peer-reviewed citation. Given that climate denial is almost never peer-reviewed, this resulted in a de facto ban on posts from climate change deniers.

Will Facebook follow suit? Probably not. But under their rules, it sounds like they could.

Sidenote: in the same Climate NEXUS issue, this is what they claim are “respectful” suggestions for the next Heartland conference


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Well some science does get discussed on Facebook: Proton-Boron Fusion.

As I have said for years, FB is a cesspool of scum.


Don’t be daft. FB is the platform they’re suggesting should implement a ban on views they dislike, NOT a ‘cesspool of scum’. Idiot.

Mary Brown

FB is what it is. And it could be whatever it’s users make of it. It could be a great place to discuss science. All that’s missing is the people discussing science. FB is just a platform… like WordPress.


I discuss science on FB all the time, and use it to disseminate climate realism information.

Louis Hunt

Does that mean, John, that you would prefer to have a social-media forum that limits speech to only the things you agree with to make sure the “scum” are kept out? If so, you have something in common with these petitioners.


As a libertarian who defends private enterprise, I play by the rules of the owner of the property. FB isn’t a public institution, so it can make any rules it wants.
We should perhaps be concentrating on defending free speech when it involves tax dollars, such as publicly-funded schools and government data sets.


Well, I was recently locked out of a Forum for having the temerity to suggest that Bruce Jenner’s sex change isn’t exactly the next great leap of mankind’s evolution. Apparently, only those who believe “gender is fluid” are welcome there–and it was a SPORTS chat board! Depending on ownership, today it’s service the meme or be expelled and silenced. No biggie–Nature will have her say in the end. Matter of fact, already did for the last 18 years.

Mary Brown

Nice point Caligula. Although maybe they should have banned your movie !


Ban his movie? Hah!
There is now a very popular show (Game Of Thrones) that makes his movie look like a bedtime story for prudish schoolmarms!

Goldrider – I agree with you. In fact I would say that such actions can only help those of us that want the truth – whichever way and whatever way the Climate “goes”.
18 years is a clear indicator that the models are running hot – everybody knows that – those with a financial interest in the more “alarmist” predictions seem to be ever more desperate in trying to stop any form of sensible discussion on what, why and how this is happening.

Daryl M

Like FB or not, referring to it as a “cesspool of scum” is more than a little over the top and diminishes websites that truly are cesspools of scum.


So its not enough to shoot the messenger, you also want to ban the medium? The world is indeed an “interesting” place

I’m going to unfriend you for that.


I use facebook all the time to help educate my friends and family. I only have a couple hundred contacts there, but they are mostly full grown adults with respectable jobs. I have attorneys, surgeons, cops and even the Justice of the Peace and the County Sheriff in my friend’s list. Used to have the county judge but he got beat last election ;-( These are hardly scum. These are many of the contributing members of my direct community. Trust me. They know I am a skeptic of manmade climate change, and many of them now know the difference. If you think you can’t influence people scientifically through facebook, think again. I’m not some silly child playing video games and taking selfies. I often have days long debates that include numerous parties, all on facebook. It’s a great medium for local and state dissemination. It’s called grassroots. Grassroots = win over your direct circles of influence. Let the fire spread.

Paul Westhaver

This is an example of why WUWT is important and what attracts me to read and comment here rather than on Facebook. I NEVER use or view Facebook. Freedom of speech is to important to leave in the hands of Zuckerberg and Sandberg.
Incidentally, the upcoming generation has ceased to use Facebook apparently.. Opting for Instagram etc. Facebook will follow the generational path of MYSpace.

greta shefers

I can’t believe this entire exercise in PC idiocy. Since when are skeptical opinions banned from any venue?

tom s

Since the leftists have been in charge of universities, news media and the whitehouse. They have no time for dissent. They are the ninny-nanny’s on your block and will do whatever it takes to force you to submit to THEIR beliefs.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

greta, as Tom says, Universities have banned speakers on a number of bases (they have, here in Britain). Young people like to ‘give it all that’ about democracy, but are often fascists underneath. Derby University is one such fascist place:
And Reddit did indeed ban climate sceptics.


You’ve not heard the half of it! Now, any subject that might “upset” any student for any reason is either banned as course material in half the universities in this country, or must contain “trigger warnings” as though the class were comprised of five-year-olds. Such is “intellectual” discourse in 2015 in America. A course in Mandarin might be in order if you value your future . . .

Evan Jones

A course in Mandarin might be in order if you value your future . . .
Language or Attitude?

Mary Brown

” Since when are skeptical opinions banned from any venue?”
Since the beginning of time.


Goldrider, that’s only half right. Only certain students have a right to eliminate any thought or speech that upsets them. If you are conservative and something a liberal says upsets you, you just have to man up and deal with it.
It’s only liberals who are so delicate that they must be protected from anything their professors disagree with.

NZ Groover

Facebook bought Instagram.


For a reason


“Really, who treats Facebook as a place to discuss science?”
While it is not a wonderful forum for debating/exercising science, it (and, other social media platforms) are where a lot public opinion is formed.
Ergo, my FB page has frequently shares from WWWT. 😉


I find FB is a great place, via links to WUWT et al, to educate a lot of the non-scientific masses. They are the ones that need to be convinced and in most cases are not as set in their ways. We’ll never convince the “true believers’ but the vast majority of people are simply following the “97%” lie in ignorance and can be taught with simple, non-threatening and logical discussions.

