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


Leave a Reply

78 Comment threads
200 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
132 Comment authors

newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Eric Stevens

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

Doug Huffman

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.

william Johnston

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

Joel Snider

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.


“Teachers go right from college to teaching, and never experience the private sector realities.”
You mean the big lunches and corporate box seats?

Joel Snider

Now HERE”S a guy that’s part of the problem.



Big lunches?
Another totally fake strawman claim from simple.
Is that claim from the movies? or is it all from alarmist fantasy land,?

Corporate box seats?
To what!?
Just how many of those box seats you spout falsehoods about, exist?

The latest public returns from IRS:
comment image?dl=0

That shows 3.3 million returns filed by S corporations in 2003 and 2.05 million returns by other corporations.

A somewhat more recent presentation by IRS describes 5.8 million active corporate tax returns filed for 2011.

Even at one box seat per corporation, there are not enough stadiums, opera houses, orchestras in the world to supply sufficient box seats.

Not that delusional sillysimon cares about facts or reality…


Like most leftists Simon is so steeped in stereotypical thinking that he can’t even imagine how full of sh^t he is.


Once again, Simon reveals that he has never actually participated in the real world.

Joel, you are a fast recoverer too.

Jeff Freedom

No kidding, Joel. What were some of the worst things about your college experience that took you years to recover from?

Pamela Gray

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.

Joel Snider

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.

Joel Snider

PS: I also put in my time out on the farms growing up, and it’s bloody hard work.


Go you Pamela….

F. Leghorn

I assure you that means nothing to her. Not from you.

Doug Huffman

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

Pamela Gray

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.

Roy Spencer

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.

Gary Pearse

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.

Gary Pearse

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.


“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.

Joel Snider

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.

Joel Snider

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.

Gunga Din

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.

Gunga Din

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

Joe Crawford

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.

Jeff Alberts

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.

Joyce Peterson

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.

George Daddis

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”.)

Pamela Gray

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?

old construction worker

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.

Tom Abbott

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.


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

Holly Birtwistle

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.

Joel Snider

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

OR simply that condescending and stuck-up.

Joel Snider

‘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.

Joel Snider

‘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.

Joel Snider

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?


CNN is a ‘private company’ remember?

Conspiracy theory debunked!

[?? .mod]


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


Not we, large corporates are the culprits without government oversight.


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.

Gunga Din

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”



“Now and then an innocent man is sent to the legislature.” Kin Hubbard


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.

Eric Stevens

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.) 🙁

Doug Huffman

The Alt-Golden Rule; He with the ‘gold’ rules.

Bob boder

Properly “he who has the gold makes the rules”


More like, he who pays the piper, calls the tune.


“part of the Democrat elite”

Like that old pinko Rupert Murdoch?

John Endicott

Ryan dear boy, what part of “most” did you fail to realize does not mean “all”?


Did you expect Ryan to actually read what he is responding to?

John Endicott

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).

Joel Snider

That’s because it’s forced through the prisms of his ideological predetermined opinions.


Not sure that RyanS isn’t a bot. That is how many of “his” responses read.


I’ll take that a a a a compliment.

Ok lets name a few of these media owner/Democrat elites.


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.


“Murdoch and the Kochs are firm progressive elites”


Pat Frank

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.

honest liberty

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.


You lost me at the vaccine conspiracy.


Yea, he lost me the same way. I know a lot about vaccines. I also know a lot about the anti-vaccinators and the impact have had on children’s health. One of the the lead anti-vaccinators has turned on the movement after her child caught whooping cough. I heard the interview, she said her baby with whooping cough was the worse thing she ever experienced. My great-grandmother told me the same thing when I was a child before vaccines.


Diphtheria epidemics used to be mass killers, sparing neither rich nor poor in even the most advanced nations.

Use of the safe diphtheria vaccine (usually in combo with whooping cough and tetanus vaccines) resulted in a more than 90% decrease in number of cases globally between 1980 and 2000.;jsessionid=06AFFAD77465EDD9FF7BE4855BBB1191?sequence=1

Anti-vaxers are certifiably nuts.


Anti-vaccination proponents are getting people killed.


The world has gone tops turvy….. MarkW and I agree on something.


Uh huh.


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.

J Mac

comment image

Gary Pearse

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.

old construction worker

‘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.

Bob boder

or the one in Ohio, i believe, that had a 170 people over the age 116.

Joel Snider

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.

Joel Snider

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.

Bob boder

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.

Joel Snider

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


You make it sound like it’s something new.

Joel Snider

I think the DEGREE of it is something new.


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


Wonder, hell. We know.


Whahipedia eh?

Here’s an appropriate link;


‘YouTube hope’…’YouTube plans’
It even dawned upon King Canute that he was not the Master of the Universe.

J Mac

What alternative platforms to ‘you tube’ are available?

James Schrumpf

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.

A recent addition:

ScottyB should be added to the list of competitors to YouTube and Twitter

J Mac

Thanks for the links Commiebob, Brian-oz4caster, and ScottyB!

drednicolson is another.


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;-)

Peter D

Daily Motion? There are others.

John Endicott

If you’re not on Bitchute, you’re playing in the weeds. Bitchute is video hosting that relies on torrent networks, meaning there is no storage or server overhead for the hosting service, as the hosting is done by the users themselves. It is uncensorable, much like all torrent streams. The only thing it lacks is livestreaming, but even that can be overcome in the near future.



Never heard of BitChute before, so gave it a whirl, glad I did. First up!


J Mac

Thanks for the suggestions and links ozspeaksup, PeterD, John Endicott, and Jeremy!


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.

James Schrumpf

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.

Pat Frank

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.

Joel Snider

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.


New left-wing low in Australia; Sky News ‘station’ ban by lefty Vic Gov . . .

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

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

Bloke down the pub

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.

Peter Plail

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


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.


Craig W

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.


I have just removed YouTube from my “Favorites Bar” …permanently ! Vimeo, here I come !!


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.


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.


You were just wrong the first time, but now your demonstrating blinkered ignorance.


Ryan complaining about blinkered ignorance.
Now that thar is funny.

John Endicott

funny but typical of the left – projecting their own attributes onto others.


ryan, I am curious … where was he wrong the first time?


He thinks calling it 0.041% instead of 410ppm makes the slightest difference.


Total atmospheric CO2 is 1 x 2,439th of the sky. Does that sound less Ryan?

(1,000,000 divided by 410 = 2,439.02439024)

PS Crews on nuclear submarines work in an atmosphere with CO2 averaging 8,0000ppm.

John Endicott

RyanS, putting things into their proper perspective is always helpful. It’s the deceitful who thinks hiding that proper perspective is the way to go.

David Borth

The “97%” deny the the 96%.

Sam C Cogar

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.


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.


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

Tom Abbott

“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.

John Endicott

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


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.

william Johnston

Witness the obama liebrary.

Reed Coray

And massage parlor.

Propaganda and very desperate propaganda at that.

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’.

Hurry up good people! It’s long past time to take the offensive!
Sue the warmists under Civil RICO!


I have been considering this approach for several years and I think it is now time to proceed..

Civil RICO provides for TRIPLE DAMAGES. Global losses from the global warming scam are in the trillions, including hundreds of billions on the USA.

We would sue the sources of warmist funding and those who have significantly profited from the global warming scam..

The key to starting a civil RICO action is to raise several million dollars to fund the lawsuit, which will be protracted and expensive.

If serious funders are interested, please contact me through

Regards, Allan MacRae

September 21, 2014 11:28 pm

On Accountability:

I wrote this to a friend in the USA one year ago (in 2013):

I am an engineer, not a lawyer, but to be clear I was thinking of a class action (or similar) lawsuit, rather than an individual lawsuit from yourself or anyone else.

I suggest that there have been many parties that have been damaged by global warming alarmism. Perhaps the most notable are people who have been forced to pay excessive rates for electricity due to CO2-mandated wind and solar power schemes. Would the people of California qualify? Any other states? I suggest the people of Great Britain, Germany and possibly even Ontario would qualify, but the USA is where this lawsuit would do the most good.

There is an interesting field of US law that employs the RICO (anti-racketeering) statutes to provide treble (triple) damages in civil cases. That might be a suitable approach.


Youtube (aka Google) and Wikipedia are de facto monopolies on the distribution of information, which in turn is closely tied to their revenue and business practice.

When other businesses monopolize a sector of the economy,
they are, by law, called to account and deconstructed.



They are big, but they aren’t monopolies. Not even close.
You don’t like them, then use their competitors and urge your friends to as well.

Using government to destroy those you like is how the left operates.


There are usable alternatives for the purpose of hosting, incl. video hosting.

Not so much for Twitter and Facebook. There are other networks, without the users.


If they get too big for their britches, break ’em up. That is what antitrust is for.


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.


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

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 believe it is only in the U.S. right now, so you can use a VPN to get around it..

Robert Stewart

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.


“Censorship” is government action. Exclusively.

Robert Stewart

Agreed. What’s proposed is more akin to defacing the work of someone else. Vandalism?


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?

Paul Schnurr

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.

Bruce Ploetz

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).

Reed Coray

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 thought ‘googol’ came from Carl Sagan.

John Endicott

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.

Max Dupilka

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.


What will y’all do when Giggle buys out DuckDuckGo? Hey?

Ed Zuiderwijk

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.

Climate Heretic

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.

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.


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.


“Users will vote with their feet.”

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


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.

D. Cohen

Anything built in a day can fall in a day …

Tom Halla

Anyone who relies on Wikipedia as an authoritative source is definitely taking sides.

D. J. Hawkins

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.


Sounds like a great school.

Tom Abbott

“Even my son’s grammar school won’t allow the students to cite Wikipedia as a source.”

That’s funny! And telling. And perhaps a sign of hope.

matt cross

Nothing says, “rigorously researched and scientifically sound” like a Wikipedia citation.

Norman Blanton

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…


Will there be Russian vodka ad placements also?


How about links to UAH and ARGO data graphs in real time instead.

“refuting evidence of rising temperatures”
What about those who accept rising temperatures and present empirical evidence that the warming is not related to emissions?


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.

D. Cohen

You should take a look at
It is safer to say that it has been getting generally warmer for the last several centuries, since the end of the little ice age.


Just eyeballing based on those proxies looks like the initial 4 to 5 k years is where it all occurred and cooling since?

Thomas Englert

I’d say it’s been getting generally cooler for thousands of years, and not likely to fully recover to the Optimum temperature of 6-7000 years ago. We’ve seen centennial-scale warming within millenial-scale cooling.


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.

tom s

Hey U TUBE….EFF OFF you elitist smelly leftists!

Bob boder

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.



Bruce Cobb

“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.

John Harmsworth

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!


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.

John Endicott

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.


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.


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]?


Migraines will cause things like that!

Pamela Gray

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.

Frank K.

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.


Plus I believe Google Chrome records keystrokes.

Rob Dawg

‘I welcome this change,’ Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University, told BuzzFeed News.

That’s it for me – done with YouTube permanently. I won’t support thought tyranny. Thanks for the heads up WUWT.


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.


Nobody claims all vaccines have no effect what so ever