YouTube ‘Corrects’ Conservative Comic on Global Warming

Reposted from Hollywood In Toto

Michael Loftus admits he’ll grab any excuse to share his Al Gore impression.

Why not? It’s rock solid. Only this time the Big Tech Overlords were listening, too. And, apparently, they weren’t pleased that Loftus poked fun at the “Inconvenient Sequel” star.

The most recent Loftus Party video mocks both the former Vice President as well as President Barack Obama. The latter brought it on himself, to be fair.

The Obamas just bought a $15 million property on Martha’s Vineyard, AKA land kissing the Atlantic Ocean. The move drew plenty of criticism from conservatives, but not for any one-percent complaints.

Why would someone who believes global warming is causing the oceans to rise gobble up coastal property?

It’s a legitimate question, one most journalists refuse to ask. Not Loftus. The conservative comic joined the fray, using comedy to pile on the former President.

RELATED: 9 Films Obsessed with Climate Change

Enter YouTube.

The increasingly liberal channel stepped in, adding its own editorial slant to the video. The comedy clip now features a horizontal addendum below the frame. The text, credited to Wikipedia, describes Global Warming in a clinical fashion.

Michael-Loftus-YouTube-Global-Warming

Here’s a screen shot of The Loftus Party video and the Global Warming information slapped on the bottom.

Is this a new feature at YouTube? Does the platform fact check liberal comedians, too? What about hard news clips exploring the now-debunked Russia collusion hoax? Do they get a horizontal explainer ribbon as well?

Loftus shared the YouTube situation on his latest podcast episode.

“At first, I was’t outraged by it … because they haven’t demonetized the video,” Loftus said. His anger grew the more he drilled into the matter.

“They are playing hardball … I can’t get rid of it,” he says of the info strip.

“They’re trying to do a little Kung Fu on me. ‘You wanna joke about Global Warming? We’re gonna embed a link onto your video with a banner talking about. It’s real, its non disputable, and here’s the link to Wikipedia.’ ”

“Wikipedia?”

RELATED: Damon’s ‘Downsizing’ Fears Climate Change

While Wikipedia feeds answers to voice-activated services like Siri and Alexa, journalists rarely rely on it a reputable news source.

Read the rest at Hollywood In Toto

0 0 vote
Article Rating
90 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
PaulH
August 30, 2019 10:19 am

Well, here’s Mark Zuckerberg’s sister saying that “deplatforming” is better than allowing opposing views to be discussed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/whats-wrong-with-online-debate-me-culture/2019/08/29/c0ec8aa2-c9ca-11e9-8067-196d9f17af68_story.html

Granted, she’s using “white supremacists” as her catch-all. But that generally means anyone who isn’t part of the 97%.

Gamecock
Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 11:49 am

If you can be deplatformed, it’s not a platform. It’s a publisher.

Ian W
Reply to  Gamecock
August 30, 2019 2:02 pm

And that is the most important point. They are currently legally shielded against ‘responsibility’ for what they publish by claiming that they are not a publisher. This activity that notes the content and is obviously not a ‘mistake by a junior staff member’, proves that Google is indeed a publisher and therefore does not have the ‘public square’ protections. Google/You Tube are therefore legally responsible for everything posted.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Ian W
August 31, 2019 1:41 am

Leftards never get that the law cuts both ways.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Gamecock
August 31, 2019 2:03 pm

Deplatforming: I guess that’s like being thrown under the train!

n.n
Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 11:51 am

Allegations of rabid diversity including color supremacy is a well worn straw clown that are exploited to manufacture political, social, and economic capital. Today, color judgments or value assessments based on low information attributes have returned to fashion and are considered to be highly urbane.

Bryan A
Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 11:56 am

OT
Anthony,
WOW 399,286,947 hits as of this post
713,063 hits away from 400,000,000
Griff, Loydo, et. al. come add to the hit count and propel WUWT to new heights

Joel Snider
Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 12:45 pm

Just curious – has anybody here ever even MET a ‘white supremacist’?

I mean an actual white supremacist, as opposed to a person simply labeled as one?

