A decidedly sarcastic Open Letter to @YouTube

Dear YouTube,

May I first say how pleased I am that climate misinformation videos on your platform will now carry informative links to official data sources correcting the lack of understanding and conspiracist ideation among the less scientifically educated of your viewers.

It’s difficult to know exactly where to start re-educating the sort of people that think somehow just because the Jet Stream has moved around a bit that a hot July doesn’t prove the need to adopt global communism to save us all from the sins of our capitalist folly.

As long as we live in a world in which bourgeois intellectuals are free to own private property and sit around in it thinking and writing what they like, we can only do what little we can to correct the error of their ways. Your commitment to party communications at the end of their silly YouTube clips is therefore a most welcome development and one with which I am delighted to be able to help, having found the following disinformation videos which you will no doubt want to amend with corrective messaging.

A man called Albert Gore can be seen here making a speech after receiving a Nobel prize.

In it he claims arctic ice will be gone by the summer of 2014. A link to the Danish Meteorological Institute can show this to be nonsense. Sea ice is largely stable over the last 15 years, a little below average for sure but then Gore would know how it feels.

One “expert” Gore and conspiracy theorist sites like the Guardian are fond of citing is Professor Peter Wadhams. Within the climate community, his standing isn’t quite what you’d expect for a learned Cambridge professor, as indicated by a series of tweets from NASA’s climate chief, Gavin Schmidt, who took to twitter during one of Wadhams’ laughable presentations:

@ClimateOfGavin: Wadhams still using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics.

Wadhams has several videos on YouTube pronouncing “a farewell to ice”.

These should include the same health warnings as Gore’s. He’s also no stranger to conspiracy theories and has claimed MI5 and “big oil” was behind the tragic deaths of three well known climate scientists, including one who was struck by lightning.

He also apparently failed to report an attempt on his own life only through fear of being labelled a loony, which you might think was preferable to being murdered. Given your recent ban on another well known conspiracy theorist, perhaps just links to authoritative sources might not be enough, I urge you to consider an outright ban.

Other suspect sites like the New York Times have been promoting the idea that the world is beset by wildfires caused by climate change. Even a cursory examination of the data can show this to be propagandist nonsense.

Links to official figures showing the continuing decline in global burn acreages should be provided at the end of any of their stories.

Wildfire occurrence (a) and corresponding area burnt (b) in the European Mediterranean region for the period 1980–2010. Source: San-Miguel-Ayanz et al. [37].

Especially the ones about arson induced fires in Greece where at no time in the last 8,000 years has the vegetation in summer not been bone dry and ready to go up like a firework.

In the UK, an outlet called the BBC has been pushing a far-fetched idea that the world could somehow experience run away global warming and turn into a hothouse.

Again these clips should be qualified by links to authoritative sources explaining scientific concepts like evaporation and clouds and how this must be nonsense otherwise it would have happened in the time of the dinosaurs when the world was anything up to 13° warmer.

So keep up the good work and I’ll keep my eyes peeled for any more disinformation.

Sincerely yours, Tom Peer

Advertisements

163 thoughts on “A decidedly sarcastic Open Letter to @YouTube

    • It’s not as if there are a lot of barriers to entry into a video sharing service.

      Vimeo was always better than YouTube for movies.

    • Agreed. I sincerely HOPE that Google makes a very public spectacle of their patronizing corrections to “wrong thinking” humans everywhere. Please Google … set the record straight … with every post. Be our Big Brother, er Big Sister, er Big Chaz Bono, er …. whatever …

      Light a fire under ALL competing platforms who actually BELIEVE in FREE SPEECH … who refuse to do any EVIL.

      • Google no longer subscribes to the “Do No Evil” mantra… they’ve changed it to “Do The Right Thing”. Of course, the ‘right’ thing is entirely dependent upon perspective… and in this case, it appears that ‘right’ from Google’s perspective is that of advancing their socialist ideology and quashing dissent in order to curry favor from their like-minded big-government comrades such that they increase their chances of receiving a steady and lucrative stream of government funding for undertaking the added task of said advancement and quashing.

    • I wonder which will disappear first: arctic sea ice, Peter Wadhams or Google. I’d put my money on Wadhams followed by Google and no one will see the end of arctic ice.

      • They’ll just redefine disappearance of sea ice, until they can say it disappeared during a future summer.

        The disappearance of Waldhams and/or Goofle wouldn’t be so subjective… Goofle was a typo, but I liked it, so I didn’t fix it… 😎

  1. I have officially stopped using Youtube.
    Alternative platforms will destroy this dying alternative media platform.
    I don’t know if hoisted by it’s own petard, but it sounds like the one with an “r” so I’m using it.
    bitchute, patreon, etc.

    • I stopped using Facebook. My friends said, you can’t fight Zuckerberg all alone. I said that I wasn’t, and sure enough, when its latest earnings report came out, FB stock tanked.

        • You’ll be pleased to learn that Zuckerberg lost $16.8 billion… in one day. $15.1 billion of that in a mere 5 minutes.

          Keep spreading the word and recruiting people to the #WalkAway movement… the liberals will feel it in their wallets and moderate their behavior if they’re smart.

          Of course, they’re not so smart as they like to think they are, so they’ll keep doubling down until their companies are broke… and good riddance to bad rubbish.

      • You know, if enough people leave FB and Twitter, their bottom line will feel it. Maybe won’t end them but at least we have caused them some financial damage.

      • I came home from a trip away and as I went to baggage pickup there was an ad 9 a physical poster no less) saying that Facebook was so opposed to “fake news” etc. Typical marketing spin/defensive PR schpin.

        Then it occurred to me what was really always there:-

        Its not Facebook at all,

        its Fakebook

        and it always was.

        • Fakebook have adverts on about 80% of the billboards around here. There are so many of them it resembles a scene from “They Live”

      • I was banned from Facebook and then to re-instate me they wanted my drivers license, birth certificate or passport to prove to them who I was! I told them to Foxtrot Oscar!

      • I left Facebook recently but set up a completely fake persona simply to monitor the information that they extract from you and to view how they continue to market themselves and encourage usage. I am entirely inactive on it but regularly receive friend suggestions from them, so be warned, if you are a ladies hairdresser, expect lots of links to nail bar proprietors. They may be claim to be able to spot fake news but they are unable to spot fake people.

