The Role of Internet Gatekeepers in Climate Alarmism

Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good
is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
Matrix, the movie

We hear that a Red Team is being created by the new administration to look at “climate science” again.  But what good is a Red Team if it would be smeared and intimidated even before it starts its work? Then its conclusions will be buried under a mountain of lies by environmentalists and the fakestream media.  Climate alarmists will also say something like “The Red Team, assembled from fossil fuel lobbyists and professional climate change deniers with intent to cast doubt on the climate science consensus has confirmed this consensus.”  We need a red pill, rather than the Red Team.  In other words, we need to break through the media blockade, created by Obama administration.

What good is our writing, if only a small percentage of the population can read it?  What good is our work, if it is boycotted, shadowbanned, de-trended and otherwise hidden from public view by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other Web monopolies?  This problem has to be solved first if we want to defeat climate alarmism, cleanse the education and scientific institutions from pseudo-sciences and their promoters, and to stop certain groups from treating human breath as pollution.

This is why the subject of faux net neutrality is so important for climate realism.  Also, the faux net neutrality agenda shares many attributes with climate alarmism.  Both require understanding of technical or scientific details, which create barriers for public understanding. Both started with a legitimate, but small concern.  In the case of “net neutrality”, the concern appeared when a Verizon executive floated an idea of shifting some of ISP costs from customers to content providers.  In both cases, the concern received a broad bipartisan support, and has been exhaustively addressed.  In both cases, the radical Left appropriated the issue after that, and used its label to push incredibly ambitious plans.  In both cases, Obama administration readily accommodated radical plans.  EPA made the infamous Endangerment Finding, arrogating to itself power to regulate carbon dioxide release.  FCC issued FCC-15-24 order, arrogating to itself power to regulate Internet access, and, possibly other forms of press and speech.

There is also a large overlap between the contemporary bad actors behind the climate alarmism and the faux net neutrality agitation.  But the faux net neutrality is an easy issue.  I believe that observation of the bad actors’ behavior and broader social dynamics around faux net neutrality alarm also provides an insight into similar factors in the climate alarmism.

This completes the previous article on net neutrality alarmism. Despite the label, that agenda is not about net neutrality (FCC adopted net neutrality rules around 2006), regulation, the (fictitious) Internet service providers monopolies, or cable companies.  Cable companies are not broadband Internet monopolies even now, and were not monopolies in 2009 when team Obama trained its guns on the budding broadband Internet industry.  They compete against DSL, and most people could choose from multiple DSL providers.  Customers could also choose providers of satellite Internet, or broadband over cellular networks.  Wi-Fi and other fixed wireless broadband were offered in some markets, and new types of services were spreading.  Alas, if FCC wanted to regulate monopolies or cable companies, it would have written that in the order.  But it wanted to regulate the speech Instead, the FCC-15-24 order is applied to “any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service” (para 21), and then more:

“25. The open Internet rules described above apply to both fixed and mobile broadband Internet access service. Consistent with the 2010 Order, today’s Order applies its rules to the consumer-facing service that broadband networks provide, which is known as “broadband Internet access service” (BIAS) and is defined to be: A mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all Internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up Internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence, or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this Part.

Thus, the order covered all Internet access, except for dial up.  Not satisfied with that, FCC included any “functional equivalent” of the Internet access, and endowed itself with the power to decide what constitutes the functional equivalent.  In particular, the phrase “functional equivalent” dispenses with the physical limitations in the definition, such as “wire or radio.” Some people only read and write news and opinions on the Internet, using it as a functional equivalent of a newspaper.  Under this definition, the FCC might regulate newspapers if Democrats come to power.  The FCC might also decide to regulate coffee houses or places of worship if it “finds” that they are “used to evade protections” set by the order.  If it sounds as a stretch, the CO2 Endangerment Finding by EPA is a live example that it is not.  And potential FCC findings might be even correct in view of the history of this order.  The order is intended to control political speech (see the previous article on faux net neutrality).  Any service that provides an alternative platform for speech would probably “evade protections” of the order.  I am not picking on the words here.  This is the essence of the totalitarian ideology of the Free Press, which became the brain behind Obama’s FCC.  For example, Timothy Wu, the Free Press Chairman, became a Senior Advisor to the FCC.  His written words: “The idea that ‘speech is speech’ is persuasive, but also wrong” and “corporations hijacked the First Amendment”.  In 2015, he became Senior Enforcement Counsel and Special Advisor to the notorious NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.  Timothy Wu is also a fellow at the New America Foundation, and a former Google fellow.  Eric Schmidt is the Chairman of both corporations.  As Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and their other icons, Free Press leaders want control over other citizens, and sell this control as “protections” against alleged power of corporations.  They also anticipate that citizens would want to “evade protections,” and try to forbid us from doing that.

This is what Obama’s FCC ordered under the pretext of “net neutrality” and Trump’s FCC is about to repeal.  The Internet information gatekeepers — Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. — protest this repeal shoulder to shoulder with the Free Press and the rest of the radical Left.  Their was doubt about extent of their knowledge in the climate alarmism.  Was it ignorance of science multiplied by hubris, or the cold logic of political alliances in pursuit of financial gains?  But there is no doubt that they have perfect knowledge of the net neutrality subject, of the lack of scientific or technical merits in Obama era Internet regulations in general, and of the last moment political twist that led to the FCC-15-24 order.  They do not like that order themselves.  But they publicly lie about it, about the current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, and about Donald Trump with full knowledge, intent, and malice.  They do that because they have chained themselves to the hard Left politically, and to foreign governments economically (Twitter, generating most of its revenues in the US, might be an exception).  When those powers tell them to attack Trump, they attack Trump, using any pretext at hand.  The same powers are involved in the climate debate and have much more at stake. Thus, there is no reason to think that Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other large and sophisticated corporations behind climate alarmism are sincerely mistaken and would stop and reverse the course if they learn of their mistake.  They just do their part in the alliance.  (They might have been mistaken on the climate when they entered the alliance.  Also, many individuals in those corporations might be sincerely misinformed.  This is of little help, too.)

Mentioned Timothy Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School.  He is an example of the co-optation of smart and decent men by the totalitarian Left in the first decade of this century.  His 2013 article, “The Right to Evade Regulation. How corporations hijacked the First Amendment” (1), attempts to justify the denial of free speech to members of the productive class (from executives to engineers to blue-collar workers, including people whose life savings are invested in the stock of publicly traded companies — “the deplorables,” in the words of Hillary).  As usual, this argument comprises two dishonesties: a) conflating the legal definition of a corporation (which includes universities, newspapers, and “non-profit” corporations), with the semi-pejorative use of the word ‘corporation’ in the current political discourse; b) rallying against “corporations,” while obscuring the fact that there are humans behind each operating corporation: workers, contractors, owners, and customers.

Quotes from the article:

“Once the patron saint of protesters and the disenfranchised, the First Amendment has become the darling of economic libertarians and corporate lawyers who have recognized its power to immunize private enterprise from legal restraint. It is tempting to call it the new nuclear option for undermining regulation, except that its deployment is shockingly routine.”

Yes, it is deployed to undermine the regulation of speech, sometimes successfully.

“The idea that ‘speech is speech’ is persuasive, but also wrong. Contrary to Powell’s assertion, the First Amendment does actually care who is speaking.” 

No, it does not. A professor at the Columbia Law School should be ashamed.  On second thought, he shouldn’t.  He fits there fine.

This is not an abstract debate.  Democrats and trial lawyers’ interests conflated representations in commercial transactions (so-called “commercial speech“), which may be regulated, with political speech by representatives of commercial entities, which is protected by the First Amendment.  Then they extended this free speech ban on almost everyone in the non-media businesses, whose speech they did not like.  I can trace that phenomenon to the late 1990’s, and especially to what I call an extrajudicial tobacco precedent.

Using this precedent, the Left has removed from the climate debate the most knowledgeable and independent people – scientists, engineers, and executives from energy, petrochemical, and manufacturing industries.  They are independent because they are valued for their knowledge and skills, not for the political views they express or defend.  Such people can easily switch jobs in the unlikely case their employers attempt to punish them for inconvenient speech.  How many liberal academics or journalists have such option?

Climate alarmists further exploited public confusion in this matter by smearing every climate realist who had ever came within three degrees of separation from “fossil energy interests.”  The importance of the private sector in public debates is illustrated by the fact that the first exposure of outright fraud in the so-called climate science (the Mann’s “hockey stick”) has been done by Steve McIntyre, a Canadian mining exploration businessman.  He was joined by Ross McKitrick, an academic scientist.

Disclosure: I hold short positions in GOOG, FB, and TWTR.  I am not obligated to make this disclosure.  I am not so sure about the foundations and other investors on the other side of the issues.

P.S. Greenpeace is known to actively trade public stocks and even stock options.  I will be surprised if matching the timing of its smear campaigns with the timing of its trades does not uncover stock market manipulation.  Somebody, call SEC and Trump-appointed prosecutors!  The funders and leaders of “the resistance” to Trump do not tell their herd about the real reasons to worry about his presidency.

P.P.S. Just when I was wrapping the article up, Google (Alphabet) unveiled an energy storage startup (2) with the involvement of Robert Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics and a climate realist.  It seems like Google is attempting to bribe him.

Thanks to H.J. for collaborating on this article.

Advertisements

86 thoughts on “The Role of Internet Gatekeepers in Climate Alarmism

    • Satellite internet is not a significant competitor against the cable and phone companies due to extra latency from a 45,000 mile round trip in space. And phone companies that provide DSL are effectively cable companies, for example Verizon.

      • I sense a big lawsuit coming. We use verizon because we found comcast(conventional cable but rapidly converting as much as possible to fiber optic) a poor business to deal with. So, now when I “dial up” a telephone on our conventional landline I press some keys and the signal is converted into an electronic numeric code and sent over the same fiber optic cable I use for the internet access. When I use the computer on line I press some keys and the signal is converted into an electronic numeric code and sent over the same fiber optic fiber. So there is no difference between “dial up” and internet access.

        Both are sent over a cable- whether wire or fiber – via numeric electronic codes. There is no difference and hence no distinction between “dial up” or internet.

        That sounds like a pretty good argument for the president to negate the FCC finding and Congress to eliminate by law, people by lawsuit.

      • The phone companies must give DSL providers access to their local exchange connections, so everybody can start a DSL service. Around 2010, a customer could choose among many DSL providers. This competition is gone now, in large part because 2010 FCC regulations.

    • With neomarxism and postmodernism feelings thrumps logic(logic is not independent of its content)

  1. 1 – Conflating CAGW with net neutrality isn’t helpful. It just confuses things.

    2 – Climategate was a big win. A few investigations and maybe a high profile criminal conviction or two can turn things around quickly.

      • This link sums things up beautifully. Climategate, along with other events, marked a turning point in public opinion. Global warming is now the issue that most Americans worry about the least. link

      • Time waster. The Norfolk police can’t pronounce on whether CRU were trying to distort the science or not. As the article says, the police “exonerated” CRU on the very narrow issue of whether they had anything to do with the hacking. No one suspected them of any such collusion but the police had to pursue it as a formality. The quote regarding the hacker’s presentation of the emails and timing of the release just ahead of the Copenhagen conference is just a personal observation. Discussions in the emails regarding the science of climate change and specifically whether the CRU scientists were playing fast and loose with the data was not part of the police investigation.

        The eight investigations mentioned in the article are another issue (just in case another spin artist decides to cite them). You were emphasising the “police investigation into the actions of the scientists”. Anyone who reads that is going to think you mean the actions of the scientists regarding their honesty over peresenting the science as discussed in the emails, not whether they had anything to do with aiding and abetting the hacking. It’s a time wasting deflection tactic.

        Why do you guys do this stuff?

      • As I recall, the UK Police closed the case because, with all the delaying tactics used by ‘Climate Scientists’ and a very limited law, they determined that they couldn’t complete their investigation within the Statute of Limitations.

      • Why a police investigation? ClimateGate was about academic malpractice, not the breaking of laws.

        The only thing relevant they could investigate is whether the emails were stolen. Finding that no laws were broken didn’t clear UEA, it cleared the people who published the emails.

      • Climategate was a perfect example of the press shoving the s*** back in the horse, whitewashing the entire ordeal, rationalizing ‘investigations’ that were mostly dog-and-pony shows to create the illusion of accountability, when it was really co-conspirators covering their tracks.

        How much protectionism has the press engaged in concerning Progressive issues/individuals? Then compare it to the unrelenting attacks on ideological opponents. A consolidated, coordinated press, by the way – the illusion of a thousand outlets when it’s all from a single spring – one might almost call it ‘collusion’.

        Then ask yourself, how much of it was done because of ‘bribes’, or just because they wanted to preserve their worldview and/or pet issues?

        Guys like Steve will blithely assign blanket, underhanded methods and motivation to entire demographics, and yet can’t seem to accept how it applies to their own – quite often MORE so.

      • Laws were likely broken with the recommendation to destroy emails.

        Unless of course your last name is Clinton.

      • “It has now been 18 years ago…”

        Er, from your link: LONDON — Police in eastern England have closed a two-and-a-half-year investigation into the 2009 “Climategate” email thefts

        Yet more evidence that you really don’t have the first clue, you can’t even do the simplest arithmetic.

        What a maroon!

      • Oh, and by the way Steve, the grand total spent by Norfolk police on the UEA hacker investigation since the November 2009 theft is just £80,905.11.

        https://www.desmogblog.com/did-uk-police-quietly-sideline-climategate-hacker-investigation

        Now, if you knew the first thing about British police investigations, you would know that such a trivial sum would barely cover the coffee and biscuits fund for any size of operation, the reason being that the investigation rapidly discovered that there had been no externally instigated security breach and it was considered impolitic to publicly reveal that the emails were leaked by a member of staff – AKA a whistleblower.

    • Agreed with #1, it’s a weird off-topic digression that can create problems but cannot promote understanding of climate issues.

      FWIW, while I don’t pretend to fully understand net neutrality, the most tech savvy people I know who also happen to be libertarian on tech issues support net neutrality. What it’s intended to stop is double-dipping by ISPs, who want to charge content providers for bandwidth that they are already being paid for by their customers.

      Which is quite irrelevant to the topic of interest at WUWT.

      • Description of WUWT easily seen on its menu & mentioned over & over & over again by Anthony and many others:

        About Watts Up With That? News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts

    • commiebob, nothing will turn things around faster or have greater impact than the reversal of the “endangerment finding”. My understanding of that SC ruling is that the Justices simply ruled that if the EPA wanted to, they co
      uld declare CO2 to be an harmful pollutant, I might be wrong about this. Scott Pruitt stated Congress could reverse it, maybe our President could ( in between tweets)
      reverse it with an E. O.

      • Leo you can add the American Institute of Chemical Engineers ( AIChE ) and the National Society of Professional Engineers ( NSPE ) to the list of censorship monitors as they demonstrate it by banning Climate Change Skeptic opinions on their Forums. Better thought—- how about adding them as co-defendants in your lawsuit?

      • Exactly. When a social media company goes above 10% of the public as customers, they should fall under government regulations that prevent them from arbitrarily banning speech they don’t like. After the fake news brouhaha the social media networks went out and hired a bunch of SJW’s to help them police content. And guess what, they went after the most popular conservatives almost immediately. It is reprehensible in the extreme and must be stopped immediately.

      • It scares me that Google executive chairman can make statements like these:
        “The company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts, what a shock, and the facts of climate change are not in question anymore,” Schmidt said. “Everyone understands that climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.” –
        Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt

        Rule # 1 «The game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game» (Karl Popper – Logic of Scientific Discovery, p. 53).

        Schmidt expresses a total lack of respect for human rights to freedom of expression.

  2. Leo – This article speaks of Red Team, Free Speech, Climate Alarmism, and the FCC-15-24 order, but with all its words does not provide any argument placing all four into context, no legalise, no evidence, just innuendo, guilty by association type stuff.

    “But it wanted to regulate the speech Instead, the FCC-15-24 order is applied to “any person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service”

    The above quote is a leap to suggest this is an attack on free speech, “person” in context would mean “Corporate personhood”. For example, AOL could not claim “Freedom of Religion” afforded to persons then block all religious Websites the corporation does not believe in. (I’m traveling, so I may not respond to detractors until later).

    • To add;

      “What good is our work, if it is boycotted, shadowbanned, de-trended and otherwise hidden from public view by Google, Twitter, Facebook, and other Web monopolies”

      To go onto suggest “faux net neutrality” from the above corporations you’ve confused the FCC regulation as it applies to ISP’s only. While I agree the above can have biased reporting, this is no different than Breightbart News, you’ve confused the two. These web monopolies, like it or not, have as much right to report what they want as you do here on WUWT.

      • “Faux net neutrality” does not come from those companies. They just give support to that agenda. FCC regulations do not apply to ISPs only, read the article again. And no, ISPs are not monopolies.

      • Leo – just saying go read the article again does not satisfy my claims. You could articulate the specific point you wish to make.

        “FCC regulations do not apply to ISPs only”

        Of course it does not apply to just ISP’s but is intended to control the ‘pipe’ from user to the Web. Apple Inc. (not an ISP) for example could not force you to buy only one application to access the Web on its hardware and then with that app. control which content can be access on the Web. Anthony has both Twitter and Facebook WUWT accounts, I don’t see evidence either of these corporations are blocking access to WUWT. Further, it has not been explained how the FCC is further attempting to restrict access to ‘alternate’ views, I have never been blocked or restricted on Google for example. Just because Google doesn’t give 50% allocation to skeptic views does not make them guilty (of something?). As has been suggested here, AGW ranks very low on people’s care list, perhaps they are just making smart financial decisions for their advertisers. Not to suggest they are unbiased but follow the money.
        Respectfully – Duncan

      • Leo – and yes I contradicted myself. By my suggestion “it applies to ISP’s only”, my intent was control of the ‘pipe’ from point A to point B. Search engines would fall into that category. I could have been more clear.
        Duncan

      • You got courage and a great instinct for things that are wrong. However, I think you can make much more powerful arguments by addressing one issue at the time and by spending more time making your arguments clearer. Anhow, I admire your efforts. All the best SorF.

    • Net Neutrality rules were already enacted in 2006. But even without them, AOL was still subject to other laws, and would have been sued out of existence if it ever tried anything like this. FCC-15-24 was a power grab going well beyond anything Internet.

  3. Ignorance can be fixed by knowledge. Unfortunately right now access to knowledge is being blocked by most teachers, the MSM, most politicians, the Supreme Court, most ‘scientists’ feeding at the government grant trough, even peer reviewers and the popular journals which benefit from publishing bogus articles written by the ‘scientists’ feeding on government grants. Even revealing graphs like shown here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived
    don’t appear to draw broad attention. It is beginning to look like the truth will not broadly surface until humanity has relentlessly experienced it.

    • “What good is our writing, if only a small percentage of the population can read it?”

      It seems to have taken many years for the reputable scientific community to start figuring this out. It’s not just about science, but about marketing that science to a mass audience. For instance, the Goreites with unlimited budgets have it down to a sophisticated art.

      It’s well overdue for those consistently preaching to the choir to get their act together and message out to the millions of Joe six- packs via professional marketing channels.

      • “the Goreites with unlimited budgets have it down to a sophisticated art” and, yet, utterly fail at it. Similarly, the poisonously corrupt Clinton wasted a BILLION dollars on her failed Presidential election campaign.
        Thankfully, the Left isn’t anywhere near as good at communicating as you fear they are.

  4. I think the situation is as bad as Goldstein lays out. Control of the internet is something various established interests have wanted since at least the late 1990’s. Once upon a time, the mainstream media could have hushed up the Monica Lewinsky/Bill Clinton scandal, and they miss the power (and income) of getting to decide what is “news fit to print”.
    It could very well be a confluence of perceived self-interest, rather than a quasi-Leninist organization as such. There are conflicts of interest between internet content providers like Netflix and bandwidth providers like Verizon or Dish. A loose coalition of politicians are clearly playing off this conflict, and mostly seeking power for themselves.
    The old Federal Communications Commission system governing broadcast media was a good thing for politicians, and their favored associates in the purportedly private sector. It was something of a cartel, a keiretsu, a zaibatsu, all covered under the rationale of “regulation”.
    As the green blob is part of the political system, they are players, too, but I do not see them as being dominant in this conflict.

    • We must not forget the left’s control of the educational system as well. It will be an uphill struggle as long as education and information dissemination are under the boot heal of the lie as is presently the case.

    • I too agree that there is a big and growing problem with information dissemination. A bit off topic, but related is Robert Parry’s recent column:

      https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/28/the-dawn-of-an-orwellian-future/

      a quote from his article:
      In early May 2017, the Times chimed in with a laudatory article about how sophisticated algorithms could purge the Internet of alleged “fake news” or what the mainstream media deems to be “misinformation.”

      When government in any form can decide what “truth” is we all loose..

  5. The BBC met with its green advisers and decided that since the science was settled on the alarmist side there was no requirement for the Corporation to report anything in support of the other side. This meeting, known as 28Gate, has resulted in several years of complete bias by the BBC in breach of its charter obligation of impartiality.

    The broadcaster has a near monopoly of news provision throughout the UK not just through its national TV and radio channels but also through a network of local stations and its large internet presence. This keeps the majority of the population completely ignorant of the climate debate.

    • … and the BBC is trying to brainwash the entire world via the World Service, which dishes out a relentless diet of Trump-bashing, Brexit fear-mongering, EU-adoration, CAGW alarmism, promotion of migration, and denigration of anyone to the left of the BBC/Guardian canteen, via its “far-right” and “controversial” labels.

      • But, human nature being what it is, the more shrill the Left gets, the more people just tune them out, and the more people tune them out, the more shrill the Left gets.

  6. I just keep working on the grassroots approach. I politely let my friends know that I’m not worried about climate change and try to stick to the science. I asked them questions and they quickly realize they don’t know much about the subject and it’s complicated. And I make sure they know there are thousands of scientist just like me that are not on board with the hype.

    It’s easy to be a climate zealot when you believe that only fossil fuel companies and their paid thugs are in opposition.

    But after talking to me, they realize I am a scientist and non-political and not being paid … and I think the whole scaremongering is ridiculous… and there are thousands more just like me

    Then they tell their friends and they come over to me at the party and say “John tells me you don’t believe in climate change”. Then i start over with science and politeness… sometimes reminding then I am an atmospheric scientist, and Al Gore is a politician

    I suspect sowing the seeds of doubt one person at a time at the grassroots level is more effective than shouting to millions through the media

    • I also keep working at the grassroots level. When some dear friends found out that I did not believe in AGW, they confronted me by saying, “Oh, so you don’t believe in recycling and keeping the environment clean?” So I politely but convincingly explained to them all that I personally do in recycling my household trash, and how ridiculous it is to conflate disbelief of AGW with trashing the environment.

    • … the seeds of doubt one person at a time …

      I think for August you should try for 2 at a time. In September, go for 4. October? Either 8 or 16.

      I asked them questions and they quickly realize they don’t know much about the subject and it’s complicated.
      And then their eyes glaze and their minds shut, and the cult kicks in.
      Our local Audubon chapter has a committee sprouting ideas for plantings and such to help birds adjust to a global warming – climate change world. Meanwhile, there is much spraying (weed control) going on so that only Timothy Hay — for export — survives.
      Away from the county road, we had a good year for wild blooms, including Milkweed, and there have been many Butterflies. There are some things to feel good about.

  7. IPCC uses science to prove the climate change that it is caused by the mankind. It is not a matter of free speech or anything like that. If the red team or any other trial cannot show scientific evidences, what is the real portion of the mankind in the climate change, this kind of task force will not change anything.

  8. Anyone thinking about putting constraints on free speech should sit down and read The Universal Declaration of human rights.

    “Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
    ..
    “Article 2. 
    Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion …”

    “Article 19.
    Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    Hypocrits.

    “It can’t happen here” is always wrong: a dictatorship can happen anywhere.”
    ― Karl Popper, Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography

    • … a panel of top sites …

      I mostly use Chrome and have a “bookmarks bar” at the top. Thereon I have several Folders and several individual sites. One Folder has sites, such as WUWT, another has MSM and other news sites, and so on.
      “Banished” is not a concern or concept that applies to this Bookmarks Bar.

    • I’ve noticed that too for a long time. I can get to WUWT various ways, but no thanks to Google.

  9. Do you think Google (or your favorite unbiased search engine) does not censor information?
    Then try this simple experiment search for a quoted phrase e.g. “quoted phrase you are looking for” “Title of Document” on Google and several other search engines. Compare the results obtained from a search of famous literary quotes. Now, compare the the results obtained when searching for a quoted phrase or even title of first a paper supporting climate change and a report written by a person/group skecteptal of the climate change agenda.

    • Exactly. Search Google or Yahoo! for “climate change.” You’ll get page after page of hysterical silliness. I don’t know how many pages deep you’d have to get before they finally allow a link that all this stuff might not be true.

  10. I might have missed something but this story should have included the emails of John Podesta and his efforts to silence climate scientists.

  11. There is already widespread reservation about the veracity of what the MSM claims. If the Red/Blue Team debate were to take place, the complete debate would probably show up on YouTube. Snippets would show up on Fox News and various blogs. Pruitt and Trump would have press conferences if the results supported their views. It would hurt the MSM reputation even more if they ignored, obviously manipulated, or only showed those things that supported the AGW meme. Thus, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. I don’t know what format the debate would take, should it take place. However, I imagine that, in the corporate world, senior management (or proxies) would sit in on the debate and make a decision on whether the Red Team or Blue Team had made the more convincing argument, and act accordingly. That is, they might cancel the project championed by the Blue Team, or recommend changes.

    If the EPA exercise were to take place, it would seem appropriate to have a panel of ‘disinterested expert observers’ to provide a post-presentation summary and analysis with an opinion on which, if either, side had the most compelling arguments, and which arguments could be dismissed because of fundamental flaws. It would be hard for the MSM to ignore such summary conclusions. The best they could hope for would be to try to discredit the panel or their conclusions, should they come down against AGW/Climate Change.

  12. Obama wasn’t the cause as it started before him. He just took advantage of it. Gaining control of the media is part of the plan to institute Socialist ideology. It’s well documented. The MSM has been bought and paid for by the Progressives and won’t change. The MSM is the perfect pulpit for their propaganda and they won’t give it up.

    • “The MSM is the perfect pulpit”
      it is less influential than ever. I’m old enough to remember three news channels on TV and virtually no discordant note sounding anywhere. Those days are long gone.

  13. This web site does a lot of good and should not be underestimated. But I know what you mean, it is sort of three steps forward two backwards. You just have to keep chipping away at the con and politicians who seem short of common sense (trying to be kind). They are easily conned! Sth Aust policy makers have made an art form of this

  14. The scientific method is very clear and objective. All we – Red – have to do is to make demands on the Warmists accordingly. Starting off with demanding that they propose their hypotheses. Then testing these in the laboratory.

  15. Form the Red Team to debate the Global Warming Mafia. If the Mafia refuses to debate, let the Red Team present their case unopposed in Fox News. Screw the internet gatekeepers!

    Red Team:
    Judith Curry
    Richard Lindzen
    Roger Pielke Sr.
    John Christy
    Freeman Dyson

    • Mafia does not debate its opponents, but eliminates them. Mafia should be dissolved, and its leaders convicted and placed in prison before any debate cab be had.

  16. Their was doubt about extent of their knowledge in the climate alarmism.

    Or paragraphs or spelling or any notion of making sense … This article concerns what, exactly?

Comments are closed.