Robert Lande
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 30, 2019 2:22 pm

Good question. I am 72 and I have not met one.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 30, 2019 2:39 pm

Never met either in all my years on the planet, residence in three provinces, and working and vacationing in the US and Caribbean. I’ve met and worked with several South Africans, and none of them fit that description either. Just like the Klan hysteria a while back, this is just another scare tactic by the power-hungry left.

On another note, is that image of Gore photoshopped, or is he really that deeply miserable and angry? I’m guessing it’s the latter, and if WUWT is in any way a source of that misery and anger, to quote Martha Stuart, that’s a good thing. 🙂

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  Michael H Anderson
August 30, 2019 3:37 pm
wsbriggs
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 30, 2019 3:41 pm

I actually have and the experience wasn’t pleasant in the slightest. If the massive ignorance about most of genetics weren’t sufficient, the flat refusal to admit that any one with anything other than severe melanin deficiency could be intelligent was the single most revolting idea I’d ever met. That individual simply was, for the best description I can think of, disturbed.

David
Reply to  wsbriggs
August 31, 2019 3:29 am

You are right. Dysfunctional Africa definitely shows that blacks are as intelligent as their white counterparts in the west. Idi Amin, Mugabe, Bokassa, Machel, Odinga, Kenyatta, Banda, et al were all very clever chaps and their countries shining examples of agriculture, science, stability and democratic freedom for their citizens. After nearly 60 years of “freedom” from dem awful white folks who all left when their farms were stolen, most of Africa has made a giant leap backwards. That’s why most blacks in Africa want to come to the USA for free handouts, accommodation, medical care and full bellies from welfare. That’s why most white folks are “disturbed” about all this.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David
August 31, 2019 8:05 am

And after nearly 172 years of “freedom” from dem awful white folks in the USA, ….. by moving to West Africa to found their own country, …….those Liberians are showing the world that they are smart enough to govern themselves and provide peace and prosperity for their citizenry. To wit:

Liberia is a country in West Africa which was founded (1847) by former American slaves.

Until 1980, Liberia was controlled politically by descendants of the liberated African Americans, known collectively as Americo-Liberians, who are a small minority of the population. Since 1980, the country has been ruled by members of the indigenous peoples, who constitute the majority of the population. Years of civil war have devastated the country and its economy.
Read more @ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Liberia

Gary Wescom
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 30, 2019 7:15 pm

Those few we have around our part of the Midwest are not just nut jobs but certainly the poorest example of superior genetic heritage of any racial background. It appears they operate in a mode of describing non-whites as inferior to themselves to self delude themselves that they individually are not at the shallowest end of the gene pool. They are rare and when detected are shunned by normal people of all races.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 31, 2019 12:23 am

Not sure.

I grew up in Manassass, VA in the 70s. Racism was par for the course, and it was at the heart of Confederate country.

I was indoctrinated, subtly, early on. The “Eeny Meeny Miney Moe” song for me included the phrase “Catch an ‘n-word’ by the toe…” This was Middle and High School era for me. There was much more that I don’t need to elaborate.

But, I never saw any KKK stuff, and this was probably before skinheads became prominent.

HotScot
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 31, 2019 1:24 am

Joel Snider

Met a few black supremacist’ in my day, never a white one.

Mind you, I can’t think of a term insulting those with white skin being banned from use, so it’s easy to be overtly racist when one is black with no sanction whatsoever.

A bit like hate speech; if the left indulge in foul or profane language, that’s fine, they are politically righteous. But if someone on the right uses it, the thought police are dispatched.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  HotScot
August 31, 2019 8:28 am

Like “sexual harassment”, etc., etc., …….. it matters not one (1) “twit” what the male actually says or does, …. the only thing that matters is ….. “who the male is that said it or done it”.

bonbon
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 31, 2019 6:15 am

Just go to Ukraine Kiev, Kyiv, Maidan, and just wonder.
There not only did Obama’s Nuland meet them, she handed out cookies.
They cost $5 billion, US tax dollars,to put in power.
So, white supremacists are not cheap!