    • I stopped using Google search (I use DuckDuckGo – even tho it isn’t perfect), Gmail, ‘anything Google’ if I can help it. I deleted my Facebook account (which I had no real info on and didn’t use) when they started assigning ‘political positions’ – conservative, liberal, etc of their own ‘interpretation’ of my beliefs w/o consulting me or providing an ‘opt out’ option, now I add YouTube to the list.

      I wonder why they don’t allow the owners of the youtube videos they ‘edit’ the opportunity to respond to the ‘authoritative sources’ they attach to the videos. Seems only fair that they do so.

      I use twitter almost exclusively to follow my sports teams, but, if they keep it up, I’ll have to abandon that as well.

      • A good search engine is StartPage.com… it uses Google search, but doesn’t forward any of the data that Google collects on its search page. So it’s the best of both worlds.

    • Start hitting them with DMCA and similar. They’re clearly taking an editorial role, which should remove “safe harbor”.

        • It seems to me that these big tech giants monitor content, thus setting themselves up as publishers. Consequently, they subject themselves to liable and should be sued every day along with being charged with trafficking in pornography.

          The phone companies monitor traffic, not content. Google reads everything and it is reasonable to conclude that they are responsible for what is “published”; e.g. the vile pornography delivered to young children on the internet, the conspiracies to defraud that occur all the time on Gmail, etc, etc, etc. If they don’t like the liability they should keep their noses out of all content traversing their servers!

          Just IMHO, of course.

  2. That logger should post that or a similar letter every Day! I certainly don’t agree with every video on U tube, but I do believe in free speech and the right to debate. Everyone has right and responsibility to think for themselves and to live and learn.

    • “Everyone has (the) right and responsibility to think for themselves and to live and learn.”

      That’s actively discouraged among the left.

    • ” Everyone has right and responsibility to think for themselves and to live and learn. ”

      Not according to AGW. They want to try in court anybody that opposes AGW ( and their solutions ) as crimes against humanity. Not some day, 20 years ago.
      Somewhere in the files of WUWT are the prominent names of people who have wished most of the inhabitants death by one sort or the other for deniers and people in general.

    • Strangely, I saw a YouTube video from a far-left loon spouting the usual lefty nonsense and actively inciting violence against conservatives. In the comments section, another leftloon was spouting that he was stocking up on arms and ammo, and was hoping for the day that he could slaughter as many conservatives as possible… even if he had to end the life of his own son in the process (his son being conservative).

      When I pointed out that he was in violation of the law in his incitement to violence (as was the video itself) and that I’d reported him to the appropriate authorities, YouTube banned *me*, and left both the video and the inciting comment untouched.

      This theme repeats itself in many YouTube videos… YouTube is run by fascists who are attempting to quash dissent as means of furthering their socialist agenda. Socialists unrestrained almost always slide into communism (their “progressivism” demands “progress” (read: change) even if that ‘progress’ is regressive)… the chief difference between socialism and communism being that socialism achieves its ends via coercion (reference the recent ‘nudging’ meme the leftists advanced), peer pressure and guilt whereas communism achieves its ends via violence. Thus we can see that the socialists want to plunge headlong straight into communism… they haven’t the historical context to understand the horrors their belief system encompasses when fully implemented.

      Ironically, if they got their way, it’d destroy the very means by which their own company became so large and thus enriched those very socialists.

      No one ever said socialists were very bright.

  3. I suspect youtube would be on a winner if it took this advice on board and would further reduce global mental stress.

    • They’d have to have someone educated enough in basic science to properly code their interface and search routines first.

      Add to that the parsing of “unpopular” data resulting in almost any actual facts prior to 2004 being lost from the search engine and no policing of internal political view forcing agendas and basically everything you can say about RT is factual about youtube as well.

      I watch channels, not youtube.

    • I’m not sure if global mental stress will be reduced or not. Since feelings are more important than facts, stress might increase. I’m glad I’ve been taught to accept correction, especially when I was wrong, all through school and in five languages. I like the teaching I get here as well. Thank you.

  4. Now that ought to do it. I am going to look for a video clip of Danny Divito saying that in the movie Ruthless People.

  5. Excellent letter, sometimes I have to pinch myself that we are living in the heady days of Galileo! Perhaps I shouldn’t say “heady” as warming alarmists might think that gauging out the eyes of true scientists doesn’t go far enough!

  6. A few years ago I published my Youtube video “Vanishing Ice Most Likely All Natural!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaZb0r4G_Gc

    My video was totally based on undeniable peer reviewed science. The foundation of trusted science is open debate where all alternative hypotheses and confounding factors are well vetted.

    To suppress alternative views Youtube or at the very least steer people away from any skeptical arguments, Youtube is now targeting any alternative hypotheses no matter how well supported by the evidence. They are posting a carefully worded “information box” right below the video that serves to label the video as “disinformation” and links to Wikipedia. (Wikipedia was involved in a scandal where one of their editors was removing any skeptical information.)

    The information box has a link (hover over the 3 dots in upper right corner) and a drop down menu entitled “why am I seeing this”. Their explanation for why they added their information box states

    “Information panel providing topical context

    Note: This feature is currently available only in the United States.

    Users may see information from third parties, including Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia, alongside videos on a small number of well-established historical and scientific topics that have often been subject to misinformation online, like the moon landing.

    An information panel providing topical context may appear in search results or on the Watch page of videos. It will include basic, independent third party information about a given topic, and will link to the third party partner’s website to allow viewers to learn more about the topic.

    This information panel will appear alongside videos related to the topic, regardless of the opinions or perspectives expressed in the videos.”

    It is a carefully worded statement to appear objective and justify their nanny government meddling to guide your mind or peddling of their preferred viewpoints. In essence they are posting a dog whistle that the video might be disinformation, while the ones they let stand without commentary or more valid.

    Although youtube claims “This information panel will appear alongside videos related to the topic, regardless of the opinions or perspectives expressed in the videos,” if you google “Vanishing Ice” there are many videos but not all are adorned with their “information panel”. My video is the fifth listed in youtube’s results for Vanishing Ice. Yet mine is the only one in that 5 with their so-called “information panel” . Furthermore their information panel does not deal directly with the evidence my video discusses. It merely creates a link to Wikipedia suggesting man-made global warming is real.

    Youtube and Google are embarking on a slippery slope into intellectual tyranny, situations themselves in position to tell the public what is truth and what is disinformation. The public must be warned of this latest tactic.

    • Jim, very nice, thanks. It looks like Youtube is now taking on a full responsibility for the contents of ANY post.

      • Yes. Youtube should be careful what it wishes for.
        Quite some years ago, Channel4 TV in the UK decided to post a pink triangle (if I remember correctly) on programs/movies that contained material of an explicit sexual nature. (At the time, Channel4 was known as being rather adventurous in what it aired).

        Of course, as expected, some people complained. But more people started switching on/over to watch such broadcasts.
        However, I think the experiment didn’t last very long because viewers were too often disappointed to find the material was usually rather tame.

        • I recall that too and it was rather ridiculous IIRC. I recall before CH4 “Play for Today” on BBC2 was more daring than anything broadcast on CH4.

    • Good video. Thanks. Also thanks for giving the site for the links to all the published works upon which the presentation is based.

    • Jim Steele wrote:
      “(Wikipedia was involved in a scandal where one of their editors was removing any skeptical information.)”

      Yeah, I ran across that guy a couple times. On some pages not even related to climate change, they’d put CAGW misinformation that was blatantly false. I corrected it, they reversed the corrections, I provided peer-reviewed studies proving their information wrong and my information right and corrected the article again, they reversed it again, we got into a long comments-section argument culminating in my bringing in Jimmy Wales to mediate… that was early on, and I think after a few more instances of the same with the same eco-loon editor, the editor first got warned, then booted.

  7. YouTube is a private enterprise. They can allow or disallow whatever information they want.

  8. We’ve fallen a long way when you have become ‘anonymous’ to avoid a public company from trying to destroy you for speaking your opinion about their bad behavior.

  9. YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and all the other computer service providers have a legal get out from court action in that they say they are not publishers, they are just ‘a platform’. They just ‘facilitate’ others to publish their content.

    About time for the law on publishing to be updated?

    • IMHO, I think you are going in the wrong direction, if indeed you are talking about regulating publishing.
      Do you really want someone telling you what you can say??
      Maybe I misunderstood your comment ?

      • Uk,
        Early on when the Internet was becoming more accessible to more people Congress passed a law relieving providers of a service of any liability for what a 3rd party might post on their platform. The rational was these providers were not exercising editorial control over the content. Now that these companies are exercising editorial control they should fall under the classification of being a publisher. As a publisher they should now be held responsible for content on their service. For example, allowing copyright material without prior permission from the copyright holder should make them, as a publisher, vulnerable to being sued.

        • pirates put copyright in a coma and youtube manages its hospice care. they do it very well.
          once, microsoft paid 10 million dollars for the rights to use rolling stone’s Start Me Up to promote windows ™.
          now you can use it yourself – autolicensed by youtube. you just agree to allow ads.

          copyright does get the lip service, still, but mostly, when it is enforced, it is used as the excuse to mess with a particular person.

      • “Do you really want someone telling you what you can say??”

        They (Google, YouTube, etc) already are. It’s a bit late for that question.

  10. Whilst I understand the point, the objections, and the need to take a stance, frankly this is no more than yet another miserable storm in a teacup bound to do YouTube more harm than good.

    The fact is that YouTube, and any other media outlet relies on advertising revenue to survive. The second profits are threatened or viewings drop, the campaign will be pulled.

    And whilst these guys pander to the left, make no mistake tat they invented the term ‘Capitalism by hoovering up al, those advertising dollars on offer for their services.

    Screw with that and all these left wing organisations will begin to bare their own teeth.

    • HotScot wrote:
      “The fact is that YouTube, and any other media outlet relies on advertising revenue to survive. The second profits are threatened or viewings drop, the campaign will be pulled.”

      There’s a simple corrective that can be applied… encourage everyone who disagrees with YouTube acting as censor to run AdBlock Plus (or similar ad blocker) and thereby block all ads. I haven’t seen an ad on YouTube for years.

      Then encourage them to watch as many videos as they can.

      This takes YouTube’s income stream away, while increasing their costs.

      One person doing this won’t have much of an effect… millions doing it will, though.

  11. Very good letter! I have been indulging watching YouTube videos recently just out of interest of a couple of subjects but YouTube throws up suggested videos to watch. And so videos about “flat earthers” are shown. Really strange people who believe this and disbelieve gravity using jugs of oil and water or fruit (Fruit loops rather). But, there was a very short video with Bill Nye saying the earth is a closed system, we cannot leave the Earth, only enter low Earth orbit.

    I am sort of addicted to these now, just to listen to people who really should not post videos stating the Earth is not a globe!

    • There’s no money to be made by silencing the “flat earthers” and no political agenda, therefore, there is no concern about the “truth” in those videos. “Truth” is what yields power to the government and the most income redistribution.

      I’m sure the videos are entertaining.

      • I would recommend doing a quick search and having a watch of one or two. Real eye openers at the scientific illiteracy of a large, and seemingly growing, number of people.

  12. I’m not sure who originally said this but “when a business takes actions that will end in its own demise (commit suicide), it’s best to get out of the way and let them… It opens up opportunity for others…”

  13. What’s all the fuss about? I think this is an “own goal”.

    I expect that people who let others think for them probably don’t watch these kinds of videos at all. People who are searching for factual information will wind up at a link that says something like “global warming is real, all the scientists say so”. Well, for starters, if the video is factual, the video is factual and and the opinion of scientists that global warming is real doesn’t challenge the facts. Anyone curious enough to do their own verification will find out that the facts are correct. Which will no doubt prompt them to start asking more questions.

    I think this policy is going to turn into a Streisand moment for them. Anyone with a lick of sense will see that the links youtube provides don’t prove the facts incorrect. They’re shining a light on facts that can only be discredited by an appeal to authority that proves nothing.

    • YouTube is counting on the Appeal to Authority. That’s how it works—everyone must think the same and the “authorities” will tell you how to think. Don’t scoff at it. There are millions who have never had an original thought in their lives. They live by what social media tells them is important, live by what the school taught them, etc. It’s not just a few people. Considering that a sizable portion of American thinks Daddy Government is always right and should always care for them, appeal to authority is very, very effective.

