The geoengineering of consent: How conspiracists dominate YouTube climate science content

Most YouTube videos relating to climate change prevention oppose scientific consensus and hijack technical terms to appear credible, says study


Using YouTube to learn about climate-change-related topics will expose you to video content that mostly opposes worldwide scientific consensus.

That’s the finding of a new study published in Frontiers in Communication, which also reveals that some scientific terms, such as geoengineering, have been ‘hijacked’ by conspiracy theorists so that searches provide entirely non-scientific video content. Scientists could counteract this by forming alliances with influential YouTubers, politicians and those in popular culture, to ensure scientifically accurate video content reaches the widest-possible audience.

“Searching YouTube for climate-science and climate-engineering-related terms finds fewer than half of the videos represent mainstream scientific views,” says study author Dr. Joachim Allgaier, Senior Researcher at the RWTH Aachen University. “It’s alarming to find that the majority of videos propagate conspiracy theories about climate science and technology.”

Nearly 2 billion logged-in users – half the world online – visit YouTube every month, and research has shown that users see it as a platform for learning about science, health and technology.

Climate conspiracists

Allgaier wanted to know if the information YouTube users found, when searching for scientific information on climate change and climate modification, represented scientifically accurate views.

“So far, research has focused on the most-watched videos, checking their scientific accuracy, but this doesn’t tell us what an average internet user will find, as the results are influenced by previous search and watch histories,” reports Allgaier. “To combat this, I used the anonymization tool TOR to avoid personalization of the results.”

Employing ten climate change-related search terms, Allgaier analyzed 200 videos about climate change and climate modification topics. He found that the majority of these videos opposed the worldwide scientific consensus, as detailed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Most videos propagated the so-called “chemtrails” conspiracy theory, which is a belief that the condensation trails of airplanes are purposefully enriched with harmful substances to modify the weather, control human populations, or for biological or chemical warfare. Scientists have clearly shown there is no evidence for such a large-scale secret atmospheric spraying program.

Geoengineering has been hijacked

Alarmingly, Allgaier found that the conspiracy theorists have ‘hijacked’ some relatively recent scientific terms by using them to describe their worldview of a global conspiracy. In fact, ‘chemtrailers’, as they are known, explicitly advise their followers to use scientific terms in their content, so that they are not immediately identified as conspiracy theorists.

“Within the scientific community, ‘geoengineering’ describes technology with the potential to deal with the serious consequences of climate change, if we don’t manage to reduce greenhouse gases successfully. For example, greenhouse gas removal, solar radiation management or massive forestation to absorb carbon dioxide,” explains Allgaier. “However, people searching for ‘geoengineering’ or ‘climate modification’ on YouTube won’t find any information on these topics in the way they are discussed by scientists and engineers. Instead, searching for these terms results in videos that leave users exposed to entirely non-scientific video content.”

Allgaier also questions YouTube search algorithms – does its business model direct traffic towards videos of dubious scientific content? He found some of the conspiracy videos being monetized by the users via adverts or the sale of merchandise with conspiracy-theory motives.

“The way YouTube search algorithms work is not very transparent. We should be aware this powerful artificial intelligence is already making decisions for us, for example, if you choose to use ‘auto-play’. I think YouTube should take responsibility to ensure its users will find high-quality information if they search for scientific and biomedical terms, instead of being exposed to doubtful conspiracy videos,” argues Allgaier.

Scientists and YouTubers unite!

To counter the non-scientific content on YouTube, Allgaier, who recently spoke at the World Conference of Science Journalists about his work, suggests scientists and science communicators should take YouTube seriously as a platform for sharing scientific information.

“YouTube has an enormous reach as an information channel, and some of the popular science YouTubers are doing an excellent job at communicating complex subjects and reaching new audiences. Scientists could form alliances with science-communicators, politicians and those in popular culture in order to reach out to the widest-possible audience. They should speak out publicly about their research and be transparent in order to keep established trustful relationships with citizens and society.”


Please link to the original research article in your reporting:

Corresponding author: Dr. Joachim Allgaier,

Frontiers is an award-winning Open Science platform and leading open-access scholarly publisher. Our mission is to make high-quality, peer-reviewed research articles rapidly and freely available to everybody in the world, thereby accelerating scientific and technological innovation, societal progress and economic growth. Frontiers received the 2014 ALPSP Gold Award for Innovation in Publishing. For more information, visit and follow @Frontiersin on Twitter.

From EurekAlert!

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 25, 2019 10:59 pm

And with EurekAlert! we have an actual World expert in propagation of pseudo-scientific bullshits.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
July 25, 2019 11:55 pm

Many people can’t tell pseudo-profound BS from actual profound statements. link

Just because you can’t understand something, that doesn’t mean it’s profound. Mind you, sometimes even the experts can’t tell. Bogdanov affair

Reply to  commieBob
July 26, 2019 10:23 am

“… provide entirely non-scientific video content”

Since when did anyone expect otherwise? Most stuff fed to you by Google is garbage because their business model is based on click-bait and revenue generation, not accuracy. This is not news and we did not need an academic buffoon to explain it to us.

What the author seems to be lamenting is that his non-scientific “consensus” does not get to rule access to the public’s brains.