Dave Yaussy

Pretty small number of signatures. It would be interesting to see how many signatures or likes you would get for a skeptical position on Facebook – not a ban on AGW sites, of course, but something that called for open and free discourse on climate change.


Have evolutionists and pro-vaccinators lost the argument as well? .
Perhaps you should have a big party with the anti-vaxxers and creationists to celebrate winning the argument?


There was an argument. And it was won by the evolutionists. It’s famous history (Scopes trial and the debates in Oxford), Google it or read a book. Now you can try and promote intelligent design, if you like, but you can no longer get away with 7-day Creationism as a scientifically rational point of view.
The point here is about climate science.
That debate hasn’t happened and is being dodged by those who aren’t confident they could hold their own positions as scientifically rational points of view.
You know who wants to avoid the debate. The ones who are proclaiming “Change your Ways. The End of the World is Nigh”.
And that’s not the Sceptics.


If you think that the Scopes trial showed logical argumentation or Constitutional adherence, you are surely unacquainted with the trial itself. In any case, toadying up to power is not a positive character trait.
Actually, yes, you can “get away” with 7-day creation as a logical point of view. The only way in which you cannot is because of the peer pressure, funding, media control, and so on that is used to punish points of view unpopular with the ruling set. You know, the same techniques which are being used to shut out climate “deniers”.
The irony in your position is palpable.

Louis Hunt

So, let me get this straight. It’s OK to be skeptical of the settled science of climate change but not the settled science of evolution? I guess everyone has there own favorite consensus to protect. But when has a debate ever settled anything in science? If we’ve learned anything from history, it is that science is always changing, always improving, and is never settled. So why not keep an open mind?


Louis Hunt; The only thing settled about the science of climate change is that the climate changes. Beyond that statement, there is no consensus. The hydrocarbon conservationists tend to confuse the debate by treating catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming and climate change as if they were the same thing.


If you actually do want to support 7 day creationism, I will listen to your argument. I may laugh at you when you are done, but I will listen.
However, I believe that you are attempting to create hypocrisy though willfull misinterpretation. if you can’t manage something better than a transparent strawman, please be silent.

Every sort of evidence used in the Scopes trail would mean evolution is wrong since every one agrees that the evidence is junk. No one would ever use Piltdown man as evidence or us “A Civic Biology” as a science text. But I’m sure you will agree the science is settled on that issue. 😉

Evan Jones

OK to be skeptical of the settled science of climate change but not the settled science of evolution?
Of course it is okay to be skeptical about evolution. Just don’t forget to be skeptical of the skeptics. I can defend evolution pretty well. But I can’t tell you if Homo Habilis was a dead end or not, or how the HSS thread actually links down the chain. (Maybe they have doped that out by now, but not back when I studied it.)

Ben of Houston

Evan, it’s still murky. However, there’s at least evidence that something was there. It’s like the ancient Central American cities that are now just stretches of stone in the jungle. We have just clutches of information to piece together, and that makes it fascinating. Trying to discount the entirety of what he have just because we don’t have the whole picture is like saying the Aeneid was worthless because Vergil died halfway through rewriting it (Ascanius was sitting on Dido’s knee in book 1 and a few weeks later has his first kill in battle in book 12).
To compare, what evidence is there that the world isn’t ancient and formed from the endless circle of life? It seems that all of the anti-evolution arguments say “We don’t know how it can be done”. Argument to ignorance isn’t an argument at all.
I have no qualm with Creationists. The ones who say “Let there be Light” was a Big Bang, or any of those. The problem I have are those who insist on a strictly literal interpretation of an obviously symbolic work. By demanding precise literal interpretation, they introduce contradictions and made their god a trickster god. Note the lower case, because the God of Abraham does not deceive or tempt. It’s kind of a tenet of the church. In their attempt to build their religion up, they undermine it. I don’t know who they worship, but it’s definitely not the Jehovah I knew growing up.

Climate science and evolution science are much the same in one respect – the “science” side has a part of the answer but clear gaps prevent them from reaching a full understanding or predictive ability. That will never stop humans from attempting to dominate each other through tribal behavior using any tools that come to hand. Both groups use propaganda to shape opinion to their own ends. Just as the warmists can’t explain why it has been warmer in the past the evolutionists can’t explain how the first living cell came into existence. Those who can’t explain the past have no way to predict the future, so they lie or obfuscate and use shaming to carry the day.

The evolutionists have lost the argument with 40% of the American public–that many are YOUNG-Earth Creationists. Recently, a world-renowned atheist converted to belief in God because he could not explain the origin of Life.
Well, that was a physicist. The origin of Life from lifeless chemicals can be explained from the principles of chemistry. I have to admit, however, that I know more about that than Nobel Prize winning biologists. One of these days, I will get around to writing it up.


I would truly love to read that book because I find that most explanations of the jump from lifeless chemicals to animated life require as much faith as what you’re arguing against.


My personal experience in the bible belt (see my tag) directly contradicts your claim. 40-60% of Texans that I know are “OLD Earth” creationists, believing fully in evolution and a creator, with 1-5% Young Earth, and the remainder doubtful or atheist.
Perhaps you are looking at extremely biased polls? Or perhaps you have simply lost all faith in humanity.


