LinkedIn Goes Full Facebook: Declares War on AGW Skeptics

Guest “I’m mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore”* by David Middleton

(*Peter Finch as Howard Beale in the 1976 movie, Network.)

Gregory Wrightstone is a fellow geologist, past president of the AAPG’s Eastern Section and author of INCONVENIENT FACTS: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know. This August 2018 article in the AAPG Explorer resulted in a veritable feud in the comments section. Many working geologists (like me) expressed support, while others (mostly academics) viscously attacked him and the AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) for publishing the article. Greg and I have become acquainted over the past couple of years through LinkedIn and email exchanges. He has been the author or subject of a number of WUWT posts.

This morning, I received a rather unsettling email from Greg. His LinkedIn account was suspended because LinkedIn “detected behavior that appears to violate our Terms of Service.” It follows that up with:

For more details on the behavior that can result in restriction, see the “Do’s and Don’ts section of our User Agreement.

This all started a few weeks ago, when Greg wrote an article about polar bear populations. The article was very well sourced and largely based on the work of Susan Crockford, one of the foremost polar bear experts in the world. The article featured this image:

The graph accurately reflects the data, it is well sourced and properly attributed to the original author. It merely points out that the hype about dwindling polar bear populations is nothing but hype.

After the article was taken down, Greg shared this meme on his LinkedIn page:

Nothing in the LinkedIn “Do’s and don’ts” prohibits posting scientific articles or funny memes. Political content is also not explicitly prohibited.

Nothing that Greg has posted appears to have violated any of the terms of service. Was this just Facebook-Fascist style political censorship?

I was going to post the screen shot of the restriction message that Greg sent out this morning, but then it dawned on me that Greg’s account was probably restricted because he posted a screen shot of then message regarding the removal of the polar bear article on LinkedIn.

If there’s one thing that the Masters of the Universe are even less tolerant of than dissent, it’s the questioning of their authority.

For those wishing to express support for Greg, his Facebook page is still up and running. I’d visit it sooner, rather than later, at the rate we’re being censored on social media, Watts Up With That may be our final refugium… (not entirely sarcastic).

169 thoughts on “LinkedIn Goes Full Facebook: Declares War on AGW Skeptics

  1. “For those wishing to express support for Greg, his Facebook page is still up and running. I’d visit it sooner, rather than later, at the rate we’re being censored on social media, Watts Up With That may be our final refugium… (not entirely sarcastic).”

    Don’t be too sure, my climate forum (Global Warming Skeptics) was deliberately shut down in late 2017, you posted there a few times years ago. They lied to me saying there is no such forum when I asked what happened.

    It was at the same time the parent company that bought the server also bought the e-mail service, I was suddenly shut down, couldn’t log into my then 12 year old e-mail account.

    Now I chose Siteground host, with my very small mostly resource based AGW skeptics forum running on it.

      • Parler is unwelcoming to rural folk: in order to sign up, it requires that I use a code texted to my cell phone, which doesn’t work at home because I have no cell signal. They don’t have any options to get that code any other way.

        • Set your phone up with wifi calling. You’ll need a cell signal to set it up, but after that all you need is a WiFi connection yo make or receive calls and texts.

        • You could get a number from textplus or one of the other “WiFi” phone apps. As long as you have internet at home and WiFi it works.

        • I never knew that. I signed up for Parler early on, but I do not own a cell phone. So I have no way of receiving a text message. Will have to check and see, if I can still log on.

          • So apparently they added it at some point. No idea if you need a cell phone to log in, but they definitely wouldn’t let me sign up without one.

            TRM, thanks for the info. Not sure I care to bother though. Parler doesn’t seem to care about me. They never responded to my email on the matter either.

    • May be worth looking at rumble.com, parler.com, both se t up to provide actual free speech alternatives to medieval censorship that we have regressed into. Galileo would feel very at home in our heretic-hunting return to the da rk ages, good luck

  2. I’ve been looking for an excuse to close my LinkedIn account for some time. I never use it and it’s just become a source of irritation with constant contact requests. Now I can leave with a noble reason.

    • Yes, I am too. Never use it anyway. But make sure to Google “how to you close your LinkedIn account” so that Google keeps track of people enquiring how to close these accounts. Maybe they will get the hint that there are a lot of fed up people with high tech becoming the gatekeepers of opinion and fact. The bust up of big tech can’t come fast enough.

      People should also boycott anyone who advertises on these sites that promote the suppression of free responsible speech. It all comes down to money. Shut down their source of income, just like cancel culture. I don’t think I have ever bought anything because of an advertisement anyway, so wonder why anyone would waste money on advertising. In fact I close a web tab with some web site that has multiple videos and ads blinking and flashing..makes me physically sick. And I am running an ad blocker. Even Fox News is getting the channel changed now every time that pillow guy comes on every other commercial. His pillows and sheets must cost half of the advertising costs. Maybe time to get rid of TV, just like I never buy a newspaper anymore, because it to is all propaganda and fake news.

      • Just found out that LinkedIn keeps your private personal info for 12 months and they can do with it whatever they want even after you quit. You have to make an extra special request to have that deleted even when you close your account and that takes 30 days. It’s a slow day today, so maybe time to delete about 100 apps that I have accumulated that are just wasting space. And now I don’t even want to sign up with any new accounts for much else.

        https://www.groovypost.com/howto/delete-linked-in-account/

        • Hi Earthling2

          I am in Australia. I never signed up fo Facebook and I joined LinkedIn for five minutes because a tech friend of mine asked me to. I bailed out promptly and have no regrets especially as my tech friend died a couple of years ago.

          As we say here in Australia ‘They are all a mob of bastards’.

          Jim of Paynes Crossing, NSW

    • I did not close my account, just marked it as inactive. You’d be amazed how many notices, etc, I still get even though it says right under my name “I am not active on LinkedIn”. Honestly, I dropped it a year ago when the commenters were so violent and so evil I couldn’t take it any more. Same reason I dropped Facebook.
      Who wants to pal around with people who think beating and torturing is the way to win hearts and minds? I certainly did not. People on both forums were irrational and cruel in so many ways. There must be something about the internet that draws in the dregs of society. Guess that explains Zuck.

    • During my divorce, several years ago, I idly decided to look up the girl I had been dating right before I started dating my first wife. We’re in the same industry, so I looked her up on LinkedIn. She had a profile, and I sent a connection request. Within minutes, she accepted, and we began communicating by text message.

      Today, we’re married, and have a more wonderful life together than I could ever have believed possible. So although I rarely use LinkedIn for anything, I do have sort of a soft spot in my heart for it.

      Twitter, I never use.

  3. Uh… what about boycotting Linked In. We are going to have to replace these useful Apps eventually because of totalitarian abuse.

    • Orwell was a student of history. The United States has simply become Europe, where thought control is alive and well. Americans forget that many of those who risked their lives to come to the New World were fleeing thought control. The Constitution embodied those desires to be free from thought control, and it was doomed to fail once the elites dismissed those concerns.

      • Ha! The Puritans were the biggest thought controllers in Europe until Europe got sick of them, started persecuting them, so the Puritans fled to the new world to escape the persecution they didn’t like because the boot was on the other foot.

      • “The United States has simply become Europe, where thought control is alive and well.”

        The U.S. is not quite Europe, but we are well on our way. If the Democrats win, the U.S. will become Europe/China because the same kind of authoritarian politicians will be in charge.

        If Trump wins the election, then you can expect a big crackdown on all these social media outfits who think they can censor anyone who doesn’t agree with the way they look at the world. Trump is going to open the social media censors up to lawsuits over their censorship. It can’t happen soon enough.

    • The degree of arrogance and egotism required to believe that thought control has become necessary in this country to make it a better place is (in my mind anyway) almost beyond belief. The false narratives that are being sustained (climate change and wind and solar energy to name a few) by the powers that be in the mainstream and social media seem indeed like cues are being taken right out of Orwell’s novel as does censorship at Twitter, LinkedIn (the subject of this post) and elsewhere.

      The Ministry of Truth was more about rewriting history to suit Big Brother. Here in the real world though, just withholding facts and the truth in favor of a dubious narrative that serves one’s purpose seems to be the preferred methodology. As an example, I imagine that there is still widespread belief that those Minneapolis police officers are responsible for George Floyd’s death. The news in various media outlets that his toxicology report indicates a self-administered fentanyl overdose seems to have attracted very limited interest, and it comes too late for those who died or suffered looting and property loss as a consequence of the riots and protests that followed. No one is apologizing.

      Whoever wins on November 3rd, I doubt very much is going to change. Popular but highly dubious narratives have become way too valuable for those who are arrogant and egotistical enough to believe in them as thought control tools. To whatever extent our computer and TV screens are becoming Orwellian in nature, we can only hope that outlets such as WUWT do not become victims of the real world thought police.

      Forgive me if I sound excessively gloomy here.

  4. LinkedIn is owned by Microsoft. High handed arrogance is in their DNA, and if you disagree with them, you must be silenced. Not that they are good at it. They spent 15 years doing everything they could to suppress Linux, whilst failing to notice the rise of Apple, who moved the market to somewhere they weren’t ready for. It was all very ‘shades of IBM and the PC’.

    • IBM actually thought very carefully about the PC before they developed it. They realised (correctly) that there were already many different brands of PC out there & one would eventually become an industry standard. It was garuanteed that their mainframe business would be hit badly – mainframe manufacturers had been dropping out one by one for years (does anybody remember who the BUNCH were?).

      IBM’s thinking was that by releasing their PC, it would become the industry standard, which is what happened. By ‘owning’ the PC, IBM was able to mitigate the loss to their mainframe business. History shows that IBM would have been in a much poorer position without it.

      For those that don’t remember those times, the BUNCH were all that remained in the ’80s from the golden age of mainframes:
      Burroughs
      Unisys
      NCR
      Control Data
      Honeywell

      • Slight correction to your BUNCH list. The U was UNIVAC (owned by Sperry) not Unisys. Unisys was the corporate name of Burroughs after they bought and merged with Sperry in 1986

      • mainframes; Computing under one roof. How we have “The Cloud(s)”; (Computing under one roof.)
        The question still remains. Is FaceBook a publisher or a platform?

  5. My friends in China would understand. WeChat is not a forum for serious discussion about anything the government doesn’t want discussed seriously. Even humor will get you a visit with the police. Does LinkedIn want to be like WeChat?

    • Yes, actually, they do want to be like wechat and other CCP contrilled media, the mindset of all big tech is the same: there is only one acceptable set of opinions, any contradiction is hate speech and therefore voeboten

    • The Silicon Valley Kings want to have the power of the CCP. That is why they are taking policies required by the CCP to allow them to operate in China and applying them to the US market.

    • “Does LinkedIn want to be like WeChat?”

      Short answer, yes.

      Longer answer, yes – can you imagine the power of having the full force of a repressive totalitarian regime supporting your business?

  6. They are all jockeying for position in the coming shakedown on tech. They can pay up with donations or silence science debate and fact checking.

  7. One response to this would be to delete your LinkedIn account and abandon them. If a lot of people did this and it was known why the did it, that would send a message.

  8. Is anyone trying to do anything about this? Not the government: I’m thinking legal action for selective or improper enforcement of TOS. I’ve heard a lot of complaining but I haven’t heard of anyone actually taking any action.

    Yes, I know they claim “platform” exemption, but it seems clear that they’re getting into publisher territory. Part of a case would be to argue that their actions have lost them the exemption.

    Even if most were to fail, hundreds of lawsuits against these tech giants would certainly have an impact.

    • The Trump administration is undertaking various legal actions on big tech censorship, they are running out if time. The UK government is actively planning to increase censorship with its new ‘Online Harms’ (ie anything that counters the accepted narrative) proposed legislation. It is horrifying how enthusiastic they are, but not surprising given their now open c ommittment to authoritarian abuse of power.

      • The fun part is when they public become disenchanted and vote someone outside the establishment and then that person uses those laws against them.

  9. Just the motivation needed to shut down LinkedIn I suspect leftwing nutters in charge we now have proof bye bye

  10. They’re a private entity. But that being said, I think they owe your colleague specificity on why he was cut off. Do they have a house view on AGW? Not rhetorical, and I’m not taking the time to find out. If they do, then it’s their right to deny service to violators, as is the right of the deniersphere to boycott away. Their outfit, their rules. Nothing fascistic about it.

    If the AAPG bulletin got a post about how we were all riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, they probably wouldn’t send it out either. Even with links.

    But if the “policy” is vague and is being selectively applied, then that’s weak of them….

    • They are a private entity. However, social media sites enjoy broad legal immunity from being sued for content posted on their websites (Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996). It originated with old Internet message boards, to encourage a free exchange of ideas. This is why social media sites are treated legally as if they are public forums, rather than publishers.

      They run the risk of losing that immunity if they act as publishers, with an editorial bias.

      I tend to avoid political topics on LinkedIn. I haven’t noticed an overt political bias on LinkedIn until recently.

      • “They run the risk of losing that immunity if they act as publishers, with an editorial bias.”

        If you think that censoring AGW denial constitutes an “editorial bias”, then sue. KYSO. You’ll get torn up in any US court, but you would certainly get dark $ for your legal challenge.

        Your real pearl clutch is about the shrinkage of alt.world, over time. That’s more a matter of increased human understanding than any Dr. Evil conspiracy plot….

        • The restriction of a LinkedIn member’s account because they cited data about polar bear populations is the political bias.

    • “If the AAPG bulletin got a post about how we were all riding dinosaurs 6,000 years ago, they probably wouldn’t send it out either. Even with links.”

      So, you think the graph with the polar bear stats is equivalent to that?

      • I think if you look up “motte and bailey fallacy” in the dictionary, there is an image of his dinosaurs quote next to the definition.

        • To bigoilbob: There are “Facts” that you over look besides Polar Bear count. Holocene was warmer than today’s temperature. The Roman Warm Period was warmer than today’s temperature. Receding France’s glaciers uncovered mining shaft. Hannibal crossed the Alps. But, all I get from “Alarmist” is “This time is different”.

          • This will be the subject of my next post. Although, I will take it back to the Eemian or earlier. Hopefully, I’ll have time to write it tomorrow.

      • “So, you think the graph with the polar bear stats is equivalent to that?”

        Insofar, as it is a straw man cherry pick for AGW denial, hell yes. Both AGWE denial, and Fred F riding Dino, per the Evangelical Museum, are believed, without evidence, let alone the ground up evidence for AGW, by a large number of otherwise lucid people.

        A bone thrown. I won’t defend linkedin dropping members who don’t have the nads to openly espouse their beliefs, but merely dog whistle them, a la the Polar Bear cherry pick. Just their right to do it.

        • If you believe that there is no evidence behind skepticism of CO2 being mostly responsible for the extremely mild warming that has occurred over the last 200 years, then either you are a complete moron, or completely bought and paid for.

          As to your ignorant beliefs regarding other people’s religious opinions, well that goes with the territory, doesn’t it.

        • “without evidence”

          So, you have empirical evidence of global warming by human released CO2 do you.

          Or is that just dog whistling. ?

          Do you have any scientific evidence that AGW actually exists except as smeared UHI effects and data adjustment ?

          What do we DENY that you can produce hard scientific proof for ?

          • “So, you have empirical evidence of global warming by human released CO2 do you.”

            No, I don’t have an Earth2 without AGW forcings to compare ours to. That’s the ONLY thing that you would accept as “empirical” evidence. All I have are the physically proven greenhouse gas forcings, the close correlation of them to modern climactic trends, given the undenaible range of their intensities, and the utter absence of anything from the deniersphere for a demonstration of how natural forcings – whether by themselves or widgeted together, could account for any more than a tiny fraction of those trends.

            That is why AGW, and the concomitant modeling of it, remains highly useful risk management tools, no matter the whining and gnashing of teeth by a dwindling minority of slipper clickers.

          • So, I’ll take it that your mindless regurgitation of failed AGW memes

            is saying that….

            YOU HAVE NO ACTUAL EVIDENCE

            Thanks. 🙂

          • ” So, you have empirical evidence of global warming by human released CO2 do you.”

            No, I must admit that there is no Earth2, with no AGW forcings, that we can use for comparison. As is obvious, from denier history of this using this”empirical” bar, that is the ONLY thing you would accept.

            Rather, all we have are the physical laws that govern these green house gas forcings, the range of them, and their aggregation in the atmosphere, mostly from human sources. And of course, the calculable range of the resultant modern climactic trends, which, along with the tiny fraction contributed by natural forcings, closely approximate actual. This, coupled with the utter failure of the deniersphere to be able to replicate those trends using any single or widgeted combination of “natural” trends, makes AGW science (and modeling) great tools to eb used for risk management.

            I.e., Ya got NUTHIN’….

          • STILL, just yabbering regurgitation from bigoilbob

            Total LACK of evidence. So sad 😉

            In case you are as devoid of actual science as you seem to be…..

            Models are NOT evidence, particularly when they are built around FALSE ASSUMPTIONS.

            And no , they are nowhere new reality, and the range is so wide you could drive a planet through it. UNFIT for any scientific purpose.

          • bigoilbob wrote: “No, I don’t have an Earth2 without AGW forcings to compare ours to. That’s the ONLY thing that you would accept as “empirical” evidence.”

            That sounds like you are giving yourself permission not to supply any evidence for human-caused climate change. Your assertion that only Earth2 will do for skeptics is wrong. Skeptics don’t need Earth2, we just need one little scrap of evidence that what alarmists claim is actually true. So far, we have never been presented with that scrap. Perhaps you could provide some evidence.

            bigoilbob wrote: ” All I have are the physically proven greenhouse gas forcings,”

            Which forcing is that? The 1.5C forcing or the 4.5C forcing or some other figure? Have you narrowed the forcing down more than the IPCC? The answer is: No, you have not. You have no idea what a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will do with regard to raising the temperatures.

            bigoilbob wrote: ” the close correlation of them to modern climactic trends, given the undenaible range of their intensities,”

            The bastardized modern climactic trends, you mean? The unbastardized climactic trends show a cyclical movement of the temperatures with a few decades of cooling followed by a few decades of warming and then repeating. That’s what the actual temperature measurements from around the globe show.

            bigoilbob wrote: ” and the utter absence of anything from the deniersphere for a demonstration of how natural forcings – whether by themselves or widgeted together, could account for any more than a tiny fraction of those trends.”

            I would submit that the period from 1910 to 1940 is a demonstration of natural forcings which warmed the Earth’s climate from the very cold 1910’s to the very warm 1930’s, and this warming was equal to the warming from 1980 to the present, and was just as warm then as it is today.

            The 1910 to 1940 period was minimally affected by CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere according even to the IPCC so that period was mostly (if not all) natutal forcings, which were the same magnitude as the forcing from 1980 to the present, so there is no reason that the warming from 1980 to the present can’t be caused by the same mechansism as what caused the warming from 1910 to 1940. Same magnitufe, same maximum temperature, same cause, and the first period definitely wasn’t caused by CO2 concentrations.

            Got any evidence for Human-Caused Climate Change/Global Warming, bigoilbob? Now would be the time to present it.

        • “ground up evidence for AGW”

          Ground up and spat out. Decayed and now basically non-existent.

          Let’s see how you go answering theis question… with scientific evidence, of course.

          In what ways has the “global” climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

        • Bob, your reply was pretty chaotic.

          In what way is the Polar Bear graph a cherry pick? If you really believe that, then all the alarmism regarding Polar Bears is an even greater cherry pick. Do you agree?

        • Have you contacted the museum to correct them about Fred F riding Dino? They might be open to hearing testimonials from Neanderthals such as yourself. No wonder you hear dog whistles.

          There is no “Polar Bear cherry pick.” It doesn’t say AGW exists or doesn’t. It refutes false claims made by others (e.g., Al Gore) that AGW or GW is killing-off polar bears and leading them to extinction.

        • boB, “the ground up evidence for AGW.”

          Lay out the evidence for us, Bob. Bet you can’t do it.

          Climate models can’t predict future air temperature.

          The global air temperature record is so riven with systematic measurement error (869.8 kb pdf) as to be useless for estimating the rate or magnitude of warming since 1900.

          And paleo air temperature reconstructions rely on correlation = causation; about the most naive mistake possible in science.

          Present your evidence, boB.

          • “Present your evidence, boB.”

            Cue more mindless zero-science rhetoric and regurgitation. ! 😉

          • Gotta hand it to you Dr. Frank. Three articles in the last decade, one that I know of rife with high school unitary errors and a nonsensical, universally unshared view on error propagation, and you’re STILL sticking with it. Maybe if your papers had – in toto – more than one irrelevant citation, me and anyone else would take notice..

          • poor bob, best he can do is an IRRELEVANT video and an evidence free blah !!

            Shows he is CLUELESS on mathematical error analysis.

            Presents absolutely NO EVIDENCE, yet again.

          • Very understandable that so-called “climate scientists” would not comprehend or understand Pat’s CORRECT error analysis. 😉

          • Dr. Frank, congratulations. You have gotten BugOilBoob to admit that he can’t back up any of his claims.
            Nor can he back up any of his charges against you.
            He’s just another bought and paid for hater from the left.

          • Fred, that’s always how haters respond when called to support their lies. They just get more nasty.

          • Describe a specific mistake in any paper I’ve written about systematic error in air temperature measurements or in climate model predictive uncertainty in air temperature, boB.

            That doesn’t mean link some scientifically fatuous criticism.

            It never fails to amaze when still another all-knower claims a ±15 C projection uncertainty implies a huge swing in physical temperature.

            I get that sort of scientific idiocy over and yet over again.

            No, let’s see you personally make a criticism, boB; one that shows you know what you’re talking about.

            Put up or shut up.

          • “Let the record show that bigoilBob shut up.”

            Your comment scrolling is about as thorough as the check on unitary integrity for your papers. I recommend that you try it again….

          • “No, let’s see you personally make a criticism, boB; one that shows you know what you’re talking about.”

            It’s already been done. Over and over.

            https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/

            In fact your nonsensical approach to error propagation has been universally derided, within the deniersphere and otherwise. Even when you first dreamed it up, a decade ago, it was eye rolled, above ground.

            Rather, folks need to consider the strong bias by the moneyed upstream hydrocarbon producers to having ANYTHING that backs up their interests. The rewards available are orders of magnitude higher that the strawman disses of “grants” that feature so strongly in WUWT. If your paper had even one lick of relevance or technical coherence, you would be dodging gold bars and riding from one 5 star venue to another to “present” it, in a Saudi Gaudy A380. NOT being politely ignored by a superterranea still amazed that you have a job, even a government one…

          • So, boB, you think ATTP’s is the be-all and end-all of criticisms.

            Good. Let the record show that, too.

            Face it, boB. You merely argued from authority. You didn’t present any criticism of your own. Because you can’t do. The evidence is you don’t know what you’re talking about.

            Here’s the core of ATTP’s (Ken Rice’s) argument, in his own words: “The problem, though, is that this is essentially a base state error, not a response error.

            First, Ken’s wrong. The annual cloud calibration uncertainty derives from model errors across 20 years of climate simulations. They are not base states. They are simulated 20th century climate states. Over that time, the climate — and the cloud cover — are responding to the variable dynamics of time-dependent energy flux.

            The multiple erroneous climate states are response states, not base states.

            Second, Ken approvingly cites Gavin Schmidt’s, “if a clock is off by about a minute ” argument. Citing Gavin just shows that Ken, like Gavin, does not know the difference between error and uncertainty.

            Third, Ken approvingly cites Patrick Brown’s video. Patrick Brown, like Ken Rice, thinks that a ±C uncertainty in temperature is a physically real temperature. They make a naive freshman mistake.

            Patrick Brown’s video is rife with naive mistakes indicating complete ignorance of physical error analysis. Ken Rice makes the same mistakes.

            Patrick Brown is a nice guy and very intelligent. But he’s been seriously shortchanged in his education. A knowledgeable reading of the debate below Patrick Brown’s video will reveal the truth of that diagnosis.

            So, you stepped in it, boB. You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your chosen authorities display no knowledge of physical error analysis or of uncertainty.

            The ignorant, in other words, relying on the incompetent.

          • “So, boB, you think ATTP’s is the be-all and end-all of criticisms.”

            No. There’s also Roy Spencer, and Nick Stokes, and the dude who did a 40 minute vid breaking your paper apart technically. There’s also the fact that you have NO one above ground (or below that I know of) is building upon your fundamentally flawed thesis, for AGW denial or anything else. And of course, per my last post, if your silly idea, backed up with a loss of proper units, had ANY cred, it would have been mightily sponsored by the extractors. But instead, except for a few anon subterranears in WUWT, who can’t even follow the tech, you’re all alone….

          • Roy Spencer is wrong Roy produced a shockingly poor critique.

            Nick Stokes’ sallies are irrelevant. Nick misleads when he can’t disprove.

            Your 40-minute video “dude” is Patrick Brown. You’ll find the refutation of his video linked in my October 10, 2020 at 10:55 am.

            That removes all your authorities, boB. And you yourself don’t know what you’re talking about. So now what? Will you just dredge up someone else, whose arguments you can’t critically evaluate?

            The rest of your post is mere bluster. “Fundamentally flawed”? How would you know? “Loss of proper units”? Shown to be a silly argument. All alone? 136,168 views plus downloads, and counting.

            Posters here such as Jim and Tim Gorman, Clyde Spencer, Allen McCrae, angech, and many others I’ve not named (but whom I thank for their support), understand the analysis very well. Unlike you, boB. Those who understand it, agree with it.

            Hostile bluster: that’s all you’ve got, boB. And that makes you a denier, doesn’t it.

    • That is the legal position in the US, but if they do that to someone who is posting in the UK it could prove very expensive. They would have to prove in Court that the was a substantive breach of their guidelines, and no UK judge would stand for “it is if we say it is”. If they failed to do that they would then have libelled the complainant on a professional meeting place site, where that libel could be expected to do the maximum damage. Very, very expensive with UK libel laws.

      After the first case, they would change their procedures in the face of litigation risk. I suspect they would change the notice to something like “LinkedIn has chosen to remove this post”. That would be accurate, and provided they never gave reasons for why posts are removed it would not be libellous.

  11. I didn’t know LinkedIn was owned by Microsoft. That is a shame. I never used Facebook or Twitter or Snapchat and thought LinkedIn was for adults. The darkness closes over the West.

    • Peter, all social media platforms eventually (de-)evolve into a few simple elements. LinkedIn was at one point an excellent platform for professionals to connect and actually exchange valuable information like job openings. But now LinkedIn is barely different from Facebook. All it is now is a massive platform of virtue signaling (worse than Facebook, if you can believe it) and headhunter harvesting.

      Personally, with all the shenanigans going on with social media, I think social media is in its final days. All it will take is for something to compel the average FB user to go somewhere else or give up social media.

  12. “Do not share false content or information, including news stories, that present untrue facts or events as though they are true or likely true. Do not post “deepfake” images or videos of others or otherwise post content that has been manipulated to deceive.”

    David, you have to dig a couple of layers. They also can shut you off if you disagree with Covid data, Health authorities’ pronouncements, permitted medication/therapies and the like. A friend who had a summer job in an abattoir when he was a student said that sheep displayed a foreboding in behaviour and sounds they made in the holding pens outside. The other animals did not. Hopefully most humans have this sense.

    • Not sure how this applies to polar bear populations or the funny meme…

      Do not share false or misleading content: Do not share content in a way that you know is, or think may be, misleading or inaccurate, including misinformation or disinformation. Do not share content to interfere with or improperly influence an election or another civic process. We may prevent you from posting content from sites that are known to produce or contain misinformation. Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities. Do not post content that denies a well-documented historical event such as the Holocaust or slavery. Do not share false content or information, including news stories, that present untrue facts or events as though they are true or likely true. Do not post “deepfake” images or videos of others or otherwise post content that has been manipulated to deceive. Do not share content or endorse someone or something in exchange for personal benefit (including personal or family relationships, monetary payment, free products or services, or other value), unless you have included a clear and conspicuous notice of the personal benefit you receive and have otherwise complied with our Advertising Policies.

      https://www.linkedin.com/legal/professional-community-policies

      • “Do not share content that directly contradicts guidance from leading global health organizations and public health authorities.”

        Wow, do we have a new religious obligation to kneel too. What happens when WHO contradicts the IPCC, schism?

        • Given that we know that WHO guidance in the early period of Covid was politicised, does LinkedIn still regard WHO as a’leading global health organisation’?

      • David Middleton, the thorn could be the slightly conning text on the image:
        When Al Gore was born, there were 7,000 of us.
        Today only 30,000 remain.

        If the sentence had been:
        Today there are 30,000 of us.
        One could only argue about the numbers, but not the catchphrase language.

        Not that I did not enjoyed the former version 🙂 but LinkedIn does not like skeptic humor.

        • but not the catchphrase language.; If LinkedIn is dependent on AI to censer “Posts” it only goes shows us AI is “stupid”. If LinkedIn is dependent on humans to censer “Posts” it only goes shows us it is the company’s/humans bias policy.
          I wonder what would happen if I posted some of Big Al’s claims.

      • LinkedIn clearly think that they are a source of truth if they can decide what is not true. Experts at everything – wow! I had never read this when on LinkedIn. Cancelling today and letting everyone know why. They’re just like climate “scientists” who can tell us that most of the recent temperature rise is anthropogenic yet can’t tell us why the temperature rose and fell after 1910 and after 1940 – trust us, we know it is true, in fact we know everything so be careful!

  13. What else can you expect from overgrown children with more money than good sense?

    Personally, I’m waiting for the bottom to fall out for all of them. None of that nonsense existed in AD 2000. It simply ooooozed out of the cracks in the wall of the Internet and people found it convenient. But since I do not use any of their silly sites, and consider most of that stuff to be faddish, I will not miss them when they are gone.

  14. The first residents of the detention camps in Germany were Germans who did not sign the pledge to follow the standards. It was not a matter of proving one’s point or showing facts or published studies. We have the same today in western China and Hong Kong.

  15. It might be time for me to (finally) delete my underused LinkedIn account. They’re just another member of the Green Techno-Blob.

    • “It might be time for me to (finally) delete my underused LinkedIn account. They’re just another member of the Green Techno-Blob.”

      Ok. I’m guessing that they’re handling it, somehow….

        • “You’ll just create a couple of fake accounts to make up for it.”

          Yah, linkedin’s exponential growth is from folks like me, creating fake accounts Got me. And I created those 4 million illegal voters that no one can find, who gave Hillary California as well. Enjoy subterranea….

          • BugOilBoob, are you even capable of actually dealing with others, or are non-sequitors and irrational insults all you have ever been capable of?

          • He’s also very accomplished in arm waving, straw men and red herrings… Very versatile…😎

  16. I’m in there but I don’t use it. On occasion someone sends me a request to be part of their linked gang. Usually I ignore it. It is intended for professional networking….

    “Be professional
    We require content to be professionally relevant and on topic, such as sharing and gaining expertise; hiring and getting hired; teaching and acquiring new skills; and engaging in actions that allow you and others to be more productive and successful.

    Do not share content containing sexually explicit material or language (some adult content may be allowed if the intent is clearly educational, medical, scientific, or artistic, and it’s not gratuitously graphic).

    Do not interact with others or share content in a way that’s irrelevant, inappropriate, disrespectful, or otherwise inflammatory.

    Do not share junk mail, spam, chain letters, phishing schemes, or any other scams are also prohibited.”

    • Now that Greg has retired from the oil industry… Writing books, related activities and public speaking events pretty well comprise his current profession.

    • “If we delete our LinkedIn accounts, the Left has won.”

      Exactly. It’s the same as scientists leaving organizations because they disagree with the organizations climate change statement. Soon all of the voices in those organizations will agree with each other.

      • How is not being there any different from being there but having your voice forcibly silenced?
        Meanwhile they claim the fact that a large number of people still belong as being proof that they are correct.

          • You are quite aware that I was referring to LinkedIn. Why are you trying to pull a Bob by bringing in irrelevancies?

          • It’s in his nature Mark. All that spelling/grammar Nazi-ing has made him incapable of simply following what people are actually talking about. He’s long since stopped seeing the forest for the trees.

      • The age old dilemma. To stay or go. Stay and work within to save or restore the organization, or go to end the aggravation and the exposure to bad influences. In either case, you can’t check out of life, and conflict comes with life. Many or most parents have had to confront the same dilemma regarding friends, schools, churches, neighborhoods, etc. There are no pat answers. Sometimes, you have to find or create the alternative, or determine that you really don’t need it anyway. As for LinkedIn, I never use it but have a growing collection of known and unknown people seeking to link with me. It would probably be best that I simply close my account.

  17. The disinformation campaign from climate alarmists is working all too well. If this juggernaut of support for science that’s so corrupt it’s an embarrassment to all legitimate science isn’t stopped, we are doomed. Unfortunately, the only way to stop this is for the scientific truth to transcend the corruption. The problem is that the scientific truth isn’t compatible with the way the science has been framed and even many skeptics are suckered down the wrong path owing to obsessing about apparent complexities that have nothing to do with how the steady state climate responds to change.

    The undeniable truth is that no one Joule is any more powerful at sustaining surface warmth than any other. You would think that this should be obvious, but the fact is that all this alarmist nonsense is based on a nominal sensitivity claimed by the IPCC that requires the surface emissions to increase by 4.4 Joules for each incremental Joule of forcing, while the average Joule of forcing only results in 1.62 Joules being emitted by the surface. The fact that anyone can accept such an obvious violation of COE shows an astounding ignorance of basic science.

    A simple question that no alarmist can answer, and I’ve posed this to many, is how does the planet tell the next Joule from the average Joule such that the next one can be so much more powerful at maintaining surface warmth?

    They will inevitably cite feedback, but feedback, even as it’s misapplied to the climate system, can’t tell Joules apart either and if every Joule warming the system resulted in 4.4 Joules being emitted by the surface, it’s temperature would be close to the boiling point of water. This is an obvious falsification test that alarmists can’t seem to wrap their tiny brains around. It’s like they fail to comprehend the consequence of 1 Watt being a rate of energy equal to 1 Joule per second.

  18. When the service is free, YOU are the product.

    I left LinkedIn 15 years ago. I was only on it for a month or two before I realized it was a scam to sell my personal info to advertisers or even worse actors.

    Ask yourself if you have ever benefited from your LinkedIn account. The answer should be obvious.

    Back in the day scam artists tried to sell something called Who’s Who. They buttered up potential customers by stroking their egos: only prominent successful people get listed. The truth is they would list any sucker who was stupid enough to send them money. The new version of the scam is LinkedIn, where you can be a sucker for free. When wolves invite the lambs to dinner, guess what’s on the menu.

  19. I come to WUWT through Google. You type in WUWT and enter it and Google’s first entry is for the Wikipedia article on WUWT, which characterizes WUWT as “a blog promoting climate change denial.” Which seems like kind of a put-down, wouldn’t you say? The second Google entry takes you to this site, which seems pretty strange: the Wikipedia article on this site gets more hits than the actual site? Nah.

  20. LinkedIn is not where I’d ever discuss politics, unless you want to be blacklisted by woke employers who might see your profile there.

    But there are lots of alternatives to WUWT. I recommend gab, and for posting video, Bitchute.

  21. I have never used Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn and never will. I avoid Google up to 99 percent of the time and use Duck Duck Go. I don’t shop at Amazon if I can buy the same item locally, which means maybe one or two purchases a year through Amazon.

    I do use blogspot.com, owned by Google, for my four blogs. For free.

    Those decisions are my choices, and they can be your choices too. Free speech online does not exist at those places.

    This is a VERY important article.

    • I also use duckduckgo but don’t kid yourself that it is not woke too. Interesting info posted by Douglas Murray in the Madness of crowds. Search for black couple or gay couple and you get images of black couples or gay couples. Search for white couple or straight couple and you will also get pictures of black couples and gay couples. This happens on both and perhaps other search engine too.
      This is not specifically climate related but it does show how biased big tech now is against non-woke issues.

  22. Just to bring that movie line up to date (‘I want the truth’).
    I like to imagine Mann vs Steyn in a similar court-room setting where Mann uses the line; and Steyn says: ‘You can’t handle the truth!’ (A Few Good Men)

  23. “…good geologist but not an atmospheric scientist…” Most of the negative comments seem to be fact free conclusions, one with a link that claimed all the alleged errors. AAPG Bulletin used to be necessary reading for marine scientists, seem to recall that stratigraphy requires biology, biology requires geology. The enormity of what geologists need to about and have previously been required to know is apparently lost nowadays? Simulated rocks?

    https://issuesinsights.com/2020/10/08/climate-change-is-here-its-going-to-get-cooler-says-nasa/

  24. LinkedIn is a platform for professional networking. It was semiuseful to me before I retired. The major problem is people you don’t know wanting to link because of your own resume. I have ignored literally thousands of those.
    It is not a very good platform for sharing content, as Greg unfortunately discovered.

  25. eFahrenheit 451

    Head beyond the end of the tracks with that high and mighty facts and knowledge. There is no place for you here.

  26. I registered few years ago with absolute minimum info. Have not looked at it for about couple of years until two min ago. Only thing I found there was:
    “Steven Mosher has 44 new connections”
    I thought it was very funny.
    All best to all 44 of them, thank you Steve, .

    • Do you honestly believe a paper with two of the authors being Stephan Lewandowsky and Michael E Mann is a credible source … c’mon man.

    • Bizarre attempted hit piece..

      They managed absolutely ZERO real science, just desperate pleas to consensus and the AGW meme.

      A laughable FAILURE from start to finish.

    • Lucky there is no science standards laws or that would have got the authors jail time for gross abuse of science.

    • I will add, in the past I wondered about the roll of Lewandowsky in papers put out by the gangsters but it has become quite clear now. His roll is clearly to take the dumbest and falsified science ideas and grind them thru psycobable and sprinkle positive jargon on them. The result is highbrow concepts that still make no sense but the sprinkling of positive concepts makes the reader not question what is being said. When you read any article he has been involved in I guarantee you that you come out dumber for the experience.

    • With mail in ballots and total lack of voter identification, we are pretty close to Maduro-style elections as it is. 4 years of Democrats in total control of the White House and Congress and the Democrats will be able to guarantee that they never lose another election.

  27. To the surprise of no one, LinkedIn went downhill and fast after Microsoft bought it. So I stopped using using it, but I kept it active. Earlier this year I completely removed my LinkedIn page. Good thing I did. Skype became garbage after Microsoft bought it too. Microsoft is only surviving because of the Windows exosystem. Windows peaked at 7, Office peak at 2003. Everything since has been worse, with Windows 10 the worst one ever. Even worse than Windows 1.0 and worse than Windows ME. Not a hyperbole. If businesses ever switch to Linux, it is game over for Microsoft.

    • I refused to upgrade to Win 10 when Win 7 reached the end of tech support due to privacy and security concerns, and general dissatisfaction with Microsoft. Instead I switched all my personal computers to Linux Mint with Win 7 as a dual boot option for the handful of apps that I could not find a good Linux version for. It was surprisingly easy. Linux Mint has an excellent Windows-like GUI that requires a minimum of Linux-fu to use. I regret not switching earlier.

      I think Microsoft knows that their Windows / Office suite business model is unsustainable and has decided to maximize near term revenue (e.g., Office 365 subscription scheme) while pivoting to an exploiting customer data model.

  28. David,
    You said, “… viscously attacked him …” Are they trying to make magma great again? 🙂

  29. I wish we could prevail on every so-called sceptic, every true scientist, every clear-thinking politician to scrap their face-book accounts, their linked-in accounts and their twitter accounts – beginning with President Trump. How dare they “remove” what really just amount to personal opinions. Why does Trump continue using face-book? They have the audacity to remove his opinions.

    If enough really powerful intellects cancel their accounts, these odious, seductive, brain-washing organisations, catering only for small minds, will lose their power.

    • Why does Trump continue using face-book?

      Like it or not, FB and twitter are about the only place he can reach a large audience relatively unfiltered.

  30. The headline of the graph:
    “There are nearly four times as many polar bears in 2017 as in 1960!”

    This is not correct: 30000/10000=3. Three times not four times.

    • 1960 5,000 to 15,000
      2017 28,500

      28,500/5,000 = 5.7
      28,500/15,000 = 1.9

      It would have been more accurate to say there were 2 to 6 times as many polar bears in 2017 as in 1960.

      30,000/7,000 = 4.3

  31. Everyone in WUWT, and all of their friends, co-workers, personal care attendants, families, families of friends, families of co-workers, families of personal care attendants, should immediately, formally drop linkedin. Then, we check back next quarter to see if there’s a statistically significant (i.e. the value is below P2.5 from either a linear or semilog trend) drop in this plot. If not, then the original poster/whiner here should post, with no weasel words elsewhere, “Living with genital herpes has made me a better person. But I remain pathetic.” If so, then me. Deal?

    https://1z1euk35x7oy36s8we4dr6lo-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/linkedin-user-growth.png

  32. Correction:

    “next quarter” s/b “when the next quarter data becomes available”. My bad for being distracted by the aggressive trend and not squinting on the last quarter of available dat. That will give the original whiner/poster over a year to gird up…..

  33. David Middleton – I seem to be the only sceptic I know, who closed their facebook account when facebook started blocking sceptic material, who left twitter (when parler became available) and who no longer uses google (I’ve just left a google group of sceptics … whose know what Google have done, but don’t want the hassle of finding a new site).

    Because I stand on principle, not only have I left all these platforms, but I’ve never once had to leave. Yet, I sit, waiting on parler for other sceptics to join me (@haseler) and there are only a handfull of us. And that is why it is so easy to pick off sceptics or conservatives.

    Yes I know that whenever two sceptics come together there are at least three opinions, whereas when there are a 10,000 alarmists group-thinkers, there’s less than one opinion between them, but unless or until sceptics start working together and leaving fascist book, google-youtube, tricker, etc., sceptics will continue to be picked off one by one.

    • I rarely use Twitter… Mostly just read Tweets of people I follow.

      I mostly use Facebook to keep in touch with people I would otherwise not keep in touch with.

      I set up Parlor and Connect-zing pages… But I don’t use them.

      I mostly use YouTube to download funny videos, military documentaries and old movies & TV shows… And the 1969 Jets-Colts Super Bowl, that I watch every year instead of the Kneeler Bowl.

      I mostly use LinkedIn for professional networking with other oil industry people and climate change skeptics.

      If I want to read articles by skeptics, I come here. When I write articles, I publish them here… And I think they still appear on Facebook and Twitter.

      That said, it’s outrageous that Greg’s LinkedIn account was frozen. But, I don’t see how boycotting LinkedIn would fix that. Finding ways to annoy the Masters of the Universe on their own platforms seems like a better response to me.

  34. One thing to reflect on is what gets attention.

    The Flat Earth advocates are not really threatening the political status quo, business status quo, or the get-rich schemes, such as global cap-and-trade and the Paris-Accord-style agreements to inve$t heavily in mitigation, that are under way.

    So, while the majority of us may not believe the earth is flat, it does not really bother us that they practice their free speech. If any of us really had to have a substantial debate with a Flat Earth advocate, and had a purpose to be motivated to do this, many of us could muster up a pretty good debate to counter the flat-earth idea. And maybe even win some debates.

    There are many topics where prevailing beliefs to influence government action, and influence market$. In these, we should still stick to the liberal ethos that free expression of ideas, and debate, including “participatory democracy,” and “deliberative democracy,” are very valuable.

    The idea is that if “we,” generally, are able to freely carry on in debate and discussion, we ought to end up at some status quo, for however long, that is acceptable and reasonable to us, the governed. For better or for worse.

    There is no guarantee that this ideal delivers the best policy, but that the prevailing policy has been free from tyranny or secrecy. IOW: it is better for us all to have joint deliberative decision-making and stumble along generally in the right direction, however meandering and slow, versus frank oppression.

    Tyranny or secrecy might provide a better status quo, at some times, but it is generally recognized to have the absolute worst outcomes for all of us, except for the small handful of oppressive winners.

    This liberal, enlightened attitude, that we adults have the capacity to “self-govern,” is a barrier to these bunches of schemers.

    They right now are trying to put a happy face on it all, but are greatly hampered by our supposedly rock-solid commitment to a society of open discourse.

    When you are taking flak, you are over target.

    Where are we being hampered and censored?

    Not with the Flat Earth issue. flat or not, no big diff.

    Likewise, you are free to search for Big Foot, or Nessie, all you want.

    I am one of these clowns who throws “bacon” memes around; my Jewish and vegetarian friends might groan, but we can all tolerate each other. When I host parties, I try to have non-meat food, and I know there are people I cannot reach for 24 hours once the sun goes down on Friday. We can all agree to disagree.

    No one will cancel your LinkedIn.

    But threaten their schemes, and they will take advantage of the tools you have given them over you, and will suppress open discourse.

    I am sure Mencken has the perfect quote for this. But do note that we call can discuss anything amongst ourselves, UNTIL it interferes with their plans.

    Why doesn’t LinkIn, or Facebook, or twitter, censor the Flat-Earthers? Because the Flat-Earthers give them clicks, and are not interfering with the Global Cap-And-Trade effort.

    AND: the Global Cap-And-Trade effort CANNOT survive if we practice open discourse.

    Sorry to add this in: The “Democrats” CANNOT win an election unless they can cheat the vote, or end the electoral college, or suppress our open discourse, or give 16-year-olds the right to vote, or pack the Supreme Court, or have their own team as debate moderators, etc., etc.

  35. What I don’t understand is how these companies (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) benefit from the global warming charade. Any given company will benefit from generalized economic growth. Growth in the Texas oil-patch should benefit Silicon Valley because the overall demand for products and services is increased. The economic pie gets bigger for everyone. Thus, win-win for all. The global warming people want to shutdown much of the economic growth, reducing the size of the pie for everyone. I fail to see how this latter scenario benefits Silicon Valley companies.

  36. Linked in helps me a lot here in calgary during man-made economic catastrophe to be able to keep in touch with people who’ve lost their jobs

  37. Tweeted, ’20 Oct 10:
    ——

    Storms, fires, floods, quakes, temp.s, etc, all,
    worse thru few doz. previous decades
    — w/ CO2 much lower; yet,
    the assumption, “All worst now”, was loaded into
    Q.’s to Pence & Harris in ’20 VP Debate.
    (Q’s c/o USA Today.)
    Old data shown & explained:
    https://youtu.be/6y3ObG5Xyys

    ——-
    That explanatory video, narrated by “Toto”, is courageously hosted by the YouTube channel, “Tony Heller”.

  38. but not the catchphrase language.; If LinkedIn is dependent on AI to censer “Posts” it only goes shows us AI is “stupid”. If LinkedIn is dependent on humans to censer “Posts” it only goes shows us it is the company’s/humans bias policy.
    I wonder what would happen if I posted some of Big Al’s claims.

Comments are closed.