Reply to  Greg
July 26, 2019 11:44 am

You tube search results are based on what you looked for before, an they ‘monitize’ things people look for. I find it encouraging that so many people are looking for info on climate, and getting exposed to good videos of people like Willie Soon.

William Astley
Reply to  Fran
July 26, 2019 2:38 pm

Typical cult of CAGW.

As the facts do not support CAGW, it necessary to cry conspiracy, denier, evil person, to those who uncover the scam.

The ‘conspiracy’ is evidence of a cottage industry of changing past raw temperature data to create the GISS hockey stick.

The ‘conspiracy’ is the unexplained 1970’s cooling period.

The ‘conspiracy’ is the 20 year period with almost no warming.

The ‘conspiracy is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels do not correlate with planetary temperature change in the paleo record.

The ‘conspiracy’ is quoting peer reviewed papers that disprove the foundations of CAGW.

– There is no evidence of amplification for any forcing change.

– The IPCC predicted tropical tropospheric hot spot is not observed,

– There is almost no tropical region warming.

– Arctic sea ice is stable in yearly extent and has thickened. with a substantial increase in multiyear lce.

Edward Bolduc
Reply to  commieBob
July 27, 2019 11:26 am

Yep I believe this article is on target. My wife has been sucked in on this cemtrail. garbage also the AI take over and G5 mind control it is ruining my life. She buys all this crap. That supposed to stop it. Talk about mind control.

Reply to  Edward Bolduc
July 28, 2019 9:11 am Geoengineer David Keith Admits to Dangers of Spraying Aluminum ( Geoengineering Watch )

ATSDR – Public Health Statement: Aluminum

Reply to  Edward Bolduc
July 28, 2019 9:19 am

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any ‘inquisitive inquirer’ the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

July 25, 2019 11:19 pm

“It’s alarming to find that the majority of videos propagate conspiracy theories about climate science and technology.”

Alarming but not surprising given that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 3:42 am

There’s undeniably lot of fake news, misunderstandings etc in Youtube. But it is alarming that people think that non-alarmist people are not persecuted yet enough.

It would be harmful to remove all Roger Pielke jr from Youtube videos just because someone opines his persecution is a conspiracy theory.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 4:18 am

For once I agree with Loydo. Climate alarmists have spread their science denying drivel everywhere. It would take an army of scientists working 24 hours a day to correct even a small percentage of the alarmist propaganda.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Bill Toland
July 26, 2019 6:42 am

When there is no ongoing global warming, why would anybody in their right mind consider geoengineering aimed at cooling the planet? As the planet is already cooling, it’s a dead/bad idea. What hubris it is to assume these “scientists” really know what geoengineering ideas might do.

Thus, it makes complete sense to counter the “science” of climate change, a la the IPCC, which is junk science. When they have absolutely no real scientific evidence that CO2 can do what they say, where does it come off that they have science behind them and all others are wrong. I teach at least 10 different ways that CO2 cannot do what they say. Junk science is fun because it is wrong in every way.

Reply to  Charles Higley
July 26, 2019 10:47 am

“As the planet is already cooling, it’s a dead/bad idea.”

Where do you see that happening ? Data , facts, sources ?

James Schrumpf
Reply to  Greg
July 26, 2019 2:46 pm

Look at NOAA’s GHCN Monthly summaries of TAVG for the past four or five years. Whole lotta cooling going on.

Reply to  Greg
July 27, 2019 2:11 am

The climatic time scale is from 30 years up. Five years is just weather, though alarmists forget this often.

So a five year trend is a non sequitur here.

Reply to  Charles Higley
July 26, 2019 12:07 pm

People, please stop saying it might, it may , Geoengineering has being going on now for quite some time! Put away your normalcy bias , and face the facts!

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 6:52 am

That’s funny, Loydo whining about a tactic she has perfected.

Reply to  MarkW
July 26, 2019 9:54 am

Loydo evidently struggles every morning with the shoe thingy.

Reply to  goldminor
July 26, 2019 10:40 am

goldminor July 26, 2019 at 9:54 am
Loydo evidently struggles every morning with the shoe thingy.

Just the laces-tying thing – or the Left-Right thingy?

Reply to  _Jim
July 26, 2019 8:11 pm

There is no right on loydo it’s left and more left.

John in Oz
July 25, 2019 11:28 pm

If you have to be a ‘climate scientist’ to speak with authority on climate science, does a PhD in philosophy make one qualified to decide scientific ‘truth’?

There are many YouTube videos of the infamous Mr Mann and many others that hijack scientific terminology. E.g. (my bold),

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change is defined as: “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.”

Reply to  John in Oz
July 26, 2019 2:08 am

His biography says he is a “sociologist”
His publication history reveals him to be a globalist comrade

Seems unlikely he would be able to light an oil lamp when his “renewable” grid goes down.

Reply to  bwegher
July 26, 2019 4:42 am

““Searching YouTube for climate-science and climate-engineering-related terms finds fewer than half of the videos represent mainstream scientific views,” says study author Dr. Joachim Allgaier, Senior Researcher at the RWTH Aachen University.”

As bwegher points out. This study is not climate science. It’s about people trumpeting a claimed consensus; all criticism is propagating “conspiracy theories”.