Shoulda, woulda, coulda.
Maybe the origin of life from lifeless chemicals can be explained, but for some reason it has not been. Evolution has been well explained and the explanations well proven.
Abiogenesis does have a few ideas kicking around but nothing more. Proof for life from lifeless chemicals is easily proven. Take some lifeless chemicals and create life in the lab and win the Nobel Prize and change the course of humanity forever.

I always wondered whether if you were watching the primordial soup at the instant that the first life appeared, would you be able to tell if it were accidental, or if it were the Hand of God?


Actually, the science of evolution is rather poor. We have NOT ONE reproducible experiment that shows new features can occur from DNA mutations – not one. In fact evolution is being promoted as a science when in fact is only based on history observations.
In this light, it is unfair to claim or state that evolution has been proved – there are no experiments that show as such. It should not really be called a science, but only that of history observations.
The often quoted gray moths in England that flourished due to pollution and that white moths were easily seen and eaten by birds does not show evolution – the DNA for white months ALREADY existed. The DNA for white months did not “out of the blue” occur nor appear – but was ALREADY present. And no such experiment shows this “out of the blue” occurring for DNA, no more then computer software “changing” on its own to produce new useful features in the software.
So no, the experimental data and reproducible experiments don’t exist for evolution.
Albert D. Kallal
Edmonton, Alberta Canada


… what are the silly people doing on here? As far as evolution goes, there is a mountain of extraordinary evidence that makes up for not doing ‘experiments’. Predictions can be made.
Also, there are many examples of species that appear out of nowhere in well documented regimes. The largest I know of is the version of the ‘coywolf’ that has migrated out of Algonquin Park across the Eastern US and Canada. Genetically programmed to use railways for territorial expansion and puts dens in freeway interchanges and dense urban niches. A good example of the hybridization route. I’m sure there are many examples if you carefully look at species with short life spans and a known malleable genome.
The genetic clock model has proven useful in predicting deviations and ultimately species in the fossil record as well.
There is absolutely no evidence for what is described here in places and I’ve had many discussions with ‘creationists’ which I am frankly bored with. Unlike most discussions here, this discussion is without merit but like astrology, who am I to say people can’t imagine their way to the truth? For myself, it is more interesting to finesse the detail in homo sapiens’ evolution and why it is prone to these social constructs of group think …

Mary Brown

Invite the flat-earthers, too. They are just like us ! It’s a prty.

Joe Bastardi

Here is my question. Is NCEP temp data used for model initialization, which presumably has to be spot on accurate for accurate model runs, and example of false or misleading. Or how about charts that show co2 against history. Or Sea ice for what its really doing. Or a forecast, since if wrong, its false and misleading. You are watching history repeat itself again.. as a new softer( for now) despotism is on the rise and seeking to brainwash people. If you ever wondered how for despots got into power and convinced whole segments of the population to follow, wonder no more

Paul Westhaver

Precisely. And the despotism always seems to come from the soft left under the guise of a virtue, while in private intellectual and physical violence is cultivated and fantasized.
Remember the “No Pressure” 10-10 campaign?
It is pressure, and tyranny, and fascism and despotism as you say.
I would not be surprised if the word “sunspot” gets banned in the left realm.


As always good points.
Keep up the good work and get on TV as muchas possible. We need you to get the honest message across.

Mary Brown

Hey Joe,
I’ve posted several comments on using Ryan Maue’s model initializations as a different kind of temperature database. I think it is fascinating. A couple of times a day, the wx models are initialized as carefully as possible by objective means by persons disinterested in the climate debate. The result is an unintended but very accurate measure of global temperature. His history goes back to 1979.
What does Ryan think about this ?

Harry Passfield

The “Respectful Suggestions” piece linked at the end was a smug little piece of non-humour by Peter Dykstra (sp?). He is neither a comedian nor a journalist; he most certainly cannot claim to be a writer of record. When taking a dig at Steyn, for instance, he claims that Steyn is being sued for having compared Mann to ‘convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky’.
What a nasty piee of work is Mr Dykstra.

Bubba Cow

and Dr. Soon is a very wealthy big oil beneficiary
well beyond nasty

Harry Passfield

If /s was missing on from your comment on purpose, BC, I’m sure you can make your comment stand up. Or, (and I apologise if you were being – erm – jocular) is a Bubba Cow like a Bubba Bull, but without the balls?

Bubba Cow

sorry, Harry, should have had the /sarc
Dykstra accused Willie Soon of –
“Willie Soon, apparently unabashed from revelations of his seven-figure windfall for climate research funded by ExxonMobil and Southern Company, talked climate science …”
which Dr. Soon has denied, did not get, in fact, and which I have signed onto Monckton’s petition in his support – in my alter ego real identity

Harry Passfield

Thanks, BC. I figured from your earlier work that I had mis-construed your comment. Dystra (sp?) dos like to leave out the salient points in his attacks, but that’s to be expected from an illiterate like him.


Francis Bacon had some things to say about Idols of the Theater.


Yup! I for one can say I was banned from Facebook because of complaints about my views on a-CO2 driven climate change. No facts or science needed.

Eric H

Seeing how WUWT has over 9000 Facebook likes, it looks to me like the skeptical side is winning this argument as well….

The only place alarmists even have a chance at winning the discussion is where the ref is bent – and even in such places sceptics are still winning!