Michael 2
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 31, 2019 5:30 pm

I have met one or two and they are pretty scary. White has nothing to do with it; they would be narcissistic bullies in any color. Almost common in northern Idaho. They feel they are under siege and have a duty to fix things. They intend to hasten the collapse of the United States if it cannot be fixed on the assumption that a new United States can arise (see the movie “The Postman” for a sense of it).

They can be mistaken for survivalist or “prepper” (or vice versa) neither of whom is particularly dangerous nor activist. They also feel they are under siege but do NOT feel they have a duty to fix things. They intend to wait out the collapse of the United States.

Or so it seems to me.

MarkW
Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 2:45 pm

Liberals are fully committed to free speech, as long as all you talk about is something they agree with.

Reply to  PaulH
August 30, 2019 3:56 pm

I think this is the very best “house on the sea” situation every and typical no news agency to my knowledge printed a word about it.

https://thedemiseofchristchurch.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/un-headquarters-and-usd1-2-billion-upgrade-and-rising/

Cheers

Roger

HotScot
Reply to  Roger Surf
August 31, 2019 1:33 am

Roger

Sorry mate, small potatoes.

This is real financial profligacy in the face of rising sea levels £7bn being spent refurbishing Westminster Palace. As you can see, mere feet from the river Thames.

I don’t thing politicians really believe in rising sea levels, do you?

https://tinyurl.com/y284rgln

Jim
Reply to  PaulH
August 31, 2019 8:07 am

The solution is repealing section 230 of the 1996 telecommunications act. They’re acting as publishers now. It’s okay if they want to be in the publishing business, but they shouldn’t enjoy a shield of protection that no other publisher would ever get.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Jim
August 31, 2019 11:13 am

I think they can claim to be a platform even if they exclude or flag certain objectionable or even merely incorrect stuff. But they must do so even-handedly. If not, they’re a publisher with a fig leaf. Exposing bias in their deplatforming and flagging could get them into trouble.

Jim
Reply to  PaulH
August 31, 2019 8:13 am

Oops, I meant section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

Justin Burch
August 30, 2019 10:32 am

Did youtube take it down? It not on my version.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Justin Burch
August 30, 2019 11:20 am

No, you have to click on the YouTube link to see the “helpful” climatesplanation of “global warming”.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Justin Burch
August 30, 2019 11:31 am

Doesn’t appear for me either, viewing from UK.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 30, 2019 1:31 pm

Ah – I see why now, it isn’t available anywhere else except S. Korea:
“Note: This feature is currently available only in the United States and South Korea.”
So just hang on, they’ll get to you eventually.

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 30, 2019 2:45 pm

Use a VPN

Graeme#4
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
August 31, 2019 4:45 pm

Also not visible in Australia.

Bill Powers
August 30, 2019 10:34 am

If it’s from wikipedia there is a 97% consensus that it is disinformation.

Kemaris
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 30, 2019 12:59 pm

Yes, Wikipedia is also known as the Abomination that causes Disinformation.

Dan Cody
August 30, 2019 10:47 am

Great video by Michael Loftus. He’s absolutely right about the hypocritical Gore the bore,Obama the primadonna and and Mr.BS .

Kenji
August 30, 2019 10:55 am

Global Warming is REAL … and it’s YOUR fault.

Give us ALL your $$ … abandon your homes … and go live like primordial man in the burned stubble of the Amazon Rain Forest … and THEN … you might find absolution.

Your overlords have spoken. It’s the “moral” thing to do.

/gagging sarc.

LdB
Reply to  Kenji
August 30, 2019 11:43 am

Are you channeling your inner Loydo 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  LdB
August 30, 2019 2:48 pm

Loydo would have included a few links to graphs that he had just finished making.

Michael H Anderson
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2019 3:39 pm

Check. And he’d have used some condescending diminutive of someone’s name, a stale troll tactic as old as the Internet.

n.n
Reply to  Kenji
August 30, 2019 11:56 am

Yeah, they have resorted to selective exclusion of qualifying labels, including: anthropogenic, catastrophic, when it serves their purposes. Also, these “context” information blocks are notable for being presented with selective, some may say opportunistic, certainly partisan, fervor.

