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

150
Leave a Reply

47 Comment threads
103 Thread replies
6 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
93 Comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

I welcome You Tube and Google making their biased public – because this will only hasten the development of unbiased alternatives.

For example: https://www.real.video/channel/infowarsnetwork

Theo

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.

Curious George

Let’s move to Vimeo. Google can keep the neutered Youtube.

Sheri

Vimeo just removed Alex Jones videos. It begins.

Hivemind

Try DailyMotion.com

WXcycles

You’d think by now youtube etal would have realised that echo-chambers are self-defeating, they have just undermined themselves.

The facts always win in the end.

Youtube will be just another discredited maligned echo-chamber, not worthy of existence or anyone.

Kalifornia Kook

Thanks to Theo, Curious, and Hivemind for listing alternatives.

old construction worker

Wow thanks. I didn’t even know about Vimeo.

Kenji

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.

R. Shearer

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… 😎

noaaprogrammer

A fearless, peerless letter.

honest liberty

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.

Theo

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.

Latitude

Facebook’s Traffic Is Down Nearly 50% in 2 Years

http://fortune.com/2018/08/09/facebook-traffic-down/

kramer

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.

Komrade Kuma

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.

sparko

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

Patrick MJD

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!

Peter Plail

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.

Pameladragon

A friend’s cat has his own Facebook page….

rapscallion

Just purrfect!

DC Cowboy

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.

Tom Halla

Anti-trust seems appropriate.

Jax

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

Steven Fraser

Agreed!

JC in Houston

The former lawyer, former newspaperman, now well esteemed scifi writer John C. Wright has a post up: http://www.scifiwright.com/2018/08/alex-jones-and-the-communications-decency-act/ which covers most of the matter. I would commend it to your reading.

Bill

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.

Philip Verslues

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.

ScienceABC123

“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.

Alasdair

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

prjindigo

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.

John Minich

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.

james francisco

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.

James Francisco
prjindigo

Sorry, Tom, I don’t think the people in charge of youtube have reading comprehension skills.

u.k.(us)

Umm, it was a Nobel PEACE Prize, kinda like a participation trophy.

Curious George

That makes them buddies of Yasser Arafat.

Greg Cavanagh

He was a great peace loving person too. He earned that trophy by not killing anyone for about 4 years while he was holed up in a bunker surrounded by Israelis.

u.k.(us)

Israelis don’t play.

Brian Casey

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!

tom0mason

Dear YouTube,

Let me be first congratulate you in unselfishly opening the market up in hosting/sharing videos. I’m sure Vimeo, Bitshute, DTube, and all the rest listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services and any they have missed all congratulate you on this fine move.

Well done!

Gunga Din

You shouldn’t have said that.
Now Wike will delete all those links!

Pat Frank

Priceless! 🙂

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.

Curious George

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

Steven Fraser

… and stepping into a pile of ‘Contingent Liability’ poo…

u.k.(us)

“The public” will find a workaround, you watch.

michael hart

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.

Patrick MJD

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.

Wim Röst

Thank you Jim. Your comment could have been / should have been a post.

Aaron

Would be nice if the AG began antitrust proceedings against them. Paging Jeff Sessions.

ozspeaksup

hmm, i wonder what would happen if people kept mailing to “report” the agw ones instead?

Sara Hall

Already doing my bit there & hoping I’m just one small voice among many.

Crispin in Waterloo

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

Beetle

Just removed YouTube from my phone.

Baltimore Bubs

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

Aaron

They can also be targeted with antitrust.

Sheri

So was the monopoly phone company.

Reg Nelson

No they are not, YouTube, Google, Alphabet are a publicly listed corporation. Why do people persist in repeating this ignorant lie?

Urederra

Really?

Could you elaborate, please?

ScienceABC123

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.

tom0mason

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?

u.k.(us)

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 ?

Greg F

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.

tom0mason

You got it in one Greg 🙂

Richard of NZ

Kim Dotcom may beg to differ.

gnomish

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.

Sheri

“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.

u.k.(us)

So, you’ve given up?
I didn’t think so….

DC Cowboy

Doesn’t adding ‘information’ to a ‘facilitated’ content make them ‘publishers’?

Greg Cavanagh

Or deleting content? It sure seems like it, as it’s no longer just a carrier is it.

Bruce Cobb

Methinks YouTube should do a U-turn, before they become YouBoob.

BruceC

Old Aussie joke;

Can you make a u-turn?

No, but I can make her eyes pop!

(Mods, feel free to delete if inapropriate)

Mr.

More relevant as a Kiwi joke, Bruce?

HotScot

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.

Patrick MJD

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!

Sheri

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.

Patrick MJD

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.

Bill H

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…”

davidmhoffer

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.

Sheri

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.

davidmhoffer

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.

Ulric Lyons

Climate Narcissists believe they have a moral imperative to make stuff up.

Richard

Excellent!!!!!!

George Daddis

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!!

Rick C PE

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.

J.H.

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.

Miso Alkalaj

True. I am a leftist and I have no sense of humor.

(Get it?)

If it is necessary to add links to official sources to videos posted by skeptics it is also necessary to add links to statistical and methodological errors in the videos of the official sources.

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/27/spurious-correlations-in-climate-science-2/

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/06/25/a-greenhouse-effect-of-atmospheric-co2/

https://chaamjamal.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/tcr-transient-climate-response/

Miso Alkalaj

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

Steven Mosher

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.

RyanS

I think the government should do something about it.

Steven Mosher

Other people think the government should do something about c02.

Peter Plail

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).

Steven Mosher

System lags. You dont have to measure the effect. Physics tell you all you need to know.

Sheri

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.

Steven Mosher

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

Reg Nelson

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.

matt

And the Physics shows it is all B.S.

RyanS

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

Theo

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.

Urederra

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.

Sheri

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.

Dean_from_Ohio

Sheri, CAGW actually IS a state religion!

Steven Mosher

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.

Khwarizmi

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.

Steven Mosher

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.

Peter Plail

This is one of those rare occasions that Steven has hit the nail on the head.

Khwarizmi

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.”

Steven Mosher

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

Sheri

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.

Steven Mosher

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.

Roger Knights

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).

DC Cowboy

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.

Sheri

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.

Steven Mosher

“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.

Sheri

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.

Steven Mosher

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.

Perry

YouTube hosts misinformation sites like Amplex.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_kj5J9ET4JC97c8AwIZGTw

I wonder if they’ll start placing Wikipedia entries about extraterrestrial UFOs below videos refuting Illuminati conspiracy theories?

Otto Støver

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.

Peta of Newark

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…

hunter

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.

Doug Huffman

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

Sheri

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.

TallDave

OTOH I’d argue this is actually funnier with the wikipedia entry there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

Sheri

How cute! I like the “facial” expression of the tree!

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

nb: The Guardian has suppressed its copy of this video in their report so their link doesn’t work anymore. The YouTube video is still there.

https://youtu.be/sCyidsxIDtQ

Sir David MacKay said:
“We want a zero-carbon solution.”

For the UK, MacKay condemns grid-connected wind and solar, due to intermittency and seasonal variation. OK – correct so far.

Then Mackay’s solution for the UK is Nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). Nuclear – maybe, but regarding CCS, he is WRONG!

Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not dangerously high, they are DANGEROUSLY LOW FOR THE CONTINUED SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH.

Reference:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/02/carbon-leak-may-have-warmed-the-planet-for-11000-years-encouraging-human-civilization/#comment-2419813

CCB

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!

Vanessa Smith

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.

Andy Pattullo

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.

Tim

Safe vaccines is an oxymoron

Khwarizmi

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…

J Murphy

‘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)

Steven Mosher

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

Reg Nelson

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.

Khwarizmi

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”

Dr. Strangelove

I bet the laughing guy is a white supremacist LOL

Mr Bliss

“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

ccscientist

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.

Theo

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.

Robber

The Ministry of Truth has arrived. They will tell you what to think. Be very afraid.

John Endicott

1984 was supposed to be a warning not a “how-to” book.

u.k.(us)

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.

4TimesAYear

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.

Sheri

It’s starting now at Vimeo. They removed Alex Jones videos. What’s next?

DocSiders

One man’s Fake Science is another man’s entrenched government financed vocation.