I started using Facebook because it was a FREE place to post articles on the industrial wind scam, since many of our local newspapers here in New York State are so biased in favor ‘renewables,’ that they will not publish any opposing views against Governor Cuomo’s / President Obama’s ‘green’ agenda – no matter how well-referenced they are. Facebook is useful in that regard, although Facebook did remove one post and its following discussion from my page (so much for free speech). Otherwise, it is still “allowing” people to post articles on energy and climate change issues there.


Sad, very sad. Could we be going the way of Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, or many other countries where what is right is decided by the dictatorial leaders and all other opinions must be squelched. Oh, wait I just remembered. When the POTUS doesn’t like the news reporting he tries to denigrate the source attempting to control the message everyone is hearing. Has it started in the U.S.?


That’s why we need to colonize Mars. Entropy will triumph. Order will become disorder. Our kids need someplace to go. Hope I’m wrong.

Evan Jones

That’s why we need to colonize Mars.
Any place where if you sufficiently displease the powers that be you stop breathing is not an encouraging option.

That’s why we need to colonize Mars.

The Martian atmosphere contains about 95.3% carbon dioxide (CO2). How many years after the colony is started will the warmunists show up and start coercing you into giving them your hard earned Martian kilpeks and living life their way?

Stephanie Clague

Who among us denies we have a climate or even that climate changes?
The term should be banned, it is a hate filled smear and a poisonous politicised created by the most evil far left ideologies to damn their enemies.
We could them reality deniers or debate deniers, only those who know they cannot defend their position in free debate seek to close it down with such determined spite.

The people who deny climate change are those who deny the medieval warming period. the little ice age.
In other words, the hockey stick brigade!

Bubba Cow

isn’t “Climate Change” redundant?

voice of reezon

it is the effect of man on climate change that is in question. CO2 percentages are small and the portions of CO2 emissions each year that are man-made are even smaller. Then, of that percentage of CO2 that is man-made, how much is coming from China and India? Is screwing up the US economy to make .00001% change in global CO2 worth doing? Getting China to change even a little would change levels wayyyyy more than making massive changes in the US. And Scottish Sceptic the hockey stick data has been reviewed and updated many times when challenged by critics who have valid data to contribute.

Evan Jones

Almost nothing should be banned.


A banning proclamation should be banned. That’s about it.

Mike Maguire

What would be the criteria to judge by?
If I claim that CO2 is a beneficial gas which is adding massive amounts to world crop yields/food production. Am I denier? I can show powerful evidence.
What if I believe that we will see another 1 degree C of warming with a doubling of CO2 and think this is a good thing. Am I a denier? I can show evidence
What if it’s only .5 degree C instead of 1 degree C of warming?
Where do your draw the line and who is to interpret the 1 zillion general statements that are not specific enough to know exactly what a person believes?
For instance. “I think global climate model projections are wrong!”
This is vague. Does it mean that they are a bit too warm, completely worthless or something in between.
Or “reports of extreme weather are greatly exaggerated” As an operational meteorologist, I can show dozens of examples of things called unprecedented that have happened before(with the previous similar or worse event included) but almost nobody has 100 years of weather records in front of them to be able to do this.
Who decides if the evidence or source meets their criteria? Who decides if the poster is qualified to make a statement based on their credentials………..I have made many personal observations(with interpretation of the profound effect) in the changes in evapotranspiration in the US Cornbelt over the past 3 decades.

Michael Wassil

As always, the sole criterion is “you offend me”.

I find

As bad as climate denial is, shutting them out of Facebook would justify their persecution complex, and might engender more sympathy for their position.

offensive. I don’t deny the climate. I don’t deny that it has gotten warmer in the recent past, how much depends on how you define Tave and how you measure it. I don’t deny that there seems to be some anthropogenic influence on the amount of past warming. I do however recognise that the past warming has stopped and looks suspiciously like it might even be cooling, but it’s too early to know for sure. I do recognise that the present series of computer models of the Earth’s climate are far to simplistic to have any predictive value, I also recognise that the models complicated enough to have predictive value would run in less than real-time, again wouldn’t be predictive.

@Mike Maguire
Hi Mike. Just out of curiosity, what is the general view on AGW with your fellow weather folks? Do many agree or disagree?


Anthony – You wrote: “We don’t know what else you would call them, so perhaps a ban would be warranted after all.”. The problem is not in discouraging (or even removing) false content. The problem is in how “denier” is defined. Please keep in mind that there are millions of wacky people out there who would lump you into the same group as the Sky Dragons… Shutting down the conversation is the goal. The Warmistas see definitions as being fungible. You’ve seen it time and again!
[I didn’t write that, Climate NEXUS did. – Anthony]

Yes, I had problems following who said what, too. There appears to be some missing quotation marks.

Owen in GA

I saw it as everything after the attribution line belonged to Climate Nexus. Usually our host places his comments in italics, but not always. You do have to stay on your toes sometimes.

Coach Springer

The quoting practice could be made clearer.


I’m on Facebook, but I am not very active and I have a relatively small number of “friends”. Some of these friend’s postings can get rather tiring… same old stuff, platitudes, etc. I sometimes think I could reduce this traffic by posting more comments skeptical of the CAGW doomsters. I how many would “unfriend” me, thus leaving my timeline considerably less cluttered. 🙂

tom s

I de-friended an old school mate for his daily diatribes on this subject. I argued with him almost daily. He’s a big fan of skeptical science. I could not take it any more and simply and courteously gave him the boot from my friends list. It was seriously causing me stress. And this guys’s a scientist as well but believes only one side and one side only….he lives in large house and rebuilds old cars….fossil fuel burning cars. I asked him about that and it sent him in a tizzy. I told him he’s a bit of a hypocrite….it was beginning to get nasty so I said, buh-bye!

Eustace Cranch

I assume you mean Skeptical Science the website, and not the actual concept of skeptical science.


They are skeptical of skeptics of “Skeptical Science”


They aren’t on the Sceptical side of the debate.
So why would anyone think them Scientific either?
It’s just a name they chose to deceive the gullible. They’re as observant of the scientific method as Scientology.


When do we burn the books?


Right before we burn the heretics.


Right after the witches, Dave.

There’s a strong correlation between the number of witch trials and cold weather.
Therefore one could very easily argue that burning witches will help cool the planet.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

Dave , where do we start? How about ‘The Da Vinci Code’?

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

There was a woman, here in Britain a few months ago, who wanted to ban Nabokov’s Lolita! Imagine that! Especially page 68.

Evan Jones

When do we burn the books?
When the interglacial goes kaput?

John Smith

I started learning about ‘climate science’ and became a skeptic
I couldn’t help it
it’s like they want to make me agree with them
i also have a few relatives who fought for the Confederacy
(mostly conscripted)
I can’t help it
I’m in trouble
I guess they’re going to have to purify me

You don’t if you’re in England. There was a run at the used book stores for cheap fuel a few cold winters ago.

Owen in GA

But then we all have to memorize one, and I really don’t want to do that…
(was that too obscure of a Bradbury reference? Fahrenheit 451)


Well, I suppose we can be grateful that there wasn’t a mass-signing of such a petition. A fair number of people were convinced (and open to being further convinced) that the world was flat and that it was the center of the universe and the Christian Church wsn’t too open to discuss the matter. Happily there were people who stuck it out and proved that such ideas weren’t true. Charles Darwin also didnt get exactly massive popular support for his theories about evolution. Lucky for us that he wasn’t silenced. The Islamic State is presently killing those who won’t convert to their religious views – there they don’t accept contrarian opinions.
You can have your views. You can feel more than satisfied that they are definitive. However most discoveries resulted from people looking beyond what has been agreed upon or, frequently, in the opposite direction. If your theories are sound then no amount of contrary opinion will damage them. If they are not…. then let the opinions flow. They can do no harm but may do some good. What is there to be scared of?

Monna Manhas

If medieval scholars believed that the earth was flat, then how did the Venerable Bede determine that Easter should fall on the first Sunday after the first full moon after or on the vernal equinox? This is the formula that has determined the date of Easter for the past 1400 years. Wouldn’t that formula require a pretty sophisticated knowledge of lunar and seasonal cycles? In fact, the Venerable Bede clearly presented his classical conception of a spherical orb. Yes, he thought it was in the centre of the universe, but still – a spherical orb.
Medieval Christian scholars never believed that the earth was flat – this is yet another modern misconception of medieval knowledge and beliefs. And you clearly have no idea about the role of the Christian Church in the advancement of science. Perhaps you should do a little research.

Monna Manhas

… the earth as a spherical orb…


Well said. “Science” is often just a loosely-associated set of beliefs used by people to make themselves feel superior to people they deem stupid. Rarely are they challenged on these beliefs and so they can go their entire life feeling smug and self-righteous.

Alan McIntire

Bede, writing in the 7th and 8th century AD, wrote the earth “is an orb placed in the center of the universe; in its width it is like a circle, and not circular like a shield but rather like a ball, and it extends from its center with perfect roundness on all sides.”

half tide rock

Monna Manhas “wouldn’t that formula require pretty sophisticated knowledge of lunar and seasonal cycles?” The answer is ABSOLUTELY!!!! The basis of knowledge is the ability to make sense of observations by applying theories that provide skillful predictions. The teaching moment about scientific method is that the theory that the earth was the center of the universe was a skillful theory that allowed reliable, dependable ( if not increasingly convoluted) predictions of the future positions of the sun, stars and planets. The theory was disputed but it continued to survive as a defensible theory because it displayed obvious skill until the telescope brought the discovery of the moons of Jupiter for which the Center of the Universe Theory had no explanation. This is the same process Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation went through. The not so miniscule difference is that Newton’s Theory IS still skillful (even though falsified by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity) and remains, even though falsified, a practical approximation for most calculations. For most observations, if you chose to do so, you could continue to use both falsified theories with excellent results. Einstein’s theory IS TOO sophisticated to be practical for most of us. Amen

John V. Wright

Surely Facebook should be banning the term ‘denier’ from global warming discussions on its pages, as it is clearly ‘hate speech’.

It’s certainly very childish.


Might as well ban all fact checkers too, because that is what deniers of AGW climate change policy fraud are all about.


Maybe that’s what our new name should be: FACT CHECKERS!

I wonder if on Facebook a climate scientist ever claimed to be a “Noble Prize Winner”?

Brian H

Or even a “Nobel Prize Winner”?

Facebook (if you don’t whine and complain, and have good friends) is MARVELOUS! And, I have a LOT of friends, many of whom would be total “buy offs” for Gorebull warming, who have found links from WUWT on my Facebook page, and they have commented, “I’ve never heard that before…. Really, I just read in (cite liberal media outlet) and that place you linked EXPLAINS things, and showed me that what I read…wasn’t really ‘accurate’. Really, I’ve had only ONE person who got “snitty”, but when I showed the guys “snit” to some friends, they said: “Leave it up! It shows (so and so) is an IDIOT!” Yep, they were right. All the other comments, pretty much said the same thing. (NOT ME, I don’t engage in the ad-hominems.)

To be objective about this, any idiot can get a few thousand people to ‘sign’ a virtual petition. That said, it really does speak volumes about the totalitarinism of the Warming Alarmists.

Mark Dice on you tube – people will sign anything; last one I saw was to repeal the 1st Amendment to support Obama – they were signing without any hesitation. Willful idiots. And there are so many.

At least it’s not as bad as the petitions to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (AKA water, H2O) back in the late ’90s. A high school student was doing a science project about the public’s gullibility in matters of science, and got over 80% of the people he approached to sign his carefully worded petition to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (everything technically true, but worded to be as misleading and scary as possible). Other people tried it, and IIRC it was rare for the signature rate to be below 50%.
Maybe at least part of the public’s getting just a little less gullible.

Owen in GA

I ruined one of those suveys for someone before I knew about the real purpose. As I was reading their petition I exclaimed quite loudly ” Now, what darned fool would want to ban water!” and the group of folks who had just signed it got quite upset. I had to shield the prankster while he made a hasty retreat.


Sounds like Himmler and Nazi Germany. At least the true enemies have exposed themselves.


While it is probably true that Facebook is not a great form for discussing science, I believe that it is a huge mistake to allow inaccurate or misleading statements about science, especially climate science, go unchallenged. Since I live in Massachusetts, I have a lot of friends and acquaintances who seemed to have uncritically accepted the standard catastrophic climate change story. When they post something that is wrong, incomplete or misleading, I try to provide reliable sources that address the issue. Silence is consent.

“Silence is consent” is right. In this case they are on a mission to be right. When being nice (from their perspective) fails, then things will start progressing in a more dangerous direction. If we don’t stop this now, it will get out of hand until someone will have to declare martial law in an effort to “restore peace.”


95% of the content on FaceBook would fall could of their content laws, most people use it to pretend they have a better life than they actually do…
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
Mahatma Gandhi

Steve C

Indeed. A late friend used to call it “BitchBook”.

Alan McIntire

Fraud is deception for financial gain- that’s illegal. Most lying is not fraud- it’s just the vaseline of social intercourse.

Good quote from Gandhi. Thanks.
If they banned all nonsense, lies, and personal attacks on FaceBook and other blog sites, it is pretty evident 99% of comments will be censored because that is the numbr that are pure garbage. The name calling/ Arguments by Intimidation are so plentiful you could grow mushrooms in the b.s.

The Flat Earth Society has a Facebook group. Facebook has groups and individuals promoting homeopathy, psychics, fortune tellers, vaccine opposition, fad diets, different religions (which can’t all be true) and so on. I do not think Facebook could even begin to ban such items based on evaluations of their truthfulness (nor would I support efforts to do so). There is no way to draw the line once you start down that path.
The numbers are small and hopefully it is and remains a very limited group promoting this frightening idea. But it shows that there are some whose environmental fears will over-ride most any other value or consideration.

Curious George

I don’t believe that “Hamlet” is true, but I find it stimulating to discuss it.

Mosey on over to the NOAA FB page. The federal government agency itself is promoting fascism under the guise of science.

I never used my FB account until today. Per your info, I have now posted several time to the NOAA FB articles (I was polite, but factual) – they won’t like me. Maybe I’ll get an IRS audit.

Mr. Pettersen

Well a ban would be fine. Then we could sue them and they have to prove that the content is false.
Suddenly all the money Facebook have would be spent on an experiment proving IPCC wrong!
An experiment ordered and overseen by the court.
That would be the end of it.

Really, who treats Facebook as a place to discuss science?

Who treats Jon Stewart as a place to get their news? Millennials. Welcome to the twenty-first-century idiocracy.


Pat Smith

I am not sure who has lost the argument. At the recent G7 meeting, there were a whole bunch of important things that the government leaders could not agree on so they issued a strong statement about how they are all fighting climate change. It has become so non-controversial and a way to show they are really all friends. I am concerned that it is when something is no longer interesting and no-one is taking any notice that the politicians and bureaucrats start to take the big irreparable actions. I cannot see what would change this – as we saw only a few days ago, it would need the pause to go on for another 50 years before one influential organisation started to question its thinking. It is very hard to prove a negative. What is going to happen in the next 10 to 20 years to stop this?

Pat – Your question:
“What is going to happen in the next 10 to 20 years to stop this?”
My answer:
Maybe global cooling?

Michael Wassil

The CAGW diehards will be shouting through the icicles hanging from their frostbitten nostrils: “Skeptics and Deniers Repent. The heat is hiding in the deep ocean and will emerge tomorrow and were all going to fry!”

I am out to save the world precisely by stopping this. They have crashed the global economy by 10-25%, destroyed some of mankind’s most precious archaeological treasures with a dam in Turkey, killed thousands of Arabs in the Arab Spring riots(food riots stemming in what corn ethanol did to their food prices) and threaten actual extinctions of birds with their windmills.
Science won’t cut it. They are profoundly anti-scientific. We still need to promote the scientific method and the facts, but this is a small part of what it will really take to save the world.
I believe the main thing is to take advantage of where they are right. Many of them are getting into “soil sequestration” of the “excess” carbon dioxide. Now, the facts are that even 400 ppm CO2 is still CO2 starvation. But sequestration of carbon in the soil is soil enhancement. This is a very positive thing. Improving soil fertility is something we can all agree on. By focusing attention on it, everyone wins, and the intensity of frustration of not being able to persuade others to your own point of view will be abated.

Mark from the Midwest

If that happens Facebook, at worse, will lose about 1/3 of its user base, then, the company that now trades at 115 times earnings, making it the worst bubble-mess in tech, will be forced to rebate on paid messages, probably to the extent that they’re digging into investor cash, not revenue based cash flow. At that point the stock goes into a death spiral, Zuckerberg and Sandberg will be shown the door.
This is the same kind of thing that happened to Newsweek when their liberal editorial board decided it was time to be pro-active on issues, instead of doing real investigation and reporting. We know how that ended up, it left them with an NYU gossip reporter as the chief science correspondent.


“If that happens Facebook, at worse, will lose about 1/3 of its user base” –
Only if there is a viable alternative that people will actually USE. Until then, FB can do just about anything it wants.


I have a seldom used FB account under an alias. Now they want a phone number to prove that I’m real. Sorry boyz, mebbe when I get a burn phone. I’m very careful with my identify and see nothing wrong posting anonymously. After 30 years on the Internet, all I need is more SPAM.




Not only a phone number but passport, drivers license, utiliy bill with an address etc etc etc to prove who I am and yet, my profile *DOES* “prove” who I am and the name people know me by (A nickname). So I opened up case with FB to ask why this new policy given I’d been using FB for years. I got various e-mails from various “support staff” pointing me to their policy page. I asked, who do I know who you are? Can you prove to me that you are who you say you are given you are asking for prooof of ID (As above), no answer. New police on the block.
So yes, still waiting for FB to delete (AT my request) the account as I constanly get spam.

Read this page from ClimateNexus – aka “how to perpetuate the climate scam using social media”

I’m on Facebook a lot, carpet bombing (got me tossed from HuffPo) MSM, academia, & high profile believers, and ignore the half dozen who hassle me w/ standard talking points from the clipboard hanging in their minimum wage call center cube farm. I do it trusting that somebody unknown will see it, pick up my thread and give it a tug. Hammer, hammer, hammer. CAGW is much like cold fusion and WMDs.


Without an opposing view or voice, we we either have fascism or are completely dillusional.

That is the truth, and it looks like we have both.

Curious George

Truth is irrelevant. We need consensus, for the sake of diversity.

Harry Passfield


We need consensus, for the sake of diversity

And we need uniformity to get consensus.

Owen in GA

Have you gentlemen been reading 1984 as a political manual again? (I know you are being sarcastic and don’t believe the words, but are expressing an obvious cultural observation of the spirit of the times. – scary)

Nancy C

“Pages must not contain false, misleading, fraudulent or deceptive claims or content.”
Maybe facebook just should ban all statements about the future. Since they’re universally neither true or false at they time they’re written, if they express any kind of certainty they’re misleading.
Once I told a friend that I was going to go see his shitty band play and I most definitely didn’t do that. A policy against future related statements could have prevented me from the awkward social need to lie.

Jeff B.

Facebook is a fitting place for AGW Alarmism. Vanity, wasting time and being a part of cliques. That’s pretty much what both FB and AGW are about. Normal people shed these behaviors somewhere between the ages of 13 and 19.


While I believe in free speech and free internet, I don’t think there was any net gain for humanity by the invention of Facebook. The problem with having a rational discussion about climate change with a regular person is the issue of academic/elite authority. Most regular people and even environmentalists are not going to take the time to research the science of climate change. The consensus of scientists spewed by the main stream media constantly is just too much of a barrier to get past. This is the main issue with informing the masses on climate change. The truth about the consensuses and scientific agreement must come out sooner or later. Without that the whole movement will have to go down in a blaze to convince these people.

Curious George

Do not mistake CAGW for a movement. It is a well oiled money machine.

Look at the discussion I am having with NOAA on FB:
They refuse to discuss anything that disagrees with their conclusions and then threaten people to being banished if they do disagree with their conclusions. The official scientific argument they propose is that the science is settled and there is no time to question it. One guy was banished in that very thread for no other reason than asking questions that NOAA did not want to answer.

Harry Passfield

David: Strange comment from NOAA (but then, I don’t do FB or Twatter): Surely, climate changing is a symptom of AGW? As in, we note that the climate is changing; what is the possible cause? Ahh, say NOAA, AGW.

It’s much worse than that. In the article that started this discussion, there is a paragraph header that reads, “A Climate Change Unlike Any Other.” Then immediately underneath it there is a graph that shows the present climate change is nearly identical to the past four Ice Age cycles, except the current cycle is a bit weaker.
Their next graph shows just a portion of the current cycle that best fits their narrative.
They acknowledge there has been climate change of the same order during the past 500,000 years, and say, “Previous warming episodes were triggered by small increases in how much sunlight reached Earth’s surface and then amplified by large releases of carbon dioxide from the oceans as they warmed (like the fizz escaping from a warm soda).” …As though they were there and they know the exact mechanics of these huge cycles! NOAA can’t even get the weather forecasts accurate to within three days, let alone know the exact mechanisms from thousands of years ago and into the future 100 years.

David…I didn’t see your name in the comments – have you been erased?


Since the writing’s been on the wall for awhile about AGW, they changed the meme to “climate change,” weasel-words that can mean anything they find it convenient for them to mean–up, down, sideways, here, there, whatever happens next week. Volcanoes and earthquakes even! The general public has now achieved uncritical mass in their scientific illiteracy, becoming in effect the very useful idiots necessary to perpetuate this nonsense profitably–and probably indefinitely.

You’re probably talking to a computer with pre programmed answers.


If I show a plot of the RSS lower troposphere temperature measurement and say there has been no statistically significant trend up or down for the last 15 years, I am labeled a denier. We all know if anyone bans “climate denial” that is the type of data and factual statement they want to ban. If Facebook banned climate denial then 95% of those who signed that petition would want that type of data and that type of factual statement about the data to be banned. Even though it does not meet the Facebook rule about false statements not being allowed. The only statement is irrefutable about global warming is that increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has the effect of reducing the Earth’s ability to radiate heat to space. Deny that and you are a denier. It is not a fact that we know what will happen to global temperatures if we keep adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, that implies we know for a fact all the other impacts to the global thermal environment, feedback, solar fluctuation impacts, etc, and that we know for a fact what the net result of all those impacts will be.

Yes, CO2 acts to reduce heat into space. However, that does not mean there aren’t other mechanisms that can radiate heat into space. Hurricanes and large thunderstorms have enormous heat columns that rise from their center. When the warm, moist air punctures the troposphere and billows into the stratosphere, the heat is radiated as infrared light. The resulting cold moist air freezes as hail and falls back to Earth, thus the mechanics of an updraft storm pumps heat off the Earth like an air conditioner. The warmer the oceans and surface waters get, the stronger and more numerous the convection cells that radiate heat.

Brian H

One of Monckton’s favorite displays is a set of 18 graphs, 17 of the climate models’ prediction that Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) will reduce (by”trapping”) as CO2 warms the surface, and one of the actual satellite measurements, showing OLR rising in lockstep with surface and atmospheric warming.
BTW, Willis Eschenbach develops a “governor” theory that describes your mechanism in the tropics as a band of thunderstorms that follows the sun around the equator daily. Also, Bill Gray has a paper out documenting the action of thunderheads in putting dried air aloft vs. the humid air the models require. The consequence is a reduction by about 10X of the “Climate Sensitivity” to a doubling of CO2, to about 0.3K. The destruction of the whole AGW hypothesis.


It sounds as if they think that climate “deniers” are spouting false science, when they should be wary of the junk and false science of the pro-global-warming-by-man people. What a shame to ban people who only want the truth out there and keep those who would mislead the public while pursuing a political, entirely unscientific agenda.

Louis Hunt

Yes, and it goes to show that there are people around who despise free speech and seek to put those who disagree with their “settled science” under ‘virtual’ house arrest.

Kevin Kilty

People who gather all they currently “know” through social media, whether that be FB or instagram or whatever, will be a perpetual problem. However, I have an ex-friend, who I unfriended in the old way by refusing to have anything more to do with him. He grew up in a solid left-Democrat household, Ph.D.s in history and religion, and tells me that “freedom of speech” is allowed only for those who tell the “truth”.
I tried to point out to him the many levels of fallacy his viewpoint involves to no avail. How are the mal-informed hordes at FB any more of a problem than this guy?

well even with my limited vocabulary and basic education I see a problem…mostly fear of a what if scenario that will take lifetimes and generations to substantiate…either way cooling or warming….in an ever changing place like Earth it would be easy for anyone to exploit temporary shifts or trends in a climate and deem it mankind’s fault…everything they propose is either unsustainable or just outright wrong…believing you can control mother nature is just simple ignorance maybe leftover from the last extinction event 😉 heck if I know what their damn problem is


Climate Fact Check needs to replace denier labels. At least that’s how things work in la la advocacy land where labels are everything.

Judging from my latest foray into Facebook and the number of failed wall posts I must have achieved persona-non-grata status. Do I get a certificate or something?

Man Bearpig

Why dont we play them at their game. When they make claims about extreme weather on facebook. Lets get em banned.


They take facebook a little more cereal than we do.

Billy Liar

You cannot be serious!

The word “denier ” is so childish. I prefer to just refer to those who haven’t yet seen the pause.

Two Labs

“For the most part, we think denier groups are small enough that they pretty much serve as something to point and laugh at,…”
“With my only 3,360 signatories out of a goal of 500,000…”

Louis Hunt

Here are a few of my favorite quotes about the importance of skepticism and the danger of politicizing science:

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.
— Galileo Galilei
…in the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past. So it’s time to abandon the religion of environmentalism, and return to the science of environmentalism, and base our public policy decisions firmly on that.
— Michael Crichton
“Save the planet!” is the rallying cry that justifies nearly any intrusion by government into the life of the individual. The individual, after all, is expendable. … The Enviro-Statist declares his allegiance to science and knowledge when, in fact, his only faith is to his ideology.
— Mark R. Levin
Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. … Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified. But global warming is the hypothesis that can never be falsified. … Every weather event is portrayed as being consistent with global warming. That’s because global warming is not a scientific hypothesis, but a dogmatic ideology.
— Dr. David Deming