SMC
August 30, 2019 11:00 am

“The increasingly liberal channel…”

Why do we insist on calling them Liberals? They aren’t liberal and they haven’t been for quite some time. They’re Leftists, some are outright Communist. But Liberal they ain’t.

Hugs
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:19 am

+1 This is not liberal.

R Taylor
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:20 am

Liberal they are, but liberal they ain’t.

Kurt
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:29 am

Exactly right. But one time-honored tactic of leftists is commandeering words to change their meaning. That’s why leftists refer to themselves as “progressive” even though every time a country tries to implement their socialist fantasies it descends into misery, poverty, and death.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  Kurt
August 30, 2019 1:48 pm

They just have a self-centered and short-sighted concept as to what constitutes progress. As long as it benefits them right now its progress, the rest of the world be damned.

It is low resolution thinking the “runs the gamut from A to B.”
If they thought 3 steps ahead… that would be progress.

Newminster
Reply to  Kurt
August 31, 2019 5:25 am

Correction, Kurt. It progresses into misery, poverty and death. That makes it OK.

Now in Brazil, on the other hand …

H.R.
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:40 am

I call them “Regressives”. Leftist, commie, socialist, Marxist, Democrat, globalist… it’s all regressive. Down that path lies misery and ruin.

Rocketscientist
Reply to  H.R.
August 30, 2019 1:50 pm

If they could think maybe 3 steps ahead they would recognize this.

MarkW
Reply to  Rocketscientist
August 30, 2019 2:50 pm

If they were half as smart as they think they are, they could figure that out for themselves.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
August 30, 2019 6:04 pm

MarkW
This is a significant problem. It seems that they have received so many participation trophys that they have an inflated, unwarranted opinion of their intelligence.

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  MarkW
August 31, 2019 1:44 am

Dunning Kruger in action.

Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:42 am

Yes, this kind of centralized control is not a tenet of any free society, whether from a Liberal or Conservative point of view. It’s strictly a property of repressive political ideologies like Socialism and Communism.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  co2isnotevil
August 30, 2019 12:21 pm

I guess they are learning from their Chinese Army partners.

michael hart
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 11:48 am

In the UK the word Liberal isn’t a swear word and is still more generally taken for its historical meaning of non-interventionist, laissez-faire, not angry about anything much. The UK Liberal party also used to embody many of these values, free from the strident ideologies of the Left and Right, but due to the nature of the UK electoral system never got power proportional to the number of votes gained (often ~1/4 of the total).

Some time after the 1990’s they then went full on Global Warming and authoritarian-Green, worse than the major parties on many issues. Totally unelectable. A shame really, but perhaps an important lesson about “nice”politics without power.

Susan
Reply to  michael hart
August 31, 2019 3:57 am

They are now the Liberal Democrats (always a bad sign) and in 2010 got enough seats to be invited to join a coalition government with the hated Tories: they joined. They had campaigned heavily on abolition of student tuition fees but once in government some political horsetrading led them to vote through an increase in fees instead. Since they had a large number of votes in university seats they were wiped out at the next election. If a party portrays itself as a party of principle it cannot afford to get elected.

Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 12:13 pm

I think “collectivism” is the best way to describe the left. And the personal form: “collectivist”.

And “individualism” for the right.

Kurt
Reply to  Tom van Leeuwen
August 30, 2019 2:12 pm

Yet for decades virtually all journalists and academics have described Nazi Germany and other dictatorships as “right wing.” Somehow, I don’t think Adolph Hitler was some kind of champion of free enterprise and limited government. In truth, he was a socialist who wanted to concentrate as much power around himself as he could.

What does it say for today’s intellectual class that they try to discredit conservatives – who want to decentralize power and let individuals control their own lives – by scurrilously associating the “right” with historical collectivist, power-mad dictators who actually have economic and political philosophies more in line with the “left.”

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Kurt
August 31, 2019 1:49 am

National Socialists. The clue is in the name. Adolf viewed himself as a man of the Volk.

MarkW
Reply to  Kurt
August 31, 2019 2:30 pm

In the minds of the left, anything of the left is good and everything of the right is bad.
Adolf was bad, proof positive that he’s a right winger.

VicV
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 12:17 pm

Add “Totalitarians.” Maybe “Marxist Nazi Totalitarians.”

Joel Snider
Reply to  SMC
August 30, 2019 1:27 pm

They’ve followed the sociological progression (i.e. ‘progressive) that’s inherent in the Marxist mechanics they choose to implement on every issue, which unerringly leads down the path to intolerant, totalitarian doctrine. The ultimate irony – using the cover of ‘equality’ to eliminate freedom and liberty.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  SMC
August 31, 2019 12:26 am

They’re liberal with other people’s money,

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  SMC
August 31, 2019 7:38 am

Correct, far more fascist than liberal.

MarkW
Reply to  Robert W. Turner
August 31, 2019 2:31 pm

That’s a difference of extent, not of kind.

ResourceGuy
August 30, 2019 11:02 am

It’s time to do some comedy videos on tech billionaires and the rising seas alarmist/community organizers with Martha’s Vineyard beach side estates. Some more comedy videos on Solyndra and Ivanpah would also be funny. The potential is endless.

A comedy series on Wikipedia is also in order.

joe
Reply to  ResourceGuy
August 30, 2019 12:15 pm

We asked Al Gore to appear in such a video but he was too busy flying around the planet.

ResourceGuy
August 30, 2019 11:04 am

I’ll check out this channel. It looks entertaining. Thanks for the heads up.

Joel O'Bryan
August 30, 2019 11:33 am

I have news for Mike Loftus… the climate change zombies are already among us.

Chuck Todd is one for sure, along with just about everyone at CNN, LATimes, NYTimes, etc.
They babble incoherent alarmism talking points that they’ve been programmed to say. They are already foaming at the mouth, barking, twitching with the mere mention of #45’s name or a Koch brother. Brain-dead climate alarmists… all of them.

n.n
August 30, 2019 11:34 am

Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.
– Wikipedia

Information panel providing topical context

YouTube/Google, and, presumably, the umbrella corporation “Alphabet”, offer straw clown adjustments for “context”.

n.n
August 30, 2019 11:39 am

The increasingly liberal channel stepped in, adding its own editorial slant to the video.

It is far from liberal or divergent, but unlike global warming, which is evolutionary (i.e. chaotic), their bias… nay, prejudice, is progressively (i.e. monotonically) establishment, [political] consensus, or “flat earth”.

Derg
August 30, 2019 11:41 am

According to the No Agenda podcast UTube is attempting to make its platform “safe” for advertisers. It’s not really about picking on conservatives per se as it is about ensuring less controversy. Slowly they will de-platform all controversy.

James Clarke
Reply to  Derg
August 30, 2019 1:19 pm

There is no controversy in my mind. Man-made climate change is not a crisis. Youtube is creating the controversy when they start Big Brother-ing their ‘platform’.

markl
August 30, 2019 12:37 pm

Finally people are starting to say “you go first”.

Billovitch
August 30, 2019 1:25 pm

I’m puzzled.

The wiki quote makes no mention of “anthropogenic global warming”, merely “global warming”. I know nothing about this Loftus geezer, but is he of the opinion that there is no clear evidence of global warming over the last forty or so years? If so, he is in a very small minority. The argument is about the cause of the warming,

Stephen Philbrick
August 30, 2019 1:54 pm

I think you are looking at this all wrong. I know it is easy to call Gore and Obama hypocites for raisinng the alarm about sea lev4el rising, then buying beachfront property, but think about it. If you are going to buy a piece of property, you hurt your negotiating power if you gush about how great it is. You need to act like you are not all that sure about it. “Hey, why should I buy this? I’ve heard it may be underwater soon.” They aren’t dummies. Sure, the Obama’s paid 15 million, but maybe they talked them down from 25 million.

You don’t have to believe me, you can look it up in “Art of the Deal”. Written by someone who knows something about real estate.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
August 30, 2019 3:06 pm

Just under 15 million was the asking price. We will have to wait to see whether it was discounted.