      • And per what I said above, THOSE people will NEVER go looking for an alternative point of view in the first place. The only people who this will affect are ones who ARE looking for both sides of the argument, and Appeal to Authority not only fails with them, it reinforces their interest in verifying facts for themselves. A sheeple that meets Appeal to Authority notices nothing. Anyone with an ounce of ability to think for themselves goes on high alert when they see that BS and starts asking more questions.

        Own goal.

  14. WONDERFUL!
    Rational scientists (and Conservatives if I may be political) have to redirect the Progressives’ tactics right back at them.
    A great example is the issue of “Fake News”. Who remembers that that meme was actually started by the Progressive MSM to counter some of the early DJT statements without having to resort to data. And now Trump beats them over the head with their own phrase! (Google and Wikipedia seemed to have “forgotten” that provenance.)

    A good place to start is with some of more effective, yet benign of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.


    “4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
    “5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
    “6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

    And I have to say I ENJOYED this post!!

  15. I want to thank U-Tube for this service. From now on I’ll know to not waste time on climate related videos that don’t include the information box.

  16. LOL… You’ll find yourself banned from YouTube Tom. Lefties don’t have any sense of humor, irony or perspective. Their entire beings are driven by vindictive hatred.

  17. The “warning” text is supposed to be something like

    “Global warming

    Global warming also referred to as climate change, is the observed century-scale rise in average temperature of the Earth’s climate and its related effects. Multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”

    as pictured here

    http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/08/08/youtube-adding-fact-checks-to-videos-that-question-climate-change/

    under the Prager video of Richard Lindzen’s presentation – WHICH ACTUALLY SAYS EXACTLY THAT, namely, that the Earth’s climate has been warming since the end of Little Ice Age. So can we expect that this text (or equivalent) will be also displayed under videos that actually falsify the existing scientific evidence?

    Not really because that it is not the point of this exercise to supposedly warn viewers of scientifically skewered videos. It is YouTube and Google acting as bellwethers, a warning to all true AGW believers to ignore the skeptic video, quite in line with the ‘othering’ technique described in this posting

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/23/why-its-so-hard-to-convince-warmists/

    Take a reality check, galls & guys: warmists have much more money and influence then skeptics, so they can engage in such costly propaganda campaigns. Scientific truth has nothing to do with it, maintaining their income (and even increasing it) does.

    miso

  18. This is a blog.
    Subject to WordPress TOS
    People comment on the Posts and other comments.
    Subject to the blog Rules of the road.

    You post on youtube
    Google provides the servers and bandwidth for free.
    Other people can post on your video if you open comments.
    Google can play ads on your video.
    Google can ALSo add their own comments indicating that your video is fiction, conspiract crap
    or whatever.

    They have no obligation to allow you to post whatever you want.
    Just as you can comment on commenters or delete comments,
    Google too gets to say what they want to say on the page THEY provide you
    for hosting.

    dont like that?

    https://peertube.live/

    there is no constitutiona right to a platform. You get what you pay for. You paid zip for youtube
    and should not be surprised that they will exert control.

    build a better mousetrap.

    The same way that WUWT is Anthonys house and he gets to make the rulz
    Youtube is googles house.
    If you take a dump in Foyer, then expect them to dis invite you, or put up a sign.

    Who gets to decide what is fake news? the houseowner.

    Tough.

        • Some people should understand that some governments have done something about it (US, UK, and others), despite all the hand-wringing about inaction, and it doesn’t appear to have changed anything.
          To have any chance of reducing global CO2 levels, there would need to be concerted effort by every government, and then and only then would there be an opportunity to measure the effect, if any, of the reduction (if, indeed, it did result in a reduction).

          • No, physics does not tell us all we need to know. Physics tells us the hard facts, the measurable facts. The interpretation is up to politics, scientists and activists. That’s a very different thing. Physics only tells us CO2 can re-emit infrared radiation. Beyond that, it’s all guesses and interpretation, agendas and reputations to defend.

          • You made my point. Physics tells you all you need to know. The hard facts. GHGs warm the planet, you cannot emit them with zero effect.
            That is all you need to know. think harder

          • GHG’s warm the planet. To what extent?

            No one claims they have no effect. Try voiding using straw man arguments — think harder.

            The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How many years of quality, non-adjusted, non- proxy climate data do we have?

            To suggest that we know the global temperature in 1850 to one tenth of one degree Celsius is not only completely absurd, it is also completely unscientific.

          • No the physics is fine, your filter is the problem and that is why posting lies on Youtube should be called out.

          • Ryan,

            The lab physics shows that a doubling of CO2 should produce warming of 1.1 or 1.2 degree C. But that’s without feedbacks in the complex climate system.

            Actual observations show that the warming is less than that, which is what one should expect on a self-regulating water planet. Rather and IPCC’s antiscientific fantasy of positive feedbacks and 3.0 or 4.5 degrees C.

          • Biology says CO2 is what plants need to grow, and that it is good for trees to have more CO2 in the atmosphere.

            Mann´s hockey stick shows that trees grow faster when it is warmer. Well, at least YAD06 did. And that is good for the planet.

        • Doing something about CO2 is not the same as trying, via extreme wealth and monopolies, to remove freedom of speech and create a state science. I doubt you’d be so philosophical if this created a state religion, which could be done EXACTLY the same way.

          • look who is alarmist now.. too funny.
            Youtube cannot remove your freedom of speach. You have no right to post anything you like on their platform.
            it is THEIR PROPERTY. they provide the servers, NOT YOU.
            they pay for the bandwidth, not you.

            Now if YOU post a video, do you have to let any clown comment on your video? Nope. you can censor people, just as anthony can censor people here.

            Its a sad day when I have to explain this on WUWT.

            State science? Nobody is stopping you from proving that AGW theory is wrong.
            go ahead, get your nobel prize.

    • In response to user reports, we have disabled some features of Steven Mosher,
      including comments, sharing, likes/dislikes, and suggested videos,
      because he posts content that may be inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.

      Enjoy the silence.

      • Nobody forces you to post to Youtube. If you want an uncensored hosting service just go to the dark web. Nobody can force Anthony to let my comments through. His choice.
        His house. There is an internet outside of google and FB, go find it. If I am silenced here I just move. My choice. Silenced on youtube? start your own.

        Freedom aint free.

        • Everyone who disapproves of the new censorship policies incrementally implemented by Google after it bought out YouTube can simply vote with their feet.
          An exodus occurs to a new or current platform, which requires a vast network of new servers to accommodate the traffic. The redundant duplication of infrastructure has a “carbon footprint”, but only a few people like Steven Mosher express any concern about it, or complain about the waste of resources involved in continuously trying to circumvent the Thought Police.
          Google buys out the new platform, then partner’s with governments, NGOs and special individuals to censor or censure content — like it does with YouTube.

          “Freedom ain’t free,”said Steve in a moment of Confucian. I think he meant, “it’s only for those who can afford it.”

          • You obviously have not heard of the distributed web, IPFS, and the work a bunch of us are doing to create a web infrastructure that cannot be controlled or censored.

            you guys whine about your freedoms like a bunch of snowflakes, while those of us with foresight and imagination are building a place where you cant be censored. It wont happen overnight.

            Talk is cheap

        • No one forces you to post here. Same thing. You can be silenced and best of all, you think it’s the right thing to do.

          Henceforth, there should be a box that occasionally appears and says “Steven Mosher advocating removing his comments”
          to remind people of how open-minded you are.

          • Are you that clueless?
            Can anthony post anything he likes on his blog? think hard now.
            No. he is limited by the law and by wordpress TOS.
            Interesting Example. There are some activities that are legal in one
            jurisdiction, but illegal in another.
            Does anthony post things here that he disagrees with ? youtube is doing the
            same thing. Under the video they provide a link to wikipedia
            Look, if the video is solid, and people are linked to the “other side”
            dont you trust them use their brains and evalaute both sides?

            dont the moderators here make decisions about what gets through?

            you have no right to post whatever you like here or on youtube.

            youtube is making a decision about what it will allow, and what it will comment on by linking to the “other side”

            Personally I would run youtube differently. But rather than just complain,
            I’ll go work on technology that makes censorship harder.

            you go on blabbing, and do nothing. typical.

    • Now that YouTube has because something of a mass social resource, instead of just a niche on the Internet, it’s OK and even desirable for it to post warning notices on videos that are seen by society to be crankish or worse—even though mistakes will be made (some crankish views will turn out to be correct, or at least within the Overton window) and even though bias will result in unfair signage and non-signage (of cranks ideas that are socially acceptable).

      What’s bad is going beyond warning notices to banning, which social media sites have recently done. They should have employed warning notices first.

      In a gray area is shadow-banning and low-ranking (or no-ranking) of relevant but anti-consensus items in search results.

      In the long run, if global temperatures cool or run flat, these warning notices will become an embarrassing albatross around the neck of establishment authority, de-legitimizing the views of Wikipedia (on certain types of subjects, at a minimum).

    • I understand that (which is why I deleted my Facebook account), but, I think you are missing the point. Of course youtube is within it’s rights as a ‘free platform’ provider to allow or disallow whatever content they wish, but, that isn’t what they are doing. They are making judgements about the ‘quality’ of the content and adding ‘editorial’ content to ‘some’ videos (of their choosing), making them a ‘publisher’ rather than a provider of a service.

      Youtube should (and has every right to) delete posted videos they deem ‘misinformation/fake news’, not provide ‘counter arguments’ to them. Doing so they leave the ‘simple provider of a free platform’ and become a media outlet with all the obligations that engenders.

      • Yes, as soon as they start “owning” the content, which is implied in their marking of the videos, they become subject to all kinds of legal obligations.

      • “They are making judgements about the ‘quality’ of the content and adding ‘editorial’ content to ‘some’ videos (of their choosing), making them a ‘publisher’ rather than a provider of a service.”

        1. They have the right to provide their own view. The same way Anthony takes a science
        piece and supplies his own view.
        2. You want a debate? Your video provides side A, youtube points to side B.
        afraid much?
        3. Providing a link to a different view is no different than providing link to related
        videos.

    • And you would be fully in favor of YouTube labelling warmist videos as “bad science” if a skeptical group acquired the medium. Sure you would.

      • Yes I would. Anthony takes science content, posts it and then comments that it is bad.
        I support that. You see, I am not afriad of seeing the other side.

        Youtube tells me X is bad. Thanks for your opinion youtube, I will judge for myself.

        Not a sheeple like you who demands a place to say what you like without contradiction.

        And owrse not only do you demand a place where you cant be contradicted, you want it without paying.

  19. I fully agee with those that think this was a bad decision for the warmists. None likes to be told what to think, and the bias in FB, Google, Utube only becomes extremely clear. This will backfire on them, the confidence inn MSM will god even further down. And this is also a clear evidence that they are becomming desperate. The sense that they are loosing the information battle. Just let them shoot themselves in the feet.

  20. C’mon now, play the game and try a contrary view.

    They mean well and how would you prove otherwise? They have good intentions by the truck-load. They have the computers/servers and computer grunt to power this thing plus boundless electrical power to keep it afloat.
    It ‘helps’ them, to maintain their Bubbles of Magical Thought and exist within same. It is fuzzy warm cuddly and nice. A return to the womb.

    And likewise for a huge number of punters. By virtue of *their* drug habits (carbohydrate food, refined sugar, alcohol, cannabis, opiate, caffeine, Ibuprofen, Fluoxetine and other less-than-legal shit) they are all inside Magical Thought Bubbles and this kind of stuff will help them.
    It removes the need to think about stuff. It makes life easier, fuzzy cuddly and warm and aids in their return to the womb.

    It is thus self sustaining. (Sustaining – now there’s a good and contemporary buzzword. This is so sweet just as Google hoped for)
    What Is Not To Like?

    Possibly only (or certainly) any engineering types will see the catch – it is a positively fed back loop.
    But what do engineers know. They just make stuff. They don’t ‘do’ high ideals and engage in World Saving so let’s just ignore them…

  21. Excellent start.
    Turn these officious ignorant bigots arguments against them.
    We should start reviewing youtube and actually filing complaints against the alarmist anti-science videos.
    We should start posting videos in youtube and elsewhere listing the mistakes in alarmist videos.

  22. Micro$oft is threatening deplatforming of GAB.ai alt-network. Tech oligarchs will get around to all alternatives soon enough.

    • So the rational, scientific people can’t overcome tech oligarchs? What kind of people are we? Please don’t tell me it’s “sooooo hard”. Everything worthwhile is hard. Get out there and crush the oligarchs.

  23. CLOUD CONTROL: Isn’t it time someone pointed out that there is nothing to be scared of as warmings have been regularly and repeatedly curtained in the last millio year climate record by warmer seas producing water vapour that turns into clouds that COOL the planet by conducting heat to abolute zero’ish space and by reflecting the dominant incoming solar energy back into space to maintain equilibrium. We are at the warmest possible level of this cycle and wit the highest sea levels. Going up in any significant way is unlikely, the clouds will shut it down at the levels of temperature and humidity that form clouds that we are at. CO2 is tiny sideshow in terms of global climate control, and certainly cannot overcome the clouds, as it fails to do at the termination of each interglacial warming..

    While there are oceans this basic and dominant mechanism of control just works, scary models of actually tiny but over amplified by computer modellers CO2, and other trace gases, are based on simple erroneous assumptions about increased water vapour levels at interglacial temperatures, which is negative feedback to increasing temperatures, on the clear record. Not runaway warming. It doesn’t work like that. The IPCC is simply wrong, and its models are based on plainly erroneous assumptions that deny the established reality of the ice age cycle.

    ACO2 at 1W/m^2, or whatever it really is (less) is is a tiny effect compared to clouds regulating the c.240W/m^2 reaching the surface, that the clouds manage quite well, plus any dust and other particulates that also help form clouds by nucleation. This is well known science from the records of the recent stable ice age cycles between clear and very tight historic temperature limits , average c.8 degrees in 288 Kelvin, that prefer ice ages but every 100Ka “suddenly” warms, due to some unknown effect of planetary orbital eccentricity, by 12 degrees at the poles, 5 degrees at the equator, over 7Ka, 0.02 deg pa. Nothing happens suddenly in human terms. This delivers the steady few thousand year warm snap we enjoy before the planet cools back to an ice age for another >70Ka until the process repeats itself on the MIlankovitch 100Ka eccentricity cycle. No runaway occurs, although the warming ends while CO2 is at record levels and rising.

    SO HOW DOES SUCH A RELENTLESS RISE END? Simple. The sudden and rapparently elentless “runaway” warming is firmly ended by the very obvious effect of increased clouds and precipitation, as ice albedo reduction also ends as it recedes behind the polar circles, all in the well studied geological record. THis happens while CO2 is still rising, as more is degassed from the warming oceans, but self evidently has an insignificant effect on the dominat climate control of clouds at the level of humidity prevailing at the higher atmospheric temperature levels, which the oceans control and must track by equilibrium at the contact surface.

    Clouds must have been the dominant control of climate since there were oceans, certainly for the last million years. Beacause it happens like this and there isn’t another effect anywhere near powerful enough to exert such a controlling force on climate.

    For planet Earth, “IT’S ABOUT THE CLOUDS, STUPID”. They correct for Earth induced warming variations as well as incoming solar power variation, which has been significant. What else really can?

    All these other small effects are largely scientific introspection to produce papers and make money from science. Fake or real, its conclusions are all in the noise of planetary climate, marginal and destructive of more useful initiatives we can spend out treasure upon to protect people from real problems in fact, much of them social problems of more people in living in marginal or dangerous environments they should not be in.

    Carbon reduction remedies are wholly bogus of course. Whatever small effect these natural trace gasses, including our effect on them, may have relative to serious planetary scale controls, the controlling clouds will easily deal with such marginal effects with the tiniest increase or decrease. It’s just obvious. But this natural solution, that has preserved our equilibrium as most hospitable to life just above the temperature liquid water freezes, and well below where it boils, can’t be exploited to create a lot of jobs and energy subsidies for making energy supply worse in every way, to no useful gain for the people paying, and with no significant effect on the cloud control. *

    *Technical Note: Renewables are inherently weak enrgy sources, resource intensive and inadequate, and subsidies can’t cahnge these phsyical limits. Renewables cannot in technical delivery fact usefully reduce CO2 at grid energy supply level versus the better solutions of gas replacing coal then nuclear, nor are they adequate to power most countries grids at today’s level without the 100% back up of the their fossil hosts on the grid. Renewables on their own are a wholly delusional solution for most countries, not enough renewable energy can be captured at whatever cost, not when needed, peak demand occurs at lowest renewable supply for many, and batteries are VERY, VERY expensive, hold very small amounts of energy per $ and and don’t generate any – so where’s the energy coming from? All in direct technical fact, no consensus required. Examples on request. Or just watch Sir David MacKay’s last TV interview, the UK DECC’s Cheif Scientist for most of the Department’s life, and his very direct “appalling delusion” statement. Always worth a watch if you are not in touch with the engineering and scientific reality of grid energy delivery.

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/03/idea-of-renewables-powering-uk-is-an-appalling-delusion-david-mackay?CMP=share_btn_fb

  24. Don’t trust anything our UK BBC (British Biased Controllers) transmit – I’m not going to renew the expensive licence fee next year with their CRAP NEWS (Climate Research Always Pays Never Ending Wasteful Science); they pulled Prof David Bellamy off air because his views were not in line with the CAGW scam; they are also linked to the Open University who are strong CAGW advocates – it’s big business!

  25. Well said. The BBC has been “promoting” a story that the sea level will rise by TWO FEET in this century (I think). This is ludicrous and they should be fined for putting out such drivel.

  26. Please U-Tube stop! By jumping on the climate bandwagon and pretending to know that humans can control the weather through our energy systems you make it clear to all you have no clue. Then you lend your reputation to the cause of vaccines which have saved hundreds of millions of lives and still do today. The uninformed observer can only assume that vaccine science is as ill founded as global warming theories. You can’t do anything but harm pretending to be an authority when, to any sane observer, you are totally hoodwinked by the least persuasive evidence ever to be published in supposedly scientific journals. There is plenty of room for controversy around some vaccines and the industry and commerce attached to same, but no one should be led to believe that the basic childhood vaccines are anything but a huge advantage to all and especially to our young. Your endorsement, once you have jumped on the climate bandwagon, is as useful as a celebrity dissertation on autism.

    This is the problem with deciding you have the right to censor. It comes with the requirement to know what is right. But you clearly don’t. If you want to be a climate zealot admit it and stay away from real science. Consider the harm you may do as you legitimize people’s skepticism of things that really matter. The climate mafia are the same ones who deny reliable cheap electricity to the poorest on this planet. Among all of the other downsides of this energy imperialism is the fact that getting safe vaccines to the most in need requires refrigeration and transport – guess what those depend on.

  27. Baltimore Bubs
    “YouTube is a private enterprise. They can allow or disallow whatever information they want.”
    ======
    Steven Mosher
    “There is an internet outside of google and FB, go find it.”
    =======

    ► That is the old “blacks can eat at a different restaurant” argument.’ – Tony Heller

    And those restaurants aren’t entirely “private” enterprises…

    • ‘That is the old “blacks can eat at a different restaurant” argument.’ – Tony Heller’

      That’s just simplistic nonsense. If anyone wants to use such a facile comparison, better would be: ‘That is the old “conspiracy-theorists, tin-foil hat wearers, or fake-news spreaders can use their own versions of Facebook, Google, Twitter, etc.” argument.’
      (And I wish they would go and do that, leaving the rest of us to enjoy the popular, rational services without all that irrational, ‘skeptical’ rubbish that clogs up the Internet and persuades only the gullible and misinformed)

    • err no it is not the same as the argument about racial discrimination.
      U.S. Code Title 42, Chapter 21-Civil Rights

      Business can discriminate against the stupid, heller should know.

      Guess what Heller used to have publishing rights here at WUWT
      BUT
      he was stupid and refused to admit an obvious error, so Anthony did the right thing
      and discriminated against the stupid.

      heller left, found his own place so the stupid lives on

      • Google (Alphabet) is a publicly held company. Their board of directors have a fiduciary duty to all of their shareholders and stakeholders.

        Making corporate decisions based on SJW ideas can and will negatively impact shareholder value. Unfortunately, the only remedy shareholders have is through civil litigation.

    • Google was developed with funding from DARPA, meaning YOUR TAXES AT WORK. The fastidious ignoring of such facts in defense of the Ministry of Truth is disturbing.

      “Conspiracy theorist” is an Orwellian epithet having no purpose but to enforce a taboo. Conspiracy is the most prosecuted crime on the planet. Theory is just a fancy word for “explanation”

      When the establishment feeds the populace a conspiracy theory about Russian interference in elections, the establishment Thought Police don’t get excited and start bludgeoning people with their favorite Orwellian epithet in a desperate effort to control the narrative.
      Only non-establishment conspiracy theories are BAD, and need to be CENSORED to protect ordinary people from committing thought crimes

      And that’s what this Soviet-style purge of the social networks in the lead up to the mid-term election is all about – determining the postmodern socially-constructed version of “reality”.
      e.g. “”You’re not going to be President”

  28. “MI5 and “big oil” was behind the tragic deaths of three well known climate scientists, including one who was struck by lightning”. To be fair – MI5 have spent billions making these lighting strike assassinations look entirely natural

  29. hehehehe
    The problem of course is that what science says is often incomplete, and what advocates say is not in the science (like Wadhams) espc about the future. The Left has always been about shutting down critics and environmentalists have always been about making wild claims. Do they get “checked”? hahah no.

    The other conceit is that even when the science is stated correctly this is claimed to immediately and without question necessitate their preferred policy option. Even if is going to get 3 deg hotter, this does not mean that windmills are useful or that a carbon tax will work or that dropping iron filings in the ocean is a nifty idea. The assumed causal link is not real.

  30. Google of course is a huge user of electrical power. Like Apple, it builds server farms in the Pacific NW to take advantage of cheap hydro power, but elsewhere the tech giants rely on fossil fuels.

    The hydro power that used to fuel aluminum refineries now goes into server farms.

  31. Who, just watched “Sir Anthony” run at Arlington Park in a $100,000 race, and didn’t bet a penny on it cause it seemed too easy.
    I did, it won at 35-1.
    Onward and upward!!!, and “F” me.

  32. I know someone who tried to report YouTube to itself for spamming climate videos. Really, isn’t that what they’re doing?
    They’ve taken an alarmist position, so how is it any different than an alarmist who trolls climate skeptics’ videos?
    Also, the last I knew, YouTube isn’t a climate scientist, and adding to our content is no different than someone hacking our accounts. It’s no longer a social media site, it’s a leftist political site. They have no objectivity whatsoever.

  33. The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably, and ironically, DENY that the Medieval Warming Period (MWP, 1,000 years ago) was global and likely warmer than it is now. These folks acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. They likely take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain a global, warmer MWP. Why? Because their models require an increasing co2 level, plus depend even more on the built-in ASSUMPTION that water vapor feedback, the actual culprit, causes 2 to 3 times the temperature increase as brought on by the increase in co2. However, co2 did not increase during the MWP nor for hundreds of thousands of years before the MWP.

    With no co2 increase there is obviously also no temperature increase brought on by water vapor feedback. The MWP global temperature increase must have therefore been strictly due to natural climate variation. It therefore becomes plausible that our current warming (such as it is) may also be mostly due to NATURAL climate variation. But that, of course, conflicts with the UN’s IPCC (and other alarmists’) claim that our current warming is mostly due to the human-caused increase in co2 level.

    However, it’s easy to show that the MWP was indeed both global and at least as warm as now. While that says nothing about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. Most alarmists also insist that the “science is settled”.

    A brief meta-analysis, using numerous peer-reviewed studies as well as other easily accessible data follows which demonstrate that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as it is now.

    First, the MWP trend is conclusively shown to have been global by borehole temperature data. The 6,000 boreholes scattered around the globe are not constrained to just those locations where ice core data has been used. A good discussion of the borehole data can be found at Joanne Nova’s website.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/the-message-from-boreholes/

    Next, the receding Alaskan Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000-year-old shattered forest, still in its original position. No trees (let alone a forest) have grown at that latitude anywhere near that site since the MWP. It was obviously significantly warmer in that part of Alaska than it is now, and Alaska is quite distant from Europe.

    There have been hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies, and the earlier results (showing a global, warmer MWP) were acknowledged in earlier IPCC reports. These studies were carried out around the globe by investigators and organizations representing numerous countries. It’s curious that Mann and his cohort did not give more consideration to those study results before presenting their conflicting “hockey stick” claim. In fact, one of their own players, Phil Jones, admitted publicly that if the MWP was global and as warm as now then it is a different “ballgame”. More important, peer-reviewed studies continue to regularly show up, also confirming that the MWP was warmer than now.

    The Greenland Temperature study (gisp2), for example, shows, among other things, that Greenland was warmer during the MWP than it is now. Greenland is distant from both Europe and Alaska.

    The numerous MWP peer-reviewed studies have been cataloged at the co2science.org website. Dr. Idso, the proprietor of that website, is a known skeptic. However, the peer-reviewed studies were independently performed by numerous researchers, representing dozens of countries, using various temperature proxy techniques. Idso is merely operating as the librarian. These studies now span several decades and new confirming investigations continue to show up regularly.

    Interested readers should satisfy themselves by going to co2science.org and choosing (say) a half-dozen regions (all should be remote from Alaska, Greenland, and Europe). Focus on the subset of the MWP studies which directly address temperature. Choose at least one temperature study from each selected region. (Idso provides brief summaries but feel free to review the study in its original format.) You will find that each of the selected study sites was warmer during the MWP than now. These study results are also consistent with the temperature trend exhibited by borehole data.

    There are also other confirming observations which include such things as antique vineyards found at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today, old burial sites found below the perma-frost, and Viking maps of most of Greenland’s coastline.

    The MWP peer-reviewed studies as well as various other data are all consistent with the borehole data results. This meta-study is an aggregate of straightforward peer-reviewed studies. The studies can be replicated and the research results do NOT require the use of controversial “models”, or dubious statistical machinations.

    One of the “talking points” posed by alarmists, to “rebut” the claim of a global, warmer MWP is their requirement that warming in all regions during the MWP must be synchronous. Obviously the MWP studies were generally performed independently, so start and end dates of each study during the MWP may vary. However, anyone foolish enough to accept that “synchronous” argument must then admit that our current warming would also not qualify as a global warming event.

    For example, many alarmists go back into the 1800s when making their claims about the total global warming temperature increase. However, that ignores a three decade GLOBAL cooling period from about 1945 to 1975. That globally non-synchronous period is much more significant than just a region or two being “out of synch”. The entire world was “out of synch”. Their global warming considerations must therefore be constrained to the relatively brief warming beginning in 1975.

    There are also other reasons to exclude consideration of temperature increases during the 1800s. There was a significant NATURAL warming beginning around 1630 (the first low temperature experienced during the LIA) and that period of increasing temperatures continued until at least 1830 (perhaps until 1850) before co2 began increasing. However, it would have taken many subsequent decades, possibly more than a century, for co2 increase after 1830, at an average 2 ppmv per year, to accrue sufficiently before having ANY impact on thermometer measurements. Neither is there any reason to expect that the 200 years of natural and significant warming beginning in 1630 ended abruptly after 2 centuries merely because co2 level began increasing in 1830 at a miniscule 2ppmv per year. Also, how much, and for how long was the temperature increase after 1830 due mostly to the continuing natural climate warming beginning in 1630?

    Any current considerations about global warming must be constrained to a starting point following the cooling which ended in 1975. The global temperature began steadily increasing in 1975 and that increase basically terminated during the 1997/98 el Nino. Even the IPCC (a bureaucracy which cannot justify its mission if current warming is NATURAL) has reluctantly acknowledged a GLOBAL “hiatus” in temperature increase following 1998. (Please recall that this is in spite of the fact that co2 level has steadily continued increasing since it started around 1830-1850.

    NASA, in comparing recent candidate years for “hottest” year devoted significant time to wringing its hands about differences of a few hundredths of one degree. Such miniscule differences are not significant because the uncertainty error is at least one tenth of a degree. Some argue that the uncertainty error is significantly larger.

    So, this current “global warming” controversy merely involves just over two decades, (1975 to 1998) and that warming has been followed by almost another two decades of no further statistically significant increase in temperature. But it turns out that even the period from 1975 to 1998 apparently does not qualify as a global warming period because there were numerous “out of synch” regions and/or countries which have experienced no additional warming over durations which include the 1975-1998 span.

    http://notrickszone.com/2018/02/18/greenland-antarctica-and-dozens-of-areas-worldwide-have-not-seen-any-warming-in-60-years-and-more/#sthash.5Hq7Xqdh.JsV4juVL.dpbs

    Another alarmist rebuttal attempt is that the MWP studies cataloged by co2science.org have been cherry-picked. (Dozens of peer-reviewed studies spanning several decades, plus various other well known facts, all cherry-picked?) Readers should satisfy themselves by searching for conflicting credible peer-reviewed MWP temperature studies which have not been cataloged by co2science.org. But, keep in mind that a few stray conflicting studies will not likely have much impact, because, as the previous link demonstrates, there is no shortage of regions showing no increasing warming during the supposedly 1975-1998 global warming period.

    • Yes. The most rapid warming on the historical record (CET and Armagh) is from1968-1730. Then there’s the temperature rise since 1840, punctuated by cooling from 1880-1910, the rise from 1910-1940, the cooling from 1940-1965, the rise from 1970-1998, and the statistical plateau since then, all during the almost uninterrupted rise of CO2. Of course, there was that period from 1929-1931 when human production of CO2 declined by 30% and temps kept rising to 1940.
      CO2 is vitally important, but at current levels, at this time, is one of the least important factors for climate change.
      50% of its GHG effect is in the first 20 ppm, and it declines exponentially after that. We are in the fifth half-life of that decline.

  34. No, the only time the world was 13C warmer was at the P-T extinction excursion. The dinosaurs basked at temps 3-7C warmer. The Eemian, 120,000 years ago, was 1C warmer with seas 6+ meters higher. The world has spent about half of the last 500 million years in the vicinity of 22C.

    But bravo on the general treatment. Shame on youtube/google.

Comments are closed.