Reply to  John in Oz
July 26, 2019 2:16 am

That’s exactly right. Climate scientists routinely hijack terms like “fingerprints” and “signal” and “noise” and apply them to situations where they don’t actually make sense, or where circular reasoning is used to simply assume their existence.

Also, I assume you quoted the IPCC to draw attention to their crabbed interpretation of climate change as being only caused by humans. But I also see a problem with the single term “attributed” as used in that quote. Who or what makes that attribution? People? Select scientists? In what other field of physical science is a natural phenomenon itself defined in terms of a subjective evaluation? I can’t think of any.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  John in Oz
July 26, 2019 3:41 am

John in Oz

It is important, I think, to highlight that the definition you cite was changed for AR4 to mean all climate changes, not just human-induced ones. “Climate Change”, formerly limited to our contribution, so the IPCC reports now refer to all changes, with the implicit intention of having the public (unaware of the change in the definition) assume that changes noted in AR4 and AR5 are in fact human-caused, not natural as well.

Together with their rating of confidence such as “high confidence”, “extremely high confidence”, “super-amazingly high confidence” and ultra-super-absolutely certain confidence” ratings on the human portion of any discernable change in the weather patterns, they are duping the public into believing that all climate change is human-caused.

If CO2 had all the powers attributed to it there would be no need for such subterfuge, but there we are: one more shaded truth which more YouTube videos will, no doubt, document.

If anyone can imagine a global consensus on science, I can just as impossibly imagine a global consensus on food. If one interpretation of evidence is sufficient for science, then one type meal will also be acceptable for all people. In both cases it will be a thin gruel.

Joel O'Bryan
July 25, 2019 11:45 pm

No doubt Dr. Joachim Allgaier would place Tony Heller’s Real Climate Science YouTube “Pulling Back the Curtain” videos in the “conspiracy” category in order to dismiss his clear evidence of the climate scam by US government agencies.

Dr. Joachim Allgaier just doesn’t realize how brainwashed he is. Or maybe he does and but needs the paycheck that “going along” provides?

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 26, 2019 1:43 am

How do you know you’re not brainwashed?

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 3:06 am

Because we don’t all sing from the same hymn book, like the Climate Faithful do.
When all you’re capable of doing is repeating talking points, and can’t respond effectively to having the flaws in those talking points pointed out, then you aren’t thinking for yourself. You’ve let someone else do your thinking for you.

That’s nearly the definition of Brainwashed.


Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Schitzree
July 26, 2019 3:46 am

Revere the independent investigation of truth. It is a sacred right and responsibility. If you abdicate this responsibility, you become a plaything of the ignorant.

The assumption by the learned investigator is that if people see something on YouTube, they believe automatically it. This is the position of an elitist who thinks he sees what others do not due to some special capacity. His propaganda wars should not be enabled by public funds.

Reply to  Schitzree
July 26, 2019 3:51 am

I do.

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 3:38 am

Who cares? Whether Joel O’Brien knows whether or not he has been brainwashed isn’t relevant to his ability to correctly observe that Dr. Joachim Allgaier has been brainwashed. The latter premises his study on a comparison of assertions in YouTube videos to a supposed “scientific consensus” – an oxymoron given that opinion is anathema to the scientific method. Anyone who presumes the truth of X, based solely on what is conceded to be a mere opinion by another that X is true, is by definition brainwashed. There is no critical thinking involved in saying X must be true because person or persons Y believe it to be true.

Reply to  Kurt
July 26, 2019 10:00 am

I would bet that a good number of people make assessments because they heard someone they know discuss some topic. Those same people will seldom research on their own so what they have heard and accepted as likely true becomes their reality, or underatnding of how things work.

Reply to  goldminor
July 26, 2019 10:34 am

I don’t disagree with that. But Joachim Allgaier is a PhD who, despite all his education, misunderstands the very nature of the scientific procedure; he thinks that facts can be scientifically established as a baseline for truth using nothing more than the subjective judgments of professors and other pure academics who have no way of objectively demonstrating the truth of those facts. It’s a special kind of stupid to dismiss one person’s beliefs as being “unscientific” on the express, and sole rationale that those beliefs conflict with the opinions of someone else.

Reply to  goldminor
July 26, 2019 10:48 am

Hence the origin of the discussion initiator -“They say ….”. If I ever ask who “they” are, I don’t usually get a satisfactory answer.

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 3:45 am

That’s a part of the problem. The other part is that people who embrace conspiracies, may also have something important and factual to say as well. What comes to Tony Heller, he’s a bit crackpot but he does have a lot of good points also.

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 3:52 am

As for me, I interrogate the data and run the numbers myself. Handy tools I find are the ‘R’ programming language which is the language if statistics. Great for number crunching and graphics. I also use that eternal standby, the ‘C’ language. Fast, clean, elegant.
I got undergraduate degrees in Biology and Chemistry, and then did my PhD research in analytical chemistry and applied spectroscopy. As you may know, applied spectroscopy is nothing more than “Radiative Physics” taken into the lab and put to work. So I have the background to call BS on a huge range of biology based scares like dying coral reefs, species extinctions, and so on.
Over the course of my studies, my profs all made sure all the students got a thorough background in the theory and especially, the physical basis of every topic we studied. This physical basis of how the world works has given me the tools I need to study and *understand* the science behind AGW and the more extreme CAGW.