Derg
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
August 31, 2019 3:13 am

It is hilarious that a person claiming that rising seas threaten humanity would buy beachfront property;)

Conniving or not that there is funny sh!t

Mark Broderick
August 30, 2019 3:03 pm

Hey ! How come I don’t get this “added B.S. warning” when I play Michael Loftus videos ? Am I too “non-woke” to be worthy of this warning or have I just been watching his videos too long to be worthy ?

KaliforniaKook
August 30, 2019 3:36 pm

“While Wikipedia feeds answers to voice-activated services like Siri and Alexa, journalists rarely rely on it a reputable news source.”

I have several young friends who attend a variety of universities in California – none of which are bastions of conservatism. All are part of the UC system. When doing any kind of research, even non-science research, they are not allowed to use/cite or otherwise reference Wikipedia. The explanation is mostly that their articles are too political.

I think that’s funny! I get the impression they consider Wikipedia too conservative!

Ragnaar
August 30, 2019 3:49 pm

Arguing against the use of Wikipedia. It’s like arguing against the the use of stoplights. Wikipedia has a number of things going for it. For instance, overall it’s better than the Washinging Post or the Guardian. Arguing against it is like arguing against a dictionary. Go write your own dictionary.

Summary: Drive-bys against Wikipedia are a waste of time. Save your ammo for something else and save your reader’s time too.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  Ragnaar
August 31, 2019 7:46 am

Wikipedia is untrustworthy making it worse then useless. A total waste of effort.

Ragnaar
Reply to  Matthew Bergin
August 31, 2019 7:35 pm

It is successful. ExxonMobil is successful. Who is going to write this article for free? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(486958)_2014_MU69

drednicolson
Reply to  Ragnaar
August 31, 2019 8:08 am

If stoplights were as unreliable as Wikipropaganda, it’d be eminently reasonable to argue against their use.

Concern troll is concerned.

Ragnaar
Reply to  drednicolson
August 31, 2019 7:40 pm

Wikipedia won. So did stoplights. As did the existence of the income tax. No sure what a concern troll is but I first heard it from Sou. If I am one, I guess that means I lose the argument. And then we can return to Wikipedia drive=bys. Which will have no impact on Wikipedia. But I forgot what the point of this whole thing is?

Izaak Walton
August 30, 2019 6:51 pm

The great thing about the web is that it is still pretty much a free for all. Anyone who wants to
can set up a website that hosts videos. If you don’t like youtube you can start your own version.
And by the same token Youtube have the right to do what they like with video’s that people post
there. But if you want to upload a video to youtube then you have to play by their rules.

drednicolson
Reply to  Izaak Walton
August 31, 2019 8:28 am

The main barrier to entry is the cost of bandwidth for streaming all that video. YouTube was hemorrhaging money when Google picked it up and continued to be unprofitable for years. Even the deepest pockets get tired of running something at a loss, so cue increasingly intrusive ads and the YTRed paid premium service.

accordionsrule
August 30, 2019 9:33 pm

This is beyond insulting, it’s a slap in the face. This Wikipedia link is scattered all over the place. I visited a Youtube interview of Peter Ridd, and Youtube decided that watching it means that I don’t understand global warming. Here’s your kindergarten primer, you poor dear, you need to be schooled by WIKIPEDIA. WIKIPEDIA.
So I clicked a Heartland site, and yep, there is the same link. I gave feedback to Youtube that this is NOT helpful, but it is still EVERYWHERE Oh, but NOT on Al Gore sites. If you are watching Prophet Gore then Youtube has determined they don’t have to steer you to The Light, you are on the right path.
I am so hopping mad that now I’m going around liking every video that is burdened with the Youtube Wikipedia Global Warming link. Not that my likes will register, since Youtube freezes them because likes on a skeptic website are suspicious. Grrr.

Steven Mosher
August 31, 2019 1:55 am
Steven Mosher
August 31, 2019 2:01 am
ResourceGuy
August 31, 2019 9:53 am

Oh, what’s the news from the Wiki Potemkin Village?

%d bloggers like this: