YouTube to Scribble Green Propaganda Over Climate Skeptic Videos

Easter Island Moai

Easter Island Moai. By Jmunobus (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

You can smell the desperation.

YouTube will now place Wikipedia entries about global warming below videos ‘refuting evidence of rising temperatures’

  • YouTube will add snippets of factual information on select video clips
  • It will target controversial topics, such as anti-vaccination and climate change
  • YouTube hopes it will reduce misinformation and conspiracy theories on the site
  • Only US viewers can see the feature for now, but YouTube plans to roll-out the feature worldwide at a later date

PUBLISHED: 20:52 AEST, 9 August 2018 | UPDATED: 22:15 AEST, 9 August 2018

YouTube is fighting back against climate change deniers by implementing a fact-checking box below user-uploaded videos on the controversial topic.

The system will surface information from Wikipedia or Britannica Encyclopedia to display factual information in bitesize chunks below videos on climate change.

YouTube already implemented the feature for videos on a slew of other contentious topics, including the MMR vaccination, the moon landing and UFOs.

However, this is the first time the platform has targeted climate change deniers.

In one example of the updated feature, a Wikipedia snippet read: ‘multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.

A YouTube spokesperson has previously confirmed there will be a time delay from when a Wikipedia page is edited to when it appears on the preview beneath a video.

This is designed to allow Wikipedia editors time to catch any discrepancies that sneak under the radar.

Read more:

A lot of people are worried about giant left wing tech monopolies hijacking the climate debate and other hot political issues. I do not share this concern.

The reason this attempted takeover won’t work is, media giants like Youtube are not true monopolies.

Think about what happened when traditional media giants got uppity. They didn’t dominate the debate when they stopped pretending to be objective, they just alienated former viewers who were offended by their bias. Their arrogance created the opportunity for the rise of new media enterprises, by creating a large pool of people who were dissatisfied with the increasingly open biases of traditional media.

I believe something similar is about to happen to Youtube and other openly biased tech giants.

You don’t have to use Youtube for uploading videos. Youtube is convenient and familiar, but now they are becoming abusive towards a substantial number of their users. Like any abusive relationship, sooner or later victims of that abuse will reach the end of their patience, and will turn to alternative services.

The free market will punish their transgressions. Users will vote with their feet.

Make no mistake, those alternative services exist – like the tech service* which for years has quietly supported Anthony Watts by staying true to their original mission, instead of ditching commercial sanity by embracing a crazy new mission of social engineering.

[*Eric means WordPress, which WUWT is hosted on. -Anthony]

UPDATE: It seems this YouTube Video has escaped such notice. – Anthony

278 thoughts on “YouTube to Scribble Green Propaganda Over Climate Skeptic Videos

  1. George Orwell had the government doing this kind of thing. We seem to be going one better: we are doing it to ourselves.

    • Government of the people, by the people and for the people. A government big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take what it wants. Freedom, knowledge, skepticism …

      The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.

      • “The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense”. And is taught in the public school system on a daily basis.

        • Teachers go right from college to teaching, and never experience the private sector realities.
          Personally, it took me about five years after college to recover my work-ethic, and about ten to recover from the psychological/philosophical damage.

        • I am a teacher. Well educated and was in the private business sector before becoming a teacher. Out here every teacher I know has a second job either farming or in some other endeavor. I don’t much care for folks who speak of what they have not personally, significantly and broadly investigated and critically examined.

          • It looks a lot like you live in a rural area, Pamela.

            My father operated a large family orchard in a very rural area after getting out of the veterinary business. My mother taught in the local high school while he was making the transition. I’m not aware that many of the high school teachers had other jobs. I do know that my mother’s common-sense political views were not popular with the other teachers.

          • That does not match what teachers do for their salaries, even back in the 1960s and 1970s.
            Nowadays, the pay scale for teachers is mostly worse across many parts of America; where many teacher salaries are below living wages.

            Those teachers who can, sign up for coaching, practices, remedial education, etc.; including summer school, summer sports, band, choir, drill team, whatever.
            Those that do not have sufficient seniority, obtain jobs elsewhere, even if it greeter at Walmart.

            Yes, a few teachers teach, then return home, usually because there is another breadwinner funding the household.

            One of the best accounting teachers I ever had was moonlighting as a teacher
            Another great teacher was a Federal Reserve Analyst moonlighting at teaching Finance.

            Teachers that only teach regular classes as their sole job, without taking second jobs, extra assignments, teaching special classes? Darn few, and I do note recall any offhand.

          • I was a sociology guy – we speak in trends and generalities, and I therefore stand by my statement in general – which is obviously less of a problem the closer to the Earth a community exists, but I genuinely apologize if I offended you personally. Pamela.

          • That’s sad-funny. A teacher purveyor of received knowledge demanding only empirical knowledge be tolerated, “care[d] for.”

          • Purveyor of received knowledge? How do you know what I purvey? I am deeply conservative, well read, published in a major peer reviewed research journal, intelligent and highly skeptical. It irritates me no end when people on the side of skeptical views of popular climate science score for the opposing team by making stupid remarks. At the very least don’t make the side one is on look bad.

          • Even though I’m a skeptical scientist who isn’t part of the scientific community majority on global warming, I don’t mind people trashing climate scientists in general. They know there are exceptions, as you are Pamela.

          • Pamela, I have a lot of respect for you as I know of your brainy no-nonsense parries and thrusts against biases and bad science. But with the left’s almost total corruption of education, has teaching not become a purveyor of the politically correct “right stuff”? It sure has in Canada. Maybe a teacher who has gained “forbidden insights” from other employment can get some creative thinking into the classroom that might largely be unavailable to new fresh teaching graduates who largely teach what they are told to.

          • Pamela, Simon above is an example of the designer-brained product I’m alluding to. He’s anti-business/free enterprise that has been ,unbeknownst to him, his biggest benefactor. His remark is a made in the politburo cliche. They can’t even put such a thought in their own words. I give him kudos, though, for coming to the dangerous WUWT site where he will be without the benefit of trigger words and safe spaces. Something can rub off on him here.

          • Gary
            “He’s anti-business/free enterprise that has been ,unbeknownst to him, his biggest benefactor.”
            Nope … wrong. Made a load of money from free enterprise. Not against it at all. But I just think it is sooo arrogant of people to assume that because a teacher has not been in the competitive world they don’t understand how things work.

          • I just think it is sooo arrogant of people to assume that because a teacher has not been in the competitive world they don’t understand how things work.’

            Why would they – especially considering the environment they come from?

          • How did you make your money and did it involve any knowledge directly imparted to you by a teacher? They don’t even teach finance in schools until you get to college. So I’m pretty sure I know the answer. Assuming you kept books.

            Or maybe you made ‘that’ kind of money. Which is fine. The black market is certainly the free market. But they definitely don’t teach that in school.

          • That’s kind of the point I was getting at. What’s sad is that someone like Pamela is more often the exception. I’m not a big fan of academia in general, but over the course of my own checkered education (I wore a lot of hats, everything from journalist, to lit – I settled on sociology because my Mom got sick so I had to hurry up and graduate and, in sociology, I could pass most of the exams with what was already in my head – soft-sciences, after all) and I DID encounter instructors who I respected – and they were almost always people with private sector experience.

            But it’s absolutely inarguable that progressive messaging dominates college campuses – and if that’s what you’re taught that’s what you teach – and while it’s hard to blame people for believing what they’re taught that doesn’t undo the damage – and most people are NOT outside thinkers (or they wouldn’t be called that), and simply go with the crowd.

            And again, Pamela, I didn’t mean to push your buttons, and your points are well-taken.

          • Back in 1976 I was a teachers’ aide in an inner city public middle school, Remedial Reading for 7th and 8th graders and English for 9th graders. (I remember spending a class helping a 9th grader sound out the word P-O-T. They didn’t fail kids.)
            The workbook for the Remedial Readers had an exercise that went:
            “There are two things about my little brother Billy that I like and two things I don’t like.
            The two things I like are that he’s easy to please and he’s fun to play with.
            The two things I don’t like are that he screams and cries a lot and that he breaks everything I let him play with. Just yesterday he broke my favorite model airplane.”
            The questions were what are the two things he likes and what are the two things he doesn’t like.

            Such are the tools public school teachers in the US were given back then.
            I doubt they’ve improved.

            That + the teacher = Scrambled Brains

            Pray that if you have kids in school that they being taught by a “Pamela Gray” to break that equation.

            PS Every time, and I mean EVERY TIME, a Dad was mentioned in that workbook he was sitting in front of the TV in a sleeveless T-shirt drinking a beer and didn’t time for his kid. Every time a Dad was mentioned.

          • “Such are the tools public school teachers in the US were given back then.”
            Well let’s do something about that then and fund public schools so they can but decent tools, because they are preparing the adults of tomorrow.

          • And Simon once again misses the point.
            More money to put more junk in the public schools is not the solution.

          • In my previous residential location, out west, over a short period of time (e.g something like 5 or 6 years) we more that doubled the amount of money spent per year per student in K through 12th grades. This just fed the bureaucracy. The number of students per teacher didn’t change. Teacher’s salaries didn’t change relative to inflation. But, the number of administrators changed significantly. It practically doubled. More money, at least spent that way, isn’t the solution.

          • Simon we can’t because the teachers and other gov’t workers pensions take so much money the funds aren’t left over to do that.

          • If you’re a teacher, you’d know that most states post teachers salaries as public information. Here’s a link to one state with all public school workers income(!/totsalary.desc.1/ )

            As you can see the average teacher salary was $53,583 statewide in the 2013-14 school year. Now the median income for a family of 4 in Wisconsin is Household Income $52,893.

            I bet in most states, teachers make double the the median income. Just wanted to set the record straight that teachers are poorly paid, I believe them overpaid and under worked myself.

          • There are exceptions to every rule Pamela. Just not in science. You may be a teacher that has significant real world work experience. That is a real and valid case. However it is not a real or valid case to have a scientific theory that fails to conform to that which it predicts, nor even has supporting data to back it. Especially when that data was destroyed specifically to avoid independent verification. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify that.

            One more thing. Since you are a teacher you obviously teach the state mandated theory of evolution. And what are the primary drivers of evolution? Weather, climate and their corresponding impacts on the availability of food. But wait, the climate changers say none of these things changed for the 300,000 years leading up to 1998. Yet you teach that evolution happened nonetheless. Without any of the key drivers. So since you want to play semantics, then clear the air on this glaring contradiction that you, the world-wise teacher are selling as scientific fact. Getting paid to teach contradictory facts to support for profit industries, which evolution and climate change surely are, would seem to make you a crony capitalist. Yuck. Everybody hates them you know. Ask Simon.

            That’s my ‘critical examination’ and I think it’s pretty spot on. But feel free to set us all straight. Preferably with something other than just deflection oh great molder of minds and keeper of facts.

      • The gov’t was supposed to “promote” general welfare, not provide it.

        I take “promote” as meaning establish a framework where people can provide for themselves, not just give them everything.

        • I take “general” to be the opposite of “particular.” When government promotes something it is supposed to be for the welfare of citizens generally, not particular individuals.

          • Yes!
            Another misinterpretation (intentional or not) of a phrase in the Constitution that ignores the context of the whole. (And the 10th Amendment in particular.)

            “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

            The WHAT of Article 1 Section 8 was to give Congress the power to levy taxes. The “general Welfare” clause was part of the HOW.
            Taxes could be levied for the benefit or “Welfare” of the US, but as Joyce noted it had to be done EVENLY; i.e. taxes could not benefit just one state or group. (Just like the word “common” in “common Defense”.

            Even Madison, who wrote the darn thing, had to argue in Congress against this mis-reading (often by Hamilton, our first “big government” politician). He said repeatedly that if the intent was to use that clause to give permission to the Federal government to get into EVERYTHING that could be considered “General Welfare”, then why did they bother to write the 10th Amendment that strictly enumerated the powers delegated to the new government?!?

            (An argument from grammar of the time, when nouns were capitalized:
            Today we tend to think of the “general welfare” as one “thing”, a noun. Note that “general” (and “common”) are not capitalized; they were intended as adjectives, modifiers. If they intended its its modern sense, the phrase would have been written “General Welfare”.)

          • Which is why pet executive branch programs sometimes get no funding from the legislative branches or deemed unconstitutional by the judicial branch. Balance of power is had by checks and balances.

      • Don’t believe for a second that if Hillary was President and the Democrats were in the majority that they would not only support what YouTube, Wikipedia, etc they would even regulate the behavior of their competitors. The Left does not believe, and haven’t in forty years, in free speech and especially free exchange of ideas, reasonable debate or for that matter anyone critically thinking. They do not want people to think at all but just get in line for the latest dose of orthodoxy.

        • “The Left does not believe, and haven’t in forty years, in free speech”
          You mean like the current president who wants to shut down certain parts of the free press he doesn’t like?

          • I don’t believe he wants to shut down “certain parts” of the free press. He just like to point out the one sided reporting. I’m sure if progressive socialist had their way a lot information available on the web would be filtered similar to China’s control over web content.

          • Trump has never proposed shutting down any part of the free press. Trump just calls them liars when they lie about him. It’s not the same thing.

          • Simon, Trumps strength, and his appeal to those citizens that elected him, is that he doesn’t lie. He calls a ‘spade a spade’, and calls out those who do lie for political benefit. You are so entrenched in your hatred and bias you will not permit yourself to see it.

          • ‘You are so entrenched in your hatred and bias you will not permit yourself to see it.’

            OR simply that condescending and stuck-up.

          • ‘And they call him a liar …. when he does. Which is daily.’

            More crap – standard progressive stereotypical messaging.
            Trump speaks in general truths – progressives respond by spinning nit-picky details and CALL it lies.
            Which is daily.

          • ‘You mean like the current president who wants to shut down certain parts of the free press he doesn’t like?’

            More leftist, strawman crap – he’s critical of a corrupt media organization – justifiably so.

          • And gee – let’s see if we can’t remember who put federal agents in news organizations to monitor content?
            And who’s orchestrating mass on-line censorship?

    • It’s going to be funny when it snows. Posting a video of children making a snowman will get censored.

      • So the way to get more responsibility is to get politicians involved?
        If you don’t like what a corporation is doing, then stop patronizing them and get your friends to go along. Getting government involved always makes such problems worse.

        • Here in the US, TV shows used to have sponsors. That is, a particular show was paid for by a particular product rather than the network being paid for all the shows.
          That changed when the Feds stepped in after the “$64,000 Question” scandal. (It was a game show. The sponsor was involved with giving a contestant the answers to keep the ratings up.)
          Before that, consumers of a product had a more direct say in what particular shows were on TV.
          Now, the commercial cash all goes into a big pot and those at the top can put out whatever they want. The producers of the products have little say in the content of the shows, let alone the consumers.

          “Never has so much BS been fed to so many by so few”

    • Self censorship is becoming more prevalent, encouraged by modern day versions of ‘witch-hunters and Stasi who jump on anyone who makes an ‘inappropriate’ remark, even in jest. See Boris Johnson’s latest escapade.

  2. Come to think of it: why worry about Russia planting false information? We should be worrying about people who control the media planting false information.

    • i always laugh when usa gos on about agitprop a nation…
      when your medias utterly full of it!
      as is aussie n poms as well
      big issue is ours adopting yours in entirety

      • It was a big surprise to me how supposedly sensible Aussies preferred easy belief in unchecked and uncheckable climate prophesies for the legalised protection money. of tax and subsidy profit, to understanding what is actually happening and the facts of the science, if able.

        And fell for this clearly theoretical climate model that doesn’t follow reality and is so easy to check against reality nonsense, even when it was used to justify bogus taxes and energy subsidies that very clearly can’t deliver what they claim in terms of sustainability, adequacy, cost – and CO2 reduction (if that matters) – in easy to prove energy science fact. See S.Oz reality. It’s a fraud, guys. And you are being SO conned by your establishment, over matters of clear fact, yet appear happy to be defrauded by law. Or unable or unwilling to confront, and happier to be sheeple. Perhaps the inbreeding with sheep has something to do with this?

        At least Tony Abbot, Ian Plimer, Peter Ridd, Peter Lang and others of understanding and principle have the guts to point out the structural fraud on the facts. Yet Aussies would still rather ignore the facts they can check but don’t, and support the crooked liars behind the structural fraud of climate change = subsidies and carbon taxes that actually make the supposed problems expensively worse in fact for a fast buck, versus the people who point out the facts of what is real and what delivers future energy policy best in technical fact, sans renewable taxes of the climate change protection racket. And do it for no reward. Something in first world western democracies society is very sick. Or have people just got lazy minded and preferred to forget the hard science approach that got them to this point, and prefer believing what sounds nice can just be conjured up by politicians making laws that make easy money for insiders? Technology and science doesn’t work like that, the laws of physics won through the hard processes of sceptical science cannot be changed by the wishes made laws of men. Denying the laws of physics for a fast buck can only fail.

    • The freedom of the press belongs to the guy who owns the press.

      Noam Chomsky wrote a couple of books about wars in Vietnam and Cambodia. What I got from those books was not his political take on the wars.

      Chomsky demonstrated with hundreds of examples that censorship isn’t necessary if the owners of the media are on side with the government.

      Right now, the owners of most of the media are part of the Democrat elite. That has spawned a ton of fake news. (I acknowledge that the President and his minions aren’t much better.) 🙁

          • Since he quoted part of it, he obviously read it. It’s understanding what he read that is at issue (and, sadly, his inability to comprehend what he reads is not all that surprising).

        • Murdoch, like the Kochs, may be conservative; but they are all globalists and firmly believe in the globalist dream where manufacturing is performed in inexpensive locales while America switches to a service based economy.

          None of them are on board with Trump, all of them are actively working against Trump.

          A little over a month ago, Murdoch replaced the senior editor at WSJ; because that editor was stifling much of the fake news articles where claims are made without verification or substantiation.

          Murdoch and the Kochs are firm progressive elites and not much different from Soros, Steyer, Bezos, etc.; except for the extremism of their views.

          Not that vacuous alarmists have ever cared for facts as they rush around shrieking about alleged a few pitiful dollars of funding from the Kochs for sane climate research.
          Otherwise, they would have noticed that billionaire democrat elites are by far the largest funders of climate research; especially climate nonsense research.

      • cB, have you ever checked Chomsky’s references to see if he treats them honestly? I have done.

        I spot-checked many of his citations across 35 years, starting from his 1967 “The Responsibility of Intellectuals.”

        I found he lies systematically. He truncates quotes, he misrepresents quotes, and he juxtaposes unrelated quotes to alter their meaning. He is a professional linguist. His misrepresentations are not honest mistakes.

        And it’s all to the same end: character assassination.

        He makes his targets look callous, racist, and hardhearted. He demonizes Americans so as to demonize the US.

        If you like, I included a couple of examples in an article on the mortal hostility of Progressivism against Humanism, here.

        • I don’t disagree. He clearly has an axe to grind.

          His analysis of the media coverage of the early part of Vietnam aligned with what I observed at the time. At some point, maybe after Mei Lai became public, or maybe it was Kent State, my memory is hazy, the press coverage of the war changed and, if I recall correctly, media self-censorship became less obvious.

      • CommieBob- want to see something interesting to validate what I’m about to say?
        “Legacy media created the meme of fake news when PizzaGate was exposed, in order to deflect the average person from using their own intuition and reason when viewing the material that surfaced with those people, and the ties to HRC”.
        You can go look at the search history with Pizzagate and Fake news, and you will see they both spiked dramatically at the same time, with, if i recall correctly from the screenshot I saw, Pizzagate spiking about 24 prior to the fake news searches.

        Think about it. Can you remember that meme being parroted by any pundits prior to the pizzagate scandal? This is yet another very significant pattern of obfuscation that folks aren’t piecing together because they are so brainwashed from 15,000 hours of state indoctrination, and its favorite logical fallacy “appeal to authority”. This nation suffers from stockholm syndrome, but even worse because they are spiritually children, continuously searching for a daddy or mommy figure to protect them. They fail to genuinely dissect, digest, and examine the information that is glaringly obvious right in front of them.

        Same goes for why they are attacking anti-vaccination proponents. You folks can’t see the similarity? They have to attack the skeptics of CAGW because its completely false and full of corrupt science, just like vaccines.

      • Not quite right, Bob.

        “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230)

        Article 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts ISPs and internet platforms from legal constraints on what they carry from third parties. The ISPs and platforms get special protection by law.

        Youtube, et al, have been considered platforms, and not publishers, hence have immunity from the constraints of traditional publishers. This is not ‘freedom of the press.’ They aren’t the press – publishers – just platforms.

        The problem for Youtube, et al, is that they are starting to edit content, i.e., becoming content providers. Tagging third party videos as conspiratorial is content. The CDA expects platforms to patrol/edit indecency, criminal activity, and solicitations of violence. Picking sides in controversies is not covered.

        Legally, it’s early. They might be able to get away with it for now. But I expect some Republican Congresscreatures* to revisit the Communications Decency Act, to clarify the extent of what makes an internet ‘platform’ not a ‘publisher.’ Tucker Carlson calls for it nearly nightly.

        ‘YouTube hopes it will reduce misinformation and conspiracy theories on the site’

        They have no duty to do such. They are exempted by law from any responsibility. They do it because they want to.

        *I have been disappointed by them before.

      • The question I’ve had for a long time re freedom of the press is ‘Freedom’ to do what? The founding fathers displayed the age’s naievety in perhaps thinking that civilization narrowed the scope to choices they thought needn’t be defined. The coiner of the golden rule, too, couldnt envision the case of the many bad things that one might have done unto one’s self in an amoral society.

        • ‘Freedom’ to do what? Simple. The government, local, state and federal can not limit or regulate what is printed. You as as citizen can print any thing you want. It’s your choice. I as a citizen have have the freedom have the right to or not listen, read, refute, except and etc with your opinion or your view of facts.

        • Gary, Have you read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers? Our Founding Fathers were far from naive. I would argue that they had a better understanding of the foibles and frailties of mankind than most people have today. Most were deeply concerned that this great experiment in freedom and liberty could not be long sustained. While they might astounded by our modern technology they would not be surprised at the behavior of the average citizen.

    • Google, FB, Amazon etc. are the oligaechs we should be concerned about.
      Instead, we are told to fear unknown foreign oligarchs.

    • why worry about Russia planting false information?

      The domestic marxists do this all the time. You can bet that whatever & whoever they complain about, it’s exactly what they have been and continue doing, a million times over. Example — lately they’ve been complaining about voter fraud, you can be sure they’re working tirelessly to figure out more & better ways to commit voter fraud.

      • I was reading about a precinct in I believe north Georgia. There were over 600 votes in the recent primary, in precinct with only about 270 registered voters.

        • You have to remember – Progressives have convinced themselves the opposition cheats – therefore that frees them to do whatever they want.

          Part of that ‘create a stereotype and then live it’ motif.

          • … or, they are not doing what they do as a response.

            They cheat (and always have) … their bubble of friends do the same … and they KNOW that they are morally superior than you (and everyone else), so therefore you must be a bigger cheat.

          • Perhaps I misstated – you’re right – they have ALWAYS presumed the opposition was cheating – and therefore justified ‘any means necessary’ – it’s just more obvious, open, and blatant.

          • They believe in their wonderfulness. Anyone who doesn’t believe in their obvious wonderfulness must be evil. And anything is allowed when you are fighting evil.

      • As i have said many times, the biggest racist I have ever met are the ones who are quickest to use the cry of racism to further political goals.

        • Biggest racist that I have ever met was the Japanese maintenance guy on the Jap made ship I was on.

          The nasty things he would say about Koreans…. (and the Koreans on the ships that we would offload to would indicate (broken- English) the same nasty things about the Japanese).

          “and the funny thing is” I would tell him, “that 50% of the world can’t tell you guys apart.”

          The dem racists think they are better than everyone else. The other type of racist think that certain folks are less than everyone else. Keeping this distinction in mind does help at times.

    • I was never worried about Russia – and I’ve been worried for years about our own media – well-founded worries, it appears.
      Goebbels Lives!

  3. I think people do spot the obvious tampering and wonder about the mental health of the people that obsessively do it.

  4. New media can come along if there is a demand. One example is The Western Producer.

    Early in the 20th century the media in Saskatchewan consisted of city newspapers that reflected the interests of the business owners and urban elites and not the farmers. The Western Producer was successful because it gave voice to the farmers who felt they were being abused by the existing papers.

    Another example is Fox Broadcasting. It reflects the concerns of people who are ‘victims’ of the other mainstream media. I use the word victims advisedly. It grinds one’s soul down to be told 24/7 that you and your ilk are stupid and unworthy. President Trump describes the forgotten people. They’re the ones the Democrat elite has thrown under the bus. At least Fox gives them a bit of respect.

  5. if theyre out there they need to shout out!
    Vimeo is the only other one I know of
    issue is people got suckered into the pay per view con
    and its linkages to the socialmedia wannabe famouses thing
    fomo etc
    what we need is a huge slew of people removing their clips TO other sites
    wouldnt take much to make em worry;-)

  6. Face the facts, ALL sceptical opinion, no matter how accurate, will be deemed “fake news” by default, for a long time.
    Imagine if the internet had been around when the geocentric model of the solar system was in vogue.

    • They would/did burn people at the stake for having different views on the solar system. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
      As humans, we haven’t progressed. If we are doomed it’ll be from our ( collective ) flaws. Blind loyalty to authority figures, settling matters by force. And “we won’t need to be controlled if we behave “. Who gave M. Mann that right? His ability to manipulate the media and data? Un elected, self righteous, petty despot.
      Probably evolution at work in the long run. A new species will replace us. They’ll be studying us like we study dinosaurs. We are only at the top of the food chain temporarily.

      • You’re thinking of Giordano Bruno, and he was burned at the stake for unrepentant heresy, not for having a different view on the solar system.

        And lest you think that death by burning was confined to the Medieval- and Renaissance-era Catholic Church, be aware that it also occurred in

        Old Babylonia (part of the Code of Hammurabi – the punishment for several crimes),
        Ancient Egypt (for a number of crimes),
        Assyria (to instill terror and enforce obedience),
        Ancient Rome (for a number of crimes),
        Carthage (ritual child sacrifice), and
        Fiji and the Americas (cannibalism).

        The Druids practiced it (according to Julius Caesar), as did Muslims (for heresy, including converting to a different faith), the Persians during a famine in 1668 (for profiteering), the Scots in 1437 (for regicide), Chinese Buddhist monks (self-immolation), the Japanese (persecution of Christians in the early 17th century), immolation of widows in India, Bali and Nepal, “necklacing” in modern times … and the list goes on.

        • I was thinking of Galileo who had the option of claiming his book was fiction. But that matters little. I think you’ve proved my point. Humans haven’t changed.
          No progress can be made in self righteous, self assured, science that all others are mentally incompetent. It also creates a new class of people who are above ordinary people. Those that properly vetted are the only ones who can make statements or policy. In essence, a self serving noble class. It casts a chill on any scientific endeavors or discussions. Next time I’ll just be an astrologer. ( which has more predictions right than AGW )

          • Fair enough, but Galileo wasn’t burned at the stake either. He died under house arrest – and he probably wouldn’t even have been brought to trial if he hadn’t publicly mocked one of his biggest supporters – Pope Urban VIII.

        • However, the “unrepentant heresy” of Bruno WAS the heliocentric view of the solar system, among other things. He tried to defend himself by emphasizing the philosophical aspects of his teachings and beliefs, and disclaiming any particular religious meaning. Rome wasn’t having any of that

          • No, his heresy was denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of the Trinity, denial of the virginity of Mary, denial of the Trinity, denial of eternal damnation and denial of transubstantiation. He also believed in pantheism. I’m not Catholic, but even I can see that an ordained Catholic priest who basically denied every major doctrine of the Church was most likely going to run afoul of Rome eventually.

          • Right. Bruno was burned for heresy. At some point it’s not the heresy that’s important to notice, but the burning for it.

            Christians burned people for thought-crimes. Muslims presently cut throats for thought-crimes. Communists shot people in the head for thought-crimes.

            Antifa-istas slug people people on the head with bicycle locks for thought-crimes.

            The conclusion is obvious. The enemy of all is the ideological few.

    • And remember – it’s not just skeptical opinion – Progressives demand compliance across their ideological board – Climate Change is simply the biggest lever to force their doctrines upon us, because it relates directly to power and energy.

      But don’t think you’ll have the right to have your own opinion on any other subject either.

      At this point, ‘fascism’ is becoming something of an understatement.

    • they are desperate in the State of Victoria, Australia. State election in November, polls are worrying. Solution: censor opponents.

  7. I suspect that the sort of viewers who would follow a youtube link to a cagw sceptical video are already sufficiently educated to know that wiki is not a reliable or independent source for information on the topic.

  8. It might be helpful to add social media bookmarks to the sidebar so that we less media savvy can see the alternatives.

  9. The climate faithful continuously refuse to debate, and claim the ‘Science is Settled’.

    And yet, they also insist that they always get a voice wherever Climate is discussed.


  10. Time to switch to Vimeo.
    I have stopped viewing YT altogether.
    Comment sections are the place for argumentation, but, ideologues on the left don’t like facts; lest we forget, “The Debate is Over”.
    It is really a bad idea for media outlets to edit debate, speech, even “hate” speech and ban thought (good or bad), people who go underground are far more dangerous than those share their ideas openly.

    • No, switch to, video hosting using torrent networks, uncensorable, inexpensive to host videos, simple to use, no centralized power to harm creators.

      • No guarantee that the whole video you want to watch is available 100% though, or may only be when seeders are online.

    • Join, video hosting using torrent networks, uncensorable; the users host the videos so it is inexpensive to host videos, simple to use, no centralized power to harm creators. Decentralized video hosting with torrents is the future.

  11. How will they counter the latest temperature data from Spencer & Co?
    In 40 years the globe (lower atmosphere) has warmed less than 0.5 C; currently sitting at +0.2 C (one fifth of a degree).
    1979 CO2 = 340 ppm
    2018 CO2 = 410 ppm.
    The global-warming industry (including admin, research, subsidies, mitigation and carbon abatement) costs tax-payers Worldwide about USD 4-billion per day; the most expensive endeavour in human history.
    Apparently it’s all worth it . . .
    But it’s worse than that.
    It’s actually 4-billion per day to stop 0.15 C (not 0.5 C ) warming if you believe 70% is natural (a scenario countenanced by the IPCC).
    So global warming prior to 1950 is natural; a fact agreed by the IPCC and NASA etc.
    After 1950 the IPCC have decreed natural warming effectively ceased as the basis for their worst scenario of 99% man (forget AMO etc.)

    • Spencer is old. They will wait for him to exit the scene.
      Or better, they will defund him and “adjust” his records.
      Afterall he is just a kkkristian bible thumper, so his science is not worthy of the brave new world coming for us all.

    • Warren, the ‘orthodox’ parts per million ratio (2018 = 410ppm) is, and always has been, one of our biggest stumbling blocks. If the media announced “CO2 creeps up to just 0.041% of the Earth’s total atmosphere”, nobody would take any notice and, as you rightly point out, governments wouldn’t be throwing money away trying to do something to reduce the minuscule amount. But, hey ho, 410ppm sounds a whole lot better!

      • I’ll add that only approx 4% of the 0.041% is anthropogenic and 96% of of the 0.041% is entirely natural. Nah, it just wouldn’t make a very good headline would it.

    • Warren – August 10, 2018 2:56 am

      So global warming prior to 1950 is natural; a fact agreed by the IPCC and NASA etc. After 1950 the IPCC have decreed natural warming effectively ceased as the basis for their worst scenario of 99% man (forget AMO etc.)

      In actuality they probably did state “pre-1950” and ”post-1950”, but specifically they were surely referring to “pre-1958” and ”post-1958” ……. because that was the first time ever that anyone had a factually recorded, accurate measurement of atmospheric CO2 of 315.71 ppm which was recorded in March 1958 by Charles Keeling.

      Thus, it wasn’t until long time after March 1958 that the IPCC and NASA etc. had a factually recorded CO2 ppm record …… along with a half-arsed, highly questionable, non-factual “average surface temperature” record that they used to justify their “junk science” anthropogenic claims.

      Therefore, the IPCC and NASA etc. simply “highjacked” all natural warming to explain the gradual yearly ”post-1958” increase in CO2 ppm.

      But now days they are in dire trouble and scrambling to CTA because their falsely concocted increases in “average surface temperature”…… have stalled with “the pause” while the gradual yearly increase in CO2 ppm continues unabated.

  12. The climate extremists are not desperate. They are confident.
    We will probably be shut down, with no access to organizing pushback, by the end of the year.

  13. Wonder what they will do when faced with a video of massed Polar bears indulging in a hockey match. Wiki or Judith Curry?

    • “Scrapping” as in you are not going to post to YouTube?

      The YouTube Thought Police Tactic is working better than they thought. Instead of adding a disclaimer to the video to push the CAGW meme, they scare or anger contributors to censor themselves and save the Thought Police a lot of trouble.

      If it was me, I would post the video and then would have lots of comments about the new YouTube policy in the comments section. I might even turn their disclaimer to my advantage.

      But I can’t do any of that if I don’t play.

      • Indeed Tom, turn the tables on them by pointing out their folly in the description and comments.

  14. All this display of totalitarian censorship just demonstrates that the left is losing the argument. Mind you, I reckon that the penny will drop for Joe public when they start burning down the libaries and confiscating uneditable hard copy books.

  15. I tried to report this concern to the Law Dept. at YouTube but had trouble with my log-in so did not bother.

    It is painful how really foolish some organizations are. What will happen to these spin doctors when it becomes fully apparent that global warming alarmism is the greatest scam in human history?

    I wrote circa 2014 that civil RICO (TRIPLE damages) would be used in the USA against warmist fraudsters. The first case was launched a few years later. I’m not up-to-date on where that lawsuit stands.

    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was enacted by section 901(a) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91–452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970) and is codified at 18 U.S.C. ch. 96 as 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961–1968

    IF the following article is true, Youtube could run afoul of civil or criminal RICO statutes as the fraud of global warming alarmism becomes fully apparent.

    YouTube will now place Wikipedia entries about global warming below videos ‘refuting evidence of rising temperatures’.

    • The purpose of anti-trust is and has always been to shake down large corporations for campaign donations.
      Those that contribute sufficiently have been and always will be ignored by the government.

  16. screenshot from the DailyMail article on this subject, showing example on a video from Prager University:

    I visited the video at youtube, saw plenty of new comments complaining about the wikipedia “fact check” box from the Ministry of Truth, but on my page I see only the unmodified PragerU description under the vid–not the “fact check” box.

    I wonder if my adblocker is blocking the element? Or have they suspended the campaign?

    • I’m in the U. S. and I just watched Lindzen’s video and I saw no indication of censorship or, as it now called, “fact checking”. I believe the issue with PragerU is that YT won’t allow them to link to third party ads, which are a source of revenue. Perhaps the censorship will only be applied to videos seeking publication with this ad feature enabled? But on the broader point,I think the “fact checking” would be counter productive. The alarmist arguments are basically religious dogma, and having them written down, or expressing them on a video, would make this only too apparent. Attacking Professor Lindzen’s carefully thought out arguments, for example, would devolve into little more than baseless ad hominems. This would make the coreligionists happy, but it would not convince those who have yet to make the plunge into this latest mass hysteria. In fact, over the course of time, the vacuous substance of the ACG thesis, such as the 97% factoid, would become an anchor around their necks as it would continue to be displayed as a “fact” long after the truth was known. Consider, for example, Anthony’s excellent critique of the Gore/Nye Climate 101 video’s CO2 “experiment”: .

      Anthony demonstrated that the so-called experiment was nothing more than an exercise in photoshopping. Having little messages flash up disputing Anthony’s points would only encourage the curious viewer to check the facts for themselves. The alarmist “fact checking” would prove to be yet another nail in the coffin of the Climate Change religionists as the emotional slanders and misrepresentations could be carefully examined within a well-defined context. If we give these guys enough rope, they will hang themselves. The only concern is how many innocents will fall as collateral damage.

        • Or inaction?

          What if an Internet monopoly or other computer-related monopoly which should have been neutralized long ago is still allowed to restrict consumer choice?

  17. I’ve been using for the past couple weeks to search and despite the silly name I’m finding it to be at least as seriously good as Google for my searches. “Google”‘s a pretty silly name, too.

    • Duckduckgo is the way to go for searches because it doesn’t add your search results to the massive Google data base about you that drives their ad engine. But it is based on the Google search engine and has the same bought-and-paid-for search priority scheme. We don’t have an unbiased search engine, sad to say.

    • Yup, been using duckduckgo for a few months now and find it “better” than goooogle. meaning, just as complete and less “directed” results.

    • “Google”‘s a pretty silly name, too.

      Yeah, might as well have been Gaggle. Or Giggle (’cause it’s a joke).

    • In mathematics, a googol (note spelling) is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes and a googolplex is a 1 followed by a googol of zeroes. (see I looked up the etymology of the word google


      and this is what appeared on my screen:

      The name ‘Google’ has originated from the word ‘googol’, which is the number one followed by one hundred zeroes. In fact, the name originated from a misspelling of this word. This word was picked to signify that the search engine was intended to provide large quantities of information.

      Apparently the folks at Google are a tad short of being as smart as they think they are. The old saying “If you could buy him for what he’s worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth, you could make a fortune in a single transaction” certainly applies to Google.

        • I don’t recall if Sagan ever used the word googol (he probably did at some point) but I do recall he seemed to like the word “billions” very much. I can still hear in my minds ear Sagan saying “billions and billions” numerous times on Cosmos from back in the day.

    • I switched to Duckduckgo a while back as well. I find it has all, or more, of the information that Google has. I try to stay away from Google as much as possible.

  18. Will they also put boxes on the nonsense greenies put on Youtube about GM, glyphosphate, neonicotinids and fracking? I don’t think so.

    Anyway, they don’t appear to be on the ball. Nobody denies that the climate does change, nobody questions the temperature rise over the last century, for instance.

  19. People need to start using alternatives. For twitter, use Gab. Alternatives to Youtube are Steem and Dtube.

    Search engines use one of these twelve alternatives.

    Use the word alternative in your search query, if you are not happy with the ‘program’, you are currently using.
    Climate Heretic
    PS This was posted on joannenovas website as well.

  20. How many times has somebody ridiculed a critic of AGW for using Wiki ?
    Maybe it’s not a bad thing. If you actually read the wiki link, you can compare, like WUWT does, the predictions versus the results. The only bad thing is that they changed the dates when all the catastrophes were suppose to occur. It’s as if the predictions made in 1990’s didn’t exist.
    In other words you have to believe in the AGW agenda or you’re pretty dense.
    That’s why I think AGW is desperate. Not enough dense people. It’s only hot in the summer time. Not really on board with turning the heat off during a New England snowstorm.
    Give’em enough rope, they’ll hang themselves.

  21. I see Dr Steve Turley has moved some of this channel content to Bitchute in preparation for when Youtube decide to ban him.

    PS I have no evidence to prove he has a doctorate or otherwise.

  22. “Users will vote with their feet.”

    They already have Eric, voted… for a “giant left wing tech monopoly”.

    • That was before they started graffitiing our work Ryan. Next few years should be interesting.

    • One thing with alarmists. They are convinced that any trend that they like, will continue to infinity. They hold onto this conviction with a religious fervor that is unshakable.

    • Even my son’s grammar school won’t allow the students to cite Wikipedia as a source. On the other hand, it can be a great source for a primary literature list and you can do your own digging from there.

  23. Like Wikipedia is an authority on anything.

    YouTube needs to take a step back, maybe flag any controversial subject with that label (of course this mean both sides of the debate) and maybe a message “look for opposing views.”

    of course this will open up the debate on what is controversial…

  24. It is, and has been, getting generally warmer for thousands of years. The lie is the claimed cause of the change. Reliable, science based proof of the causal variable(s) is seriously lacking. Such a note should be added to all pro AGW comments/articles as well. Now, that would be a good fairness doctrine on the subject.

  25. Thanks to all. I’m starting an alt web resources list to start the transition to these better alternatives. I’ll ditch these con job information oligarchs in the Valley the same way I ditched Nat Geogr and NPR.

  26. Will they do the same for climate warmist who clearly fabricate or exaggerated claims? The answer of course is No.
    Yet they say they try to claim they are not bias.

  27. “multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.”
    What a retarded statement. No one denies that we have warmed some since the LIA. No so-called “multiple lines of evidence” required, but of course the Gang Green cult like to appear “sciency” and love the “consensus” angle, so will use that whenever they can. However, they also manage to sneak in a Big Lie with the use of the word “is”. What the climate is doing now is anyone’s guess. We may, in fact, have already started cooling.

  28. I see flat earth videos and Nibiru crap in the Youtube lineup regularly. Not to mention political stuff. Are they going to tell us how to vote next?
    I shouldn’t give them ideas!

  29. Would be nice if we had an AG who’d begin threatening liberal corporate America with antitrust. Do as much to liberal corporate America as politicians that they put into office did to industries that they hate, and invested against.

    • Anti-trust has always been a political tool for use by politicians.
      Any economic effects are incidental.

      • Well, when the corporations decide to get political, using political tools in response is appropriate. Live by the political sword, die by the political sword.

  30. I wonder if this will be programmed to be seasonal so that it only operates in summer months and during hurricane events…..or when payment is received to extend it.

    • I wondered, too, how effective this will be in 10 ft of snow and subzero temperatures. The east coast of the US has been pounded with snow for two or three years by now. After shoving your walk for the eight time and freezing your fingers off, will the message be annoying? I bet it will.

  31. I must have entered a time warp, had a Migraine like headache before I went to bed and no it seems I have woken up and returned to 1984 [George Orwell]?

  32. For goodness sake. It IS warming! It should be warm. As warm, give or take insignificant amounts above and below, as it as been in similar cycles over the past 800,000 years. Christ almighty. Now to really be factual all the web sites that say “but CO2”, should specify that comparing atmospheric CO2 directly (a modern method) is not the same as measuring it in compressed ice (the paleo-method). It will take another 80 years at least to compare historic direct measures of CO2 with compressed ice levels from the same era, unless someone destroys or fiddles with the direct measured data. But that would never happen.

  33. I have already “deplatformed” myself from most all things Alphabet/Google. I really don’t need any of their products or “services” and do my best to block their adware from infecting my browser.

  34. Are there really a lot of people who claim the Little Ice Age wasn’t colder than today?

    Honestly, I wouldn’t mind this, except that they throw the exact same label on people who doubt the urgent need for emissions policies based on computer models that can supposedly predict 100-year global temperatures within a degree or two (even though they’ve never been able to get even 30 years right before), policies that even according to such models will have very little effect on what has historically been beneficial anyway.

    It’s like putting the same label on videos claiming “vaccines don’t work” as videos documenting the vaccine fraud in China.

  35. If you remember Obama had a secret meeting at MIT – my guess is this is one of the fruits of that meeting.
    Obama is the best example of Orwellian methods in a position of high power to ever metastasize in this country.

    • Realize that Obama is still out there, still using OFA, and still using all his influence to swing elections and push policy. He may not be president anymore, but he still behaves very much like he is.

      • Obama seems to have a lot of people still in government working hard for him.

        Trump is going to clean house once this Witch Hunt investigation is over. He can’t really exercise his full authority because he thinks it would make him look like he is trying to undermine the investigation. This hamstrings Trump and his Attorney General. When the investigation is officially closed this will all go away.

        Trump could start making inroads into the Obama administration corruption before the investigation ends by declassifying all pertient government documents about every scandal that occurred during the Obama administration. Let the light shine on all this corruption and lawlessness. Only the guilty would want to keep this information hidden.

        Obama can’t like the direction that things are going. As they say, “the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, Barrack (and Hillary). It looks like your plans are getting ready to blow up in your faces. Oh, baby! I can’t wait! Gimme some justice!

        • Do you really thing the libs will let the witch hunt end while Trump is still in office? The witch hunt will only end when Trump is voted out of office or enough Dems get elected to congress to ensure they can force an impeachment that kicks him out of office.

      • Sherri:

        Oh I realize it – in fact, I think he’s one of the real mover/shakers behind this twenty-four hour a day assault on Trump. THAT’s why he’s been so quiet – working behind the scenes.

        Real bad boys move in silence.

  36. … And then they claim that little Adolph was the nasty nationalist / fascist… makes you wonder…

  37. Love your first comment, Eric. The desperation is, indeed, palpable.

    Of course, it would be terrible if people posted comments AFTER the YouTube postings from Wikipedia, putting those YouTube comments into context. Gosh, I hope that doesn’t happen…😂

    • Thanks John. If they had been patient they might have done more damage, but they are in too much of a hurry.. They think the world is going to end next Tuesday.

  38. A quick Google will order any misunderstanding of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming… drop the the catastrophic, drop the anthropogenic, and it’s true.

  39. Adding factual information does not sound like desperation to me. Sounds like deniers are being corrected.

    • “Sounds like deniers are being corrected.” You sir, too timid to use your own name, just blanket insulted everyone here. What a childish, clueless, and substance-free troll you’ve become.

      You’d be squawking bloody murder if say, the same thing was done on YouTube videos where the Clintons are discussed to have Wikipedia references to Benghazi, Whitewater, and missing items from the White House referenced with every campaign or rally video.

      Google has opened a Pandora’s box of information war, that now, having been established, can be applied against anything or anyone they don’t like, and that’s the slippery slope for free speech.

      And if you have the courage, debate me with your own name. I doubt you will.

      • As always, Anthony, your patience and adherence to the high-ground is laudable .
        If I were you, I would have probably bit someone by now.

      • well, I was very surprised when it went directly to moderation; at that point I thought maybe it was too much (& I would have pulled it, but once it goes to moderation you can’t edit it).

        anyway … glad somebody got a laugh out of it.

    • I am an engineer, never got above a B in expository writing classes and I could easily write thesis on any of half a dozen topics using 100% factual, verifiable information and data. This thesis would contain absolutely no false information whatsoever. Period. However, the thesis would be a pure fabrication that was completely false, unverifiable and unprovable. There are many others that could also do this. Many of the fiction novels are an excellent example of this, John Clancy and Michael Crichton are good examples.
      In my opinion, the UN AGW claim is also an excellent example. The IPCC Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers does not even agree with and presents conclusions that are contrary to the working group reports. I have often been called out for providing “false information” that is in the working group reports that does not agree with the SRSPM, even after citing the paragraph.
      Read the WHOLE UN IPCC report, you might learn something.

    • What must be sad for you, Alley, is that, even if you are right about impending catastrophic warming, nothing can or will be done to stop it. (You have noticed all the “tipping points” gliding by, while CO2 concentration keeps climbing like a homesick angel, right? ) Knowing that must take the fun out of your existence, such as it is. How hot do you suppose will it get in your mom’s basement?

  40. My Youtube video “Vanishing Ice Most Likely All Natural! was just targeted by youtube gatekeepers

    My video was totally based on undeniable peer reviewed science. The foundation of trusted science is open debate that vets all hypotheses. Youtube is taking one more step into intellectual tyranny

    We knew this was coming as Google has pushed the idea they should be the gatekeepers of truth

    • Jim;

      I took a quick peek, and sure enough. The thing is, it looks like they are dropping a one-size-fits-all sort of sticker on global warming topics. I didn’t notice any claim in your video that the world is not warming.

      Say, now that the label is up, can you edit your video and leave it with the same label? Then you can look down and to the right (stage right) and make a suitably pithy comment on their tag. Could be hilarious!

    • Google has clearly and openly decided to side with the climate liars, absolutely politically motivated. Where are the disclaimers for all their wrong predictions?

      We can know it’s all coordinated political propaganda due to the sheer number of alarmist climate videos and articles recently that are expousing the in reality truly relatively few heat records this year, and the ginned-up fear of arctic sea ice melting.

      This Guy McPherson video, posted Aug 10, is a perfect example of a completely wrong prediction about to fail, yet taken seriously by fellow travelers.

      Will Google censor him after his predictions of collapse in September this year don’t happen? Will they post a disclaimer or warning that he’s full of it and his predictions unreliable?

      The YT feed for this video included other such alarmist ‘gems’

      “Climate scientist Michael Mann says that, under a business-as-usual scenario, the mass displacement of billions could trigger an unprecedented national security crisis”

      “Should we be focusing on surviving? Is it too late to save world?”

      Clearly Google’s YT will publish garbage without compunction, as long as it fits the narrative.

      Google’s Eric Schmidt is Obama’s b*tch, carrying out his subversive covert agenda, interfering in this election cycle with true misinformation, with fake news, just like they did against Trump.

      I expect them to go lower the closer we get to the mid-term elections.

  41. and minds will take over from youtube. Not next year or the year after but sooner than you think if youtube carry on like this.

  42. I have to say that your YouTube interview was the best I have seen on this issue. Well reasoned and spoken.

  43. PragerU has had about 80 of its videos banned or restricted by YouTube. Yet PragerU’s videos on climate, all expressing the “skeptic” position, are still available on YouTube. Plus, no contrary commentary is posted by YouTube.

  44. Unrelated but, where the heck are the University of Arizona/Overpeck emails? Anybody hear anything when they’ll be available?

    I hope they are blackening out all of the words of interest before releasing them…

    • kramer,

      On July 17 (24 days ago), this was the email response I received from Mr Schnare, the person leading the FOIA push to get the emails.

      “The University is appealing the main case to the appellate court and appealing the denial of a stay in the order of execution to the Supreme Court. This could be over within 14 days or by next spring. “

  45. Eric, as a 30-year veteran in marketing and persuasion techniques, I am not as optimistic when you say you are not concerned with skeptics having their messages hijacked. Having the ‘provenance’ of a publication make a disclaimer on anyone’s message is a strong element of undercutting credibility. (“We’re running this, but the story is false.”)

    We are challenged, often, with the need to present complexity and data to make our arguments. The left, and warmist websites, are extremely competent with simplistic and seemingly compelling responses. (Here’s a picture of a fire!)

    Our side is challenged more so today with the short attention span and lack of diligence and motivation among many to ‘go find out the truth for myself.’ As with Orwell, as along as they keep saying ‘warming’ over and over, it becomes true. Ultimately we seem to be winning based on polls and low percentage of those ‘worrying,’ but actions like YouTube, NPR, etc. will continue to draw out the war.

    • Larry I first learned about WUWT when a climate alarmist sneered at me because of my AGW skepticism, asked me if I was getting my information from WUWT.

      They can slow down or moderately disrupt information flow, but only so long as they have an audience. Word gets about.

  46. The Rise of Fox News as the dominant US cable news outlet (by viewership) for TV viewers was directly the result of half of the US got sick of the Democrat-leaning, Liberal bias from CNN, ABC, NBC,CBS.

  47. The way to respond to this latest extension of left fascism is to spoof it satirically. Post informative scientific climate videos and edit in pop-up messages like:

    “Youtube warning: if you continue to watch this politically incorrect video you could soon receive a visit from your local police department.”

    “YouTube warning: independent thought on the subject of climate change is discouraged since an official opinion has been established – continue watching this video at your own risk.”

    “YouTube warning: your online viewing history is studied by YouTube people’s analysts and if deemed insufficiently obeisant to the correct line on issues such as climate, this could result in your forcible accommodation in a YouTube correctional facility.”

  48. “This is designed to allow Wikipedia editors time to catch any discrepancies that sneak under the radar.”

    Translation – “When something is entered that goes against the AGW propaganda Wikipedia editors favor, this will them time to delete it.”

  49. Justice Scalia said it best – The antidote for free speech is more free speech.
    The only step U-Tube should consider is adding everyone’s comment and/or opinion to ANY challenge to the ‘facts’ on any subject.

  50. I’m way late to this thread, but I’ve seen no evidence of any “propaganda”, then again I’ve trained myself to screen out all the extraneous crap that fills most websites, maybe I missed out on it.

  51. I wonder how this is going to play out. It seams the government is putting the screws to social media “be political correct or else”.

  52. The free market will punish their transgressions. Users will vote with their feet.

    Make no mistake, those alternative services exist – like the tech service* which for years has quietly supported Anthony Watts by staying true to their original mission, instead of ditching commercial sanity by embracing a crazy new mission of social engineering.

    But what if you don’t have a free market? There are alternate websites such as,, and You can view them for now

    Let’s go one level up the chain. In many places in the USA there are at best 2, and often only 1 real broadband option. With telcos allowing DSL to die, it’s usually cable. So there’s no “free market” there. What happens if Comcast took it upon themselves to block,,, Breitbart, and Drudge, or charge you extra for them? With the removal of net neutrality in the US, there would be nothing legally stopping Comcast from doing so.

    In case you’re wondering where their political sympathies lie, remember that Comcast gave their employees paid time off to demonstrate against Trump.

  53. Why are they wasting manpower on conservatives and Skeptics when they can’t even count Viewers correctly? How soon till YouTube is taken to court over the fake viewers? All viewer counts should be caped at 1,00 or 10,000 views , or some other measure to prevent this false number. Those paying the bill should refuse to pay. It has been talked about for years and all that has happened so far is the NYT article.
    See the NYTs article.

  54. Is Wikipedia in any way a reliable source on climate topics these days? I avoid it on the presumption that it continues to be edited by extremists such as the infamous William Connolley (although he may no longer be personally invovled – it can be hard to tell when Google tells you “some references may have been removed under EU privacy laws…”) .

  55. Will MSNBC-CNN-CBS-ABC be able to publish wild theories linking Trump to Putin where Russia tries to infiltrate the NRA to determine whether they like arms a little, really, or really, really?

  56. What are they going to do with videos about diets, like Keto or Palio? Link to the Food Pyramid? And what about videos of a religious nature? So stupid.

Comments are closed.