Am I a climate scientist?
NO! And that is the point of the matter, isn’t it? I use their methods, and their data, and I see the failings of their processes, and the things they have done to get their desired results.

My favorite Warmist:
At the Watering Hole on a Friday after work –
While discussing the theory of AGW at the bar, I caught the attention of a cute young college student. After listening to me for a bit, she declared that the problem was me. The cute little girl revealed that she was a Sociology major and went into Full Finger Wagging Mode and declared:

You do do not believe in Global Warming because you do not understand Radiative Physics. If you understood Radiative Physics, you would *Believe In* Global Warming!

Finger wagging the whole time. Classic.
Imagine if you will:
An undergraduate Sociology major lecturing an Applied Spectroscopist on Radiative Physics.
It was a Kodak moment. She was so cute, I wish I had a camera.

How do you know you’re not brainwashed?

Hey, everybody at WUWT. Let’s take Loydo’s question straight up. Let’s put out straight up answers. It is a fair question.

How about you?

Reply to  TonyL
July 26, 2019 9:06 am

First, nobody knows that they are not brainwashed, they believe they are not brainwashed. I believe I am not brainwashed because I am capable of changing my mind when new evidence is presented. Like many people here, I once took the so-called consensus for granted. I thought about it. I changed my mind.

Reply to  TonyL
July 26, 2019 10:11 am

My fave story along those lines, albeit with the alternate and opposite ending, is that I watched the “Gore” Oscar ceremony show at a party at a Berkeley sociology professor’s house. When Gore won, I turned around to her and said “I don’t believe it, that’s such bullsh!t science”. Her response was “So what, it’s a means to an end”. I’ve never heard anyone be so brutally honest since.

Reply to  TonyL
July 26, 2019 3:39 pm

How about you?

Fair question TonyL. Short answer is no, the long answer is yes.

Funny finger wagging story by the way. There was a similar example from this a few years ago sneering at Stephen Hawking’s comments about AGW with the punchline something like: what would he know about radiation.

Like it or not we’re all brainwashed, if brainwashing is some kind of social conditioning. In other words our attitudes, beliefs, opinions, etc are all a product of our social setting, none are innate. How different would all those attributes be if I’d been adopted and raised as a New Guinea highlander? Or by Yak herders in Tibet? Or by a Muslim family that owned brick-making factory in Sumatra? Opions change.

Many people mistakenly believe that they ARE their opinions. That makes it very difficult to recognize brainwashing in ones self, me included. No one is more than a couple of beers away from delusional finger-waving.

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 7:13 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You bring up a good point and there is merit in what you say. Your point raises the question of whether there is anything we can find which is truly objective outside of out attitudes and beliefs.
A very good question indeed.
A first attempt at answering this question gave rise to a branch of thought we now know as Philosophy. The quest for the truth quickly expanded to a search for a total metaphysical Truth. We all know how that turned out. But a line of thought branched off, a bit more concerned with the practical. This became known as epistemology. That is, understanding how we know things, or perhaps why we think we know the things we think we know. (getting warmer.)
Then people realized that there are facts out there. For instance, it was observed that pure water freezes at a constant temperature. It may sound simple, but it is highly non-trivial. The freezing point of water could be measured by anyone, anywhere, regardless of culture, beliefs, location, time, and everybody would get the same answer. It became understood that the freezing point of water is a constant.
Enter The Age Of Reason:
Science is nothing more than the search for experimental verification, and physical proof of our ideas.
Chemistry – This is both a good example, and hard to relate to. (so be it) First, nobody has ever seen a molecule, so how on earth can we draw molecular structures, predict reactions, and all the rest? We use observations, then make inferences, then we validate those inferences with experiment. Theory and experiment go hand in hand.
An example from Organic Chemistry:
Alkanes, the simplest organic compounds are robust against almost all reactions. The only reaction they will undergo is halogenation via energetic UV light. This, we observe. We infer that the reaction proceeds by a free radical mechanism of some sort. We realize that our prediction has a consequence. If the reaction proceeds as thought, there should be a sequence in reaction rates. Compounds with primary carbons should react the fastest. Compounds with secondary carbons will be next in line, and tertiary carbons the slowest of all.
In the lab, we find that the reaction rates are exactly as predicted, and so a chain of inference is validated, and we have an idea of our first reaction mechanism. And there is more. Observe the reaction rate of an unknown alkane compound, and you can tell if there are primary or secondary or tertiary carbons present. So we have our first window into molecular structure. This is how we come to know things. BTW, in a very common University Organic Chem curriculum, this is the very first experiment the students do. {This may explain why chem majors can be so stubborn when they say they know something, drives the philosophy majors crazy.}

Back To Climate Science:
Remember that Cute Sociology Major from above, now CSM.
CSM: Carbon Dioxide warms the Earth due to radiative physics.
Me: I do not think so.
CSM: Do you question radiative physics?
Me: No, the theory is fully validated in every detail, I accept it.
CSM: Why then?
Me: Radiative physics demands that heat transfer through the atmosphere is dominated by radiative transfer. A consequence is that there should be a mid-tropospheric hot spot. First, heat transfer through the atmosphere is dominated by convection not radiation, so I am not sure your theory applies. Second, the predicted hot spot is not present.
CSM: Hmmmm.
Me: Got anything else?
CSM: My theory also predicts the Stratosphere should cool. Let’s measure it.
Sure enough, it is cooling.
Me: Hmmmmm.
Bill: Hi guys, whats hot!
Us: The stratosphere, it’s cooling.
Bill: Yup, we are at a big lull between 11 year Solar Cycles. Sunspots are at a minimum, and the stratosphere is cooling. Just as I predicted! Science!
CSM: Hmmmmm.
Me: Hmmmmm.

And that is the way it works. (or not)

Reply to  Loydo
July 27, 2019 2:16 am

Geez, Loydo, nice to hear thoughtful comments from you. Welcome to do it again. /real

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 5:15 am

Loydo July 26, 2019 at 1:43 am
How do you know you’re not brainwashed?

Have somebody else do the ‘test grading’?

Does Loydo ‘grade’ his own tests? (THAT may be your problem, Buckwheat … it goes back to a “Dunning-Kruger” thing: an over-estimation of one’s competence.)

Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 9:39 am

Errrrm, because he can look at, and understand the actual data ?? You might want to try that yourself sometime.

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 26, 2019 8:10 pm

It’s climate science … there is actual data???

For the most part you just make-up your own data, then you average something and call it your result because the average fixes everything.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Loydo
July 26, 2019 9:36 pm


If reality, either as observed as you go about living, or formally constrained in experiments, does not agree with your beliefs, you have been brainwashed.

Conversely, if what you believe to be true IS supported by reality, then you probably haven’t been brainwashed. However, even if you have been brainwashed, it is a moot point because you can depend on your particular brainwashing to be a useful guide to how things actually work. That is, when reality and beliefs are congruent, then you have working guide to “life, the universe, and everything.” You can be thankful that you were brainwashed correctly, and not by an ideologue with a political agenda.

July 26, 2019 12:24 am

I’m glad that climate sceptics get airplay on YouTube because they get very little via the MSM.

Reply to  Dnalor50
July 26, 2019 4:35 am

And isn’t that the heart of the matter. The establishment insists on preaching and people want to See pros and cons of an argument I.e. debate.

July 26, 2019 1:44 am

The lack of representativeness in Dr. Allgaiers “study” is so appalling that I expect his next scientific question to be:
“Where has all the white gone when the snow has melted?”
And he will of course accuse the conspiring climate deniers…

Reply to  Telehiv
July 26, 2019 2:49 am

“If your truck says ‘Dodge’ on the front, do you really need a horn?”

July 26, 2019 10:02 am


Gary Mount
July 26, 2019 1:57 am

I prefer to read climate science than watch videos related to climate science. On the other hand, I have watched a few hundred hours so far this year about mechanical keyboards.
I study climate science every day and am preparing to write climate modeling code. Its been a fun 15 years learning all the things I need to know to start my climate software engineering project, and I’m not including the previous 30 years learning software engineering and electrical engineering.
My 10th year anniversary of WUWT is coming up next February and I hope to have a series of articles for WUWT based on “The Building Wattson Project”. More details in the new year. Meanwhile I still have a huge amount of studying and work to do.

July 26, 2019 1:59 am

“Doctor” Joachim Algaier biography

Looks like the PhD is Sociology

Obviously a globalist, with his income derived in some way from promoting the “global community”
Anyone who claims that the IPCC represents the “mainstream” regarding the “Climate Change” meme is under the influence of some mix of hallucinogens.
The overwhelming amount of mainstream science clearly shows there is no “climate crisis” or even any actual change in any of the Earth’s various climates. I doubt he could relate the scientific definition of any climate.
Or give the basic concept of how carbon dioxide influences the IR spectrum of the atmosphere.

CO2 is not pollution. Ask anyone who has studied photosynthesis.

Robert Beckman
Reply to  bwegher
July 26, 2019 2:21 am

Even that isn’t how pollution should be used.

Pollution should only be used to describe unwanted things. CO2 isn’t pollution in a greenhouse, or in the gas shell of an inert gas welder, but it most definitely is if some fool filled my scuba tank with it.

Heavy metal isn’t noise pollution, unless you just hate life ….. unless you’re walking down the aisle at a wedding.

Pollution is all about the undesirableness of something, and we should insist it be used that way. Remember, oil was a terrible pollutant that ruined land until quite recently.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Robert Beckman
July 26, 2019 2:59 pm

“A weed is a flower out of place.”

July 26, 2019 2:06 am

“Within the scientific community, ‘geoengineering’ describes technology with the POTENTIAL to deal with the serious consequences of climate change”

I thought engineering described systems and methods that actually work, instead of just hopefully work. And can you really describe something as being “technology” if its intended use is just theoretical? These authors are maybe more like those dreaded conspiracy theorists than they might want to admit.

Darrell Everett
July 26, 2019 2:14 am

Venus had a run-away greenhouse effect; and that was without cow farts!

Reply to  Darrell Everett
July 26, 2019 3:58 am

No it didn’t. For a start, Greenhouse isn’t a scientific term but a way to hide the actual science. Second, the effect on Venus is largely a result of the atmospheric pressure and it wouldn’t matter if the CO2 content were 1% or the current 94%, it would have very much the same high temperature. So, except for the need for SOME IR active gases OR cloud, in order to radiate from near the top of the atmosphere, the absolute temperature on Venus is largely unaffected by CO2 concentration but is instead governed by lapse rate up to the irradiating layer. That makes a “runaway effect” based on CO2 impossible.

John Endicott
Reply to  Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)
July 26, 2019 5:21 am

Indeed. Just look at our other neighbor, Mars. Both Venus and Mars have over 90% CO2 atmospheres.Venus has a very thick/high pressure atmosphere and is damn hot Mars has a very thin/low pressure atmosphere and is damn cold. if 90%+ CO2 resulted in “runaway global warming”, Mars should have runaway by now and should be hot, just like Venus. it’s not. Any affect of CO2 is incidental to the size/pressure of their respective atmospheres.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Darrell Everett
July 26, 2019 6:10 am

Venus had a run-away greenhouse effect

Emm… no. Venus is simply hot. It never was cold.

Reply to  Rainer Bensch
July 27, 2019 2:22 am

We don’t know well for sure, but it has been theorized Venus had seas of water, but they’d slow down the rotation more than on the Earth. And surely Venus is rotating slowly. The thick sphere of CO2 has not always been that thick.

Reply to  Darrell Everett
July 26, 2019 6:55 am

Venus never cooled enough for water to precipitate out of it’s atmosphere. In other words, it’s always been that hot.

Pat Frank
Reply to  MarkW
July 26, 2019 10:28 am

Venus has no water oceans to convert CO2 into carbonate. It has no surface tectonics to subduct precipitated carbonates into the crust.

Primordial Earth had an atmosphere of 60-100 bars of CO2. Water boils at about 275 C under an atmosphere of that pressure.

The best thing that ever happened to Earth, from our perspective, is that it collided with a Mars-sized planet and got most of its crust blown off into space.

The bits of crustal material remaining floated on a sea of slowly churning magmatic mantle, and surface subduction was born into our solar system. The resulting basins allowed deep water oceans.

The oceans were hot. Almost all that primordial CO2 got precipitated away into sedimentary deposits. Tectonics subducted carbonates into a deep carbon cycle.

Venus has a continuous crustal layer. No surface tectonics, and no ocean basins. Likewise Mars. Neither had the capacity to precipitate out their primordial CO2 atmosphere.

Mars lost its atmosphere to solar wind after its core solidified and its magnetic field turned off. Venus still has its primordial CO2 atmosphere.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 26, 2019 2:04 pm

“Primordial Earth had an atmosphere of 60-100 bars of CO2. Water boils at about 275 C under an atmosphere of that pressure.

The best thing that ever happened to Earth, from our perspective, is that it collided with a Mars-sized planet and got most of its crust blown off into space.

The bits of crustal material remaining floated on a sea of slowly churning magmatic mantle, and surface subduction was born into our solar system. The resulting basins allowed deep water oceans.”

Interesting. That is the first time I have seen this kind of explanation for the formation of the continents.

July 26, 2019 2:40 am

seeing as youtubes being gutted and controlled heavily already, as are TEDtalks that may veer from “mainstream thinking” his call for monitoring etc is curious
I guess the dream is “his groups think “only
loved he had to anonymise his searches
why not go to a library pc where the prior searches would be hugely varied and in line with reality…oh oops

Tom Abbott
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 26, 2019 2:11 pm

Or he could just erase his cookies before each search. Or use a blocker to prevent the cookies from being put on his computer in the first place. Or use a program to radomly feed Google incorrect info about your computer, which makes Google unable to indentify you from one visit to another.

July 26, 2019 2:42 am

just thought
and I BET he used the goog engine
did he realise how their algos screen out non msm i wonder?
or redirect to add to profit for them?

July 26, 2019 3:00 am

-Use Tor to visit youtube Anonymously
-Get directed to all the crazy conspiracy vids and chem-trail nonsense.

And needless to say, he never wondered if these two facts might be connected.


Reply to  Schitzree
July 26, 2019 3:48 am

A fair point. I don’t know how the recommendation algorithm really works, but it does suffer from click-baiting and geolocation tuning, in addition to just failing.

July 26, 2019 3:06 am

It all depends on your view on what the “Conspiracy Theory” is. For many and increasing the Conspiracy is rooted in the CAGW catastrophic Meme which is now firmly embedded in the MSM.
The internet, youtube et al is now the only way this Meme can be challenged and a great deal of good solid science is available for anyone wishing to find it. However alongside this is a load of nonsense, often put out by those wishing to take advantage of the hysteria associated with this CAGW Meme.
It is a major problem as generally the hysterical elements are more interesting than the boring science which requires depth of thought.
Eventually the penny will drop as prediction after prediction fails to materialise and the purported solutions bite into day to day costs and inconvenience. But it will take a long time.
The dark side of all this is the political manipulation of the situation by the now nuevo – Communist elements hell bent on establishing at top down state control of all our activities.

July 26, 2019 3:59 am

It’s alarming to find that the majority of videos propagate conspiracy theories about climate science and technology.

I wonder how the author would rate the videos coming out of yesterday’s Heartland ICCC conference.
Probably as “not mainstream”, or “propaganda” or “conspiracy theory”

July 26, 2019 5:59 am

“Most YouTube videos relating to climate change prevention oppose scientific consensus…”

Perhaps the YouTube videos DO represent the “scientific consensus” which is something along these lines:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” (Petition Project)

July 26, 2019 6:51 am

How dare those peons disagree with us.

Steve O
July 26, 2019 7:06 am

YouTube is a general posting service, allowing anyone to post what they want to post — within some restrictions and subject to some censoring. The video content is based on what videos are uploaded. The sorting method YouTube uses to present videos can highlight or bury content based on YouTube’s biases.

If someone wants to provide a service to filter videos according to their scientific integrity, then that might be useful. Someone would have to review and evaluate videos, and then decide how to tag them. And then a user could decide whether or not to use a filter, or whose filter to use.

Reply to  Steve O
July 26, 2019 7:58 am

re: “YouTube is a general posting service, allowing anyone to post what they want to post — within some restrictions and subject to some censoring.

… subject to:

Part I. Common Carrier Regulation
Section 230.

Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material

David J Seeger
July 26, 2019 7:32 am

I read the journal article (no paywall) linked in the WUWT article above. All becomes quickly clear. The 200 Youtube videos consisted of 10 sets of videos, one set for each of 10 search terms. The search terms are words/ phrases with the first letters capitalized.

Here are the results for the four neutral search terms:

“For the search terms Climate, Climate Change, Climate Science, and Global Warming, the absolute majority of videos in the sample adhere to the scientific consensus view. Most of them are parts of TV news programs or professional TV documentaries that in general accurately explain climate change and global warming, and often also underline the serious negative consequences of man-made climate change for people, animals, and plants. … Only some of the videos for these four search terms (9 out of 80 videos) challenged mainstream scientific positions, and even fewer videos (2 of 80 videos) are discussion formats in which climate scientists discuss climate change with climate change deniers.”

Here are the results for the non-neutral search terms:

“The picture changes entirely if we focus on the videos that appear as results in the searches for Geoengineering, Climate
Manipulation, Climate Hacking, Climate Engineering, Climate Modification, and Chemtrails. Here the majority of the videos (97 of 120 videos) oppose scientific consensus views or promulgate straightforward non-scientific conspiracy theories. Very few of the videos in this case explain the scientific rationale and engineering ideas behind possible attempts to manipulate or “engineer” the climate as a reaction to global climate change.”

It is evident then that the study reveals nothing dramatic or useful at all. It merely proves that using conspiracy theory search terms yields conspiracy theory results, and that using neutral search terms does not.

By the way, the study also reports as fact that 97% of climate scientists consider recent global warming to be anthropogenic, implying through its choice of words that the warming is considered by the 97% to be entirely anthropogenic.

Using neutral search terms results in heavy predominance of the establishment’s alarmist viewpoint. Using conspiracy theorist search terms results in predominance of conspiracy theorist results. So we have another useless study confirming the obvious.

The dark side of the useless study is it unjustifiably paints we skeptics as conspiracy theorists.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David J Seeger
July 26, 2019 2:34 pm

“It is evident then that the study reveals nothing dramatic or useful at all. It merely proves that using conspiracy theory search terms yields conspiracy theory results, and that using neutral search terms does not.”

You win the prize for best analysis! 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David J Seeger
July 26, 2019 2:38 pm

“By the way, the study also reports as fact that 97% of climate scientists consider recent global warming to be anthropogenic, implying through its choice of words that the warming is considered by the 97% to be entirely anthropogenic.”

Well, that shouldn’t be surprising since NASA Climate officially promotes this Big Lie on the NASA government website.

SL Charbonneau
July 26, 2019 7:42 am

When you look at the terms used it gets pretty clear why chemtrails came up.
1. Climate
2. Climate Change
3. Climate Engineering
4. Climate Manipulation
5. Climate Modification
6. Climate Science
7. Geoengineering
8. Global Warming
9. Chemtrails
10. Climate Hacking
For me the only legitimate searches are 1, 2, 6 and 8. So if more than half the search terms are in tin foil hat land then that is what you will get.

July 26, 2019 8:11 am

Spontaneous human conception or “viability”. Liberal assumptions/assertions, especially outside the near-domain. [Social] consensus.

Michael H Anderson
July 26, 2019 8:11 am

What an enormous pile of steaming crap. Everyone I know who calls themselves a sceptic has made a point of deliberately exposing themselves to a wide variety of viewpoints and data. In fact now that I think of it, I have yet to see one single YouTube video claiming that AGW is a “conspiracy theory.” This guy’s research seems to be on about the same level as the kind that daily throws up junk like “climate change is causing dogs to be depressed.”

Mark Broderick
July 26, 2019 9:10 am

“New study shows the last 100 years of warming is not natural”

More fake news / science ?

July 26, 2019 9:34 am

“Within the scientific community, ‘geoengineering’ describes technology with the potential to deal with the serious consequences of climate change, if we don’t manage to reduce greenhouse gases successfully.”

Reduce to what? People seem to be getting along okay at CO2 410 ppm.

There is nothing scientific about geoengineering. Double ought zero. It threatens life on earth. Billions will die.

Pat Frank
July 26, 2019 9:53 am

Within the scientific community, ‘geoengineering’ describes technology with the potential to deal with the serious consequences of climate change, if we don’t manage to reduce greenhouse gases successfully. For example, greenhouse gas removal, solar radiation management or massive forestation to absorb carbon dioxide,” explains Allgaier.

In complaining about anti-science conspiracy theories, Allgaier foments AGW, the prime anti-science conspiracy theory of our day. Or of any day, thus far.

The irony burns brightly.

Given the future survival of rational thought, a serious area of social study will be how it came to be that so many physical scientists threw their training to the winds in the face of AGW, abandoned due diligence, and went on the make foolish portentous public statements about doom.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Pat Frank
July 26, 2019 10:45 am

That’s an easy one in the majority of cases: money. As for the remainder I’m speculating, but given my own experience I suspect that most people who have any involvement in the sciences or who know any scientists must be aware of at least one case of confirmation bias, if not out and out fraud. The sciences are clearly under attack from the forces of political correctness, whose agenda has nothing to do with scientific truth.

July 26, 2019 11:53 am

If there is an attack on climate science, it is coming from those invested in alarm. Recent example is TED Talks putting a warming label on a lecture by Marcl Crok (his name appears on the blog list here). His presentation is concise and well supported by evidence, yet the network claims his views are not scientific.
Talk is here:

My synopsis is at

David Wojick
July 26, 2019 2:27 pm

For the children, among others.

July 26, 2019 2:48 pm

>terms such as Climate, Climate Change, or Climate Science are most likely to bring up videos […] with mainstream scientific positions
So unless you’re looking for chemtrails you actually do find a majority of mainstream views.
That’s sad, but it is also the opposite of what I got from Watt’s article.

Reply to  Anonymous
July 26, 2019 2:49 pm


July 26, 2019 11:37 pm

Once more I learn something at WUWT.

I was going to observe that Engineering Consent was written by Noam Chomsky. It wasn’t. He wrote Manufacturing Consent. The Engineering of Consent is a totally different book by Edward Bernays.

Consent that is thus engineered is difficult to distinguish in any fundamental way from the consent that supports modern totalitarian governments.

That should make a thinking person’s blood run cold.

Reply to  commieBob
July 27, 2019 6:53 am

Related – see also “The Delphi Technique”- Delphi Technique: for Decision Making and Problem Solving

As with any tool or technique, it can be used for good or for bad, maliciously or beneficially.

July 26, 2019 11:37 pm

Ok is this article really trying to say Geo engineering is not happening?? Cause YES IT IS, BABY, YES IT IS!

Reply to  Julie
July 27, 2019 6:37 am

Spurious claim.

A spurious claim is one that’s not backed up by the facts.

A spurious claim, a spurious argument, relies on faulty reasoning — and maybe some lies.

Not that you are lying, Julie, but your source, what you are reading is – a lie.

July 27, 2019 5:38 am

In case anyone here hasn’t used YouTube to view climate related videos…

YouTube places a piece of CAGW propaganda (with a heading called “Global warming” and Wikipedia link) directly below the “screen” of every climate related video.

Gary Pearse
July 27, 2019 8:11 pm

This article actually shows that You Tubers like Marc Morano and other sceptics using this media to counter mainstream consensus propaganda is very effective indeed. The usual technique is to state several central tenets pushed by dangerous manmade warming proponents or alarmist supporters and then present graphs and other information DRAWN FROM OFFICIAL SOURCES such as NOAA, NASA, IPCC, etc. that show the alarm is completely unjustified.

Tornadoes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, etc. are NOT showing increased frequency or strength or higher normalized damage occurring. Sealevel rise is NOT accelerating, natural variation is proving to be a greater driver of temperatures than GHG and the effect of latter has had to scaled back by warmist proponents because projected temperatures have been 300% to high. The causal relationship between temperature changes and CO2 is even becoming evermore doubtful even in sign, and at best, the 2 decade Pause in Temperatures with galloping CO2 seems to relegate it to marginally effective in raising temperatures.

Polar bears are growing in numbers and health, penguins are thriving…seriously reduced numbers of caribou turned out to have been because they moved away and then came back!

The You Tube sceptics simply present the data that is being lied about. Yeah, you got it right. You are going to have to conspire with alarmist scientists, the MSM, and owners of the media to gatekeep, shadowblock, fiddle search engines, etc to hide this compelling sceptic stuff from the public if you want to bamboozle them. BTW, your “strawman” thing about kemtrales is your clients’ BS, not that of sceptics! You communications experts must suspect the truth that sceptics aren’t better at messaging skills than the Team scientists, the message from your clients is simply woefully supported by facts.

Matthew K
July 29, 2019 1:12 am

YouTube is the last place I’d ever go for climate information. YouTube is especially biased towards the climate alarmist agendas. There are tons of videos on YouTube that many gullible people would take seriously. I’ve watched a fair share of these videos and they have had a negative impact on my health and psychological well-being, and that’s enough to drive a person insane. YouTube is a cesspool of garbage that caters to fear mongering, and climate change is among these (Other garbage of this nature includes fake news, end of the world predictions, and other tosh).

%d bloggers like this: