“YPCCC Helps Facebook Debunk Climate Change Myths”

Reposted from The GelbspanFiles.com

The situation concerning the cavalry-style arrival of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication (YPCCC) to save us all from global warming disinformation on Facebook begs for a comparison to a comical scene from a famous old movie, where the man held at gunpoint dejectedly notes the unexpected arrival of the totally corrupt police commissioner.

The highlights from the February 24, 2021 announcement are as follows ………………..

… YPCCC is playing a key role in Facebook’s new initiative to combat the spread of climate change misinformation on its platform.

… Facebook also announced a new “myth-busting” unit, which debunks six common myths about climate change …

“Misinformation about climate change long predates the internet but has been greatly amplified in our new digital world. This new myth-busting section of the Facebook Climate Science Information Center can help raise public climate change awareness and understanding worldwide,” said Anthony Leiserowitz, senior research scientist and director of YPCCC.

… Leiserowitz, along with John Cook from George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication and Sander van der Linden, director of the University of Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, worked with Facebook to develop evidence-based refutations of climate misinformation on their platform.

The moment I read about this announcement, I remembered the above comical scene in the 1985 Chevy Chase “Fletch” movie, because of two of the names I highlight above.

Copying from my October 9, 2019 blog post “If nobody spots our fatal problem, we should be just fine,” a title that nicely sums up the appearance problem here:

… the Western Fuels Association, a coal cooperative, spent half a million dollars on a misinformation campaign designed to “reposition global warming as theory (not fact).”

Where does John Cook’s clickable link go to regarding the “misinformation campaign”? A PDF file of an entire book chapter by Naomi Oreskes, whose page 139 citation for “reposition global warming” is to a place where nobody will ever find those memos — arguably, outright disinformation on her part and John Cook’s part for perpetuating it. Who does Oreskes cite elsewhere as a source for that memo phrase? Ross Gelbspan.

Why is any reference to the “reposition global warming” memos a form of disinformation regarding the existence of ‘fossil fuel industry disinformation campaigns’? Because the memos are worthless as evidence to support that; Western Fuels never solicited that memo set and never operated under its direction.

You could hardly ask for a better example of disinformation than a blatantly false accusation that’s entirely designed to distract the public away from seeing faults in science narratives which themselves are comprised of cherry-picked data.

Oh, by the way, John Cook is also Facebook Friends with Gelbspan to this day, upholding my long-held observation about prominent people accusing skeptic climate scientists of industry corruption having three degress of separation or less from Ross Gelbspan.

Sander van der Linden is not among Gelbspan’s Facebook Friends. From the above YPCCC announcement, it also seems like he is just a separate person now working with Leiserowitz and Cook.

Well, not quite. In the 2018-published “The Consensus Handbook,” Sander van der Linden gets second billing after its top author …… John Cook. And what is seen on its PDF file page 8? The identical disinformation sentence above about Western Fuels and the “reposition global warming” memos, citing Oreskes’ book chapter’s page 139.

Perhaps van der Linden could put some distance away from himself on that problem by saying the bit about the non-Western Fuels memos was written by John Cook. But he won’t be able to worm his way out of the problem about being a co-author of a global warming book with the decidedly anti-science title of “The Consensus Handbook.”

Repeating from the end of my February 17, 2021 post, as the late Dr S. Fred Singer pointed out, “consensus is not science and science is not about consensus…science is not a show of hands,” and as Lord Christopher Monckton also pointed out within a lengthy reply to John Cook at WUWT, “consensus” — a.k.a argumentum ad populum — “is rightly regarded as unacceptable because the consensus view – and whatever ‘science’ the consensus opinion is founded upon – may or may not be correct, and the mere fact that there is a consensus tells us nothing about the correctness of the consensus opinion or of the rationale behind that opinion. … science is not done by consensus.”

Facebook has already undertaken mass purges of info / user accounts it deemed to be untruth. Their threats to purge what they consider misinformation have widened lately. How much longer will it be before posts and user accounts start disappearing that don’t adhere to the orthodoxy of global warming as preached by the YPCCC? ……….. Which, in case nobody has noticed yet, is essentially the same as Al Gore’s.

How much longer before other outlets of various kinds follow Facebook’s lead?

5 20 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 3, 2021 6:06 pm

How can sea levels be rising when the earths rotation speed increases?

That completely debunks, falsifies, the big claim of Global Warming

No one
April 3, 2021 6:19 pm

‘The relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide -well it’s complicated’
or something like that. Don’t worry your little heads about it, we’ll put in a nutshell, where it belongs.

Reply to  No one
April 3, 2021 7:02 pm

I saw what you did there …… Ha ha

April 3, 2021 6:24 pm

What more proof do you need that this is just a scam to control people, by controlling what they see and hear. Mis information should be debated. Can’t have that.

Richard Page
April 3, 2021 6:28 pm

I really wish I could support your implied (by picture) comment that it is the ‘blind leading the blind’ but I think this is a blatant attempt to silence any and all dissent and blanket the social media platforms with only the approved propaganda. Why any rational thinking individual actually needs someone to tell them what misinformation or fake news is, when 5 minutes on the Internet will answer it is completely beyond me. I am insulted and appalled to have to be told what I can and cannot post, especially by such a corrupt bunch of nest-lining incompetents as this lot.

Reply to  Richard Page
April 4, 2021 6:25 am

Yes. These Orwellian truth twisters can’t be as ignorant as they seem. They really need to take soe basic Philosophy courses (101, 102, 201) in Logic, Epistemology, and Ethics. And have some morals.

April 3, 2021 6:40 pm

IMO the world appears to be edging towards a techno-theocracy. In a theocracy, the people in charge equate being seen to be right with security of position. In hindsight this move should have been obvious.

April 3, 2021 6:42 pm

Someone put up a link to a 15 page essay by C.S. Lewis which when I read it, I thought of all the supposedly educated people who are so easily fooled by things like this decades long climate change hysteria. Sorry for the long paragraph excerpt, but that’s how he wrote it.:

Screwtape Proposes a Toast (PDF). http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/arts/lit/Toast_CSL.pdf
C.S. Lewis, 1959

In that promising land the spirit of I’m as good as you has already begun something more than a generally social influence. It begins to work itself into their educational system. How far its operations there have gone at the present moment, I should not like to say with certainty. Nor does it matter. Once you have grasped the tendency, you can easily predict its future developments; especially as we ourselves will play our part in the developing. The basic principle of the new education is to be that dunces and idlers must not be made to feel inferior to intelligent and industrious pupils. That would be “undemocratic.” These differences between pupils — for they are obviously and nakedly individual differences — must be disguised. This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not. At schools, the children who are too stupid or lazy to learn languages and mathematics and elementary science can be set to doing things that children used to do in their spare time. Let, them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. But all the time there must be no faintest hint that they are inferior to the children who are at work. Whatever nonsense they are engaged in must have — I believe the English already use the phrase — “parity of esteem.” An even more drastic scheme is not possible. Children who are fit to proceed to a higher class may be artificially kept back, because the others would get a trauma — Beelzebub, what a useful word! — by being left behind. The bright pupil thus remains democratically fettered to his own age group throughout his school career, and a boy who would be capable of tackling Æschylus or Dante sits listening to his coeval’s attempts to spell out A CAT SAT ON A MAT.

Reply to  OK S.
April 3, 2021 7:08 pm

 Let, them, for example, make mud pies and call it modelling. 

WOW, that was pretty prescient.

Living in the Bay Area, I’m pretty fearful of Facebook going tits-up but, at this rate it most surely will.

Reply to  philincalifornia
April 4, 2021 9:11 am

FoubarBook has been running scared of companies avoiding advertising on it because it tolerated bad behaviour. Being dense, it fell for a package deal, politically correct instead of just curbing promotion of violence and other illegal behaviour.

Alan M
Reply to  OK S.
April 4, 2021 3:27 am

 This can be done at various levels. At universities, examinations must be framed so that nearly all the students get good marks. Entrance examinations must be framed so that all, or nearly all, citizens can go to universities, whether they have any power (or wish) to profit by higher education or not.

Wow Lewis wrote that in 1959, insightful

Paul Penrose
Reply to  OK S.
April 5, 2021 10:14 am

“parity of esteem”, which today is called “equity”

Reply to  Paul Penrose
April 7, 2021 2:32 am

Oh, no, sir! ‘Parity of esteem’ will translate as “inclusivity”. Equitibility, on the other hand, is a very old social tool. Literally, it means “that which you deserve according to your social class”.
It was the (very disturbing) day I found that out, that I started paying attention to words as they are used, how they are understood, and their actual dictionary meanings. It turns out, politicians almost never lie, they just use words in their strict dictionary and/or legal meaning, leaving half-educated dumbasses like myself to colour their statements in according to my own expectations, which are, of course, totally determined by…my own social millieu!
Now I own a fair number of dictionaries (I buy old ones) that translate “liberty” as “acting outside the bounds of common decency”, only the more modern ones add the definition of ‘freedom” (being unbound, untethered, uncaged) to liberty, the older ones make a clear distinction.
This mindset makes for lots of fun, when analysing ‘official’ statements and reports. Like “sustainable”. I cannot find that word used anywhere, unless it means a) You can put it on the stock market, or b) That which is worth spending investor money on. Now we know why GMO crops full of Roundup is sustainable, but your backyard vegetable garden is absolutely not. Now we know why TwatFaceGram is only sustainable if they “own the narrative”. Now you know why ‘climate action’ is sustainable, and cheap energy for the masses is not. Because, equitibility!
P.S. Scroll down for the spat over Yale, which is, in essence, a demonstration of the meaning of “equity”. The Roger dude feels totally superior, because he is from Yale (high social standing) and looks down upon all lesser beings. He cannot fathom anyone arguing with his obviously superior view, and even if you do, it does not matter to him, because you are not from Yale, so you don’t matter.

Last edited 6 days ago by paranoid goy
lee riffee
Reply to  OK S.
April 5, 2021 12:16 pm

Sounds like the Baltimore city school system….not long ago it was revealed that they were giving honor roll level grades to students who were actually failing!

Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 6:44 pm

Dear Mr. Rotter,
Yale as an institution, has much more credibility than you, or this blog has.

Richard Page
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 6:53 pm

Once upon a time, possibly. Now – not so much.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 4, 2021 7:30 am

LOL at Rotter.
Elihu Yale died in 1721.
After his death, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, Z Taylor, Andrew Johnson and Grant all owned slaves.
Guess the Office of the President also qualifies according to you as a “racist institution.”

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 12:46 pm

On this site, you don’t have to guess, you can just ask him.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 5:57 pm

Misleading alert.

Thomas Jefferson inherited slaves from his wife’s father, then they and he were faced with the dilema of risk to them from bounty hunters capturing slaves escaped from the South. Reports indicate he ran a good household. (There was a dalliance between a nominal slave and a relative of Jefferson’s.)

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 5, 2021 10:16 am

It’s so hilarious that you can’t even tell Charles was hoisting you on your on petard, you dolt.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 7:03 pm

Correct Roger.
(As in, those who ascribe to institutional credibility are themselves institutionalized).

Definition of institutionalized
created and controlled by an established organization
institutionalized housing
institutionalized religion
established as a common and accepted part of a system or culture
institutionalized beliefs and practices
placed in the care of a specialized institution
At first, the researchers … confine their studies to serial killers, mass murderers, institutionalized sociopaths …

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 7:13 pm

Dear Mr Rotter,

Thank you, and this blog, for having much more credibility and integrity than institutions like Harvard and Yale who’s credibility and integrity have been swirling down the swirler for years now.

Happy to discuss this credibility issue further Rog. What you got besides the voices in your head?

Reply to  Charles Rotter
April 3, 2021 8:20 pm

The invitation hasn’t expired. I’ll extend it to Willis and the gorgeous ex-fiancée if he’s tuned in here.

Don Perry
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 7:18 pm

Appeal to authority — one of the logical fallacies.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Don Perry
April 3, 2021 8:43 pm

Warmulists like Roger wouldn’t have any responses at all if they didn’t have full use of the logical fallacies. Most times I have no need of climate science when arguing with one of them. I just list the fallacies they relied on … starting with “climate change” itself, which is an appeal to ambiguity (equivocation).

Reply to  Don Perry
April 4, 2021 7:28 am

And worse since some of their “authorities” aren’t.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 7:32 pm

In my youth, Yale was an old and respected entity, however, a Yale aficionado would surely understand the term “entropy,”

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 7:43 pm

With whom?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 8:08 pm

Nice attempt at misdirection.
Yale’s climate communication program is the subject here, and it is nothing more than an outright propaganda-laden joke.

Here is their own description of the YPCCC:
“A team of psychologists, geographers, political scientists, statisticians, pollsters, and communication scientists,….”

Political scientists? Communication scientists? Pollsters??? Geographers (to map attitudes by location i,e GIS).????? Yet these idiots are “truthing” climate science claims for Facebook????

A complete junk how-to-do propaganda program.

Last edited 10 days ago by joelobryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 4, 2021 5:08 am

but but the snopes team was busy…
and this mob works for free
oh would that also be slavery?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 4, 2021 6:33 am

They don’t work for free! They are paid hansomly by Yale. Spreading climate falsehoods via Facebook is just part of their job descriptions.

George Daddis
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 4, 2021 8:52 am

When you think about, it these programs (Yale, GeoMason et al) have absolutely no basis for claiming authority on any question in the field of science.

  • As noted, their backgrounds are in anything BUT science.
  • More importantly, the program is based on the premise that Climate Alarmism is true and not subject to argument. Thus those that choose to enroll have already enlisted in the crusade.

Their role upon graduations is to go forth and convert the “heathens” who don’t believe.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 7, 2021 2:50 am

Ay… Are you criticising consensus science again? These guys are merely staffing their team with proper experts. The NHS issued a protocol for countering “vaccine hesitancy”. Of the four lead writers, one makes a living from cancer, the other three are….
Welcome to the New Normal?
Besides, climastrology has always been a field of interest, not to physicists, but economists, and what is a “political scientist” other than the deacon in the Holy Church of Mammon, where the priests of monetary theory preach the Truth of Bolsch? (You shall own nothing, and be happy)

Tom in Toronto
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 8:24 pm

You need evidence and reasoned argument to stand a chance here. Trolling with bald-faced assertions and insults only help to demonstrate the weakness of your position.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 8:36 pm

Yale as an institution, has much more credibility than you, or this blog has.

On matters of climate science, I would seriously doubt that. Warmulists like you grossly under estimate the viewership of this site and how many actually credible climate scientists consider it to be very credible.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Rory Forbes
April 4, 2021 7:43 am

Got any evidence for the assertion: “ how many actually credible climate scientists consider it to be very credible.” ?

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 9:16 am

@Roger Taguchi: The above WUWT guest post is a reproduction of my original blog post at GelbspanFiles – http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=11747 .

For the benefit of this reading audience, can you specifically name what is not credible within my piece and provide evidence to support it, e.g. if you choose to claim what I said about those leaked “reposition global warming memos” is false?

Last edited 9 days ago by Russell Cook
Rory Forbes
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 9:45 am

Got any evidence for the assertion:

Of course I do, volumes of it. So do you, it’s right in front of your eyes. All you need to do is look through the past articles and the discussions associated with them. On the subject of climate, Yale has no credibility at all. If you look to sociologists, pollsters, psychologists and “science communicators” to enlighten you on this complex subject, it’s little wonder why you understand so little and believe so much that isn’t true.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 8:37 pm

It’s well past April 1st Roger. Better timing next year.

Reply to  eck
April 4, 2021 3:08 am

Roger’s started competing with griff

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 9:50 pm

You put your finger on it precisely and illustrated exactly why Facebook is going to Yale. This was a preliminary announcement, but immediately we get: “Yale as an institution, has much more credibility than you” and that is exactly the response Mark Zuckerberg was looking to elicit.

A more circumspect individual might have waited to see what Yale had to say first, as undoubtedly would have happened with many folks, if Facebook had chosen, say Idaho State University, to tackle climate misinformation. But with Yale involved, a significant percentage of individuals are likely to see the Yale name and reflexively skip over the content. (mission accomplished with no exertion.)

So, if Zuckerberg gets this kind of response with the announcement, one can only imagine the response once Yale produces some content. (His Harvard admission was not a mistake.)

And as to the veracity of your statement, it very well may be true, however, as WUWT is a blog devoted to climate issues, you might do better at a website devoted to university rankings, like Barron’s Guide or the Princeton Review.

Last edited 10 days ago by Anon
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Anon
April 4, 2021 4:00 am

Maybe Zuckerberg, the dropout, is hoping Yale will give him an honorary doctorate.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Anon
April 4, 2021 7:08 am

Best response so far…

Robert of Texas
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 10:29 pm

What credibility would that be? All the big Universities lost any credibility years ago.

Roger Taguchi
Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 4, 2021 7:47 am

Yale graduates you might know: Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayeor, and Clarence Thomas.
I say the school is credible.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 2:00 pm

Incorrect verb tense. I think you meant “was”, not “is”, and you certainly proved that point.

Have you been asleep for 25 years?

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 7, 2021 3:01 am

Sam Alito, Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayeor, and Clarence Thomas

Oh, sweet jeez! That the best you can do?
Yale, and its peers, are not institutions of learning, they are creches for the rich, where they send their progeny to make contact and network with the other heirs. Surely a “highly” educated man like yourself know that we all know that?
Oh, I forget, we are not Yale, so we don’t know nothing…

Reply to  Robert of Texas
April 4, 2021 8:39 am

Hi Robert,

You might find this interesting (although it is a long read):

The Real Problem at Yale Is Not Free Speech

This is a story about an institution and an elite that have lost themselves.

In another instance, I was privately discussing with a professor the pros and cons of a Food Stamp reform proposal. After some analysis, I commented on my own experience with the program. His response was complete shock. “You don’t really mean you were on welfare. You just mean you were supported by your parents, right?”

In a world of masks and façades, it is hard to convey the truth.

And this is how I ended up offering a ham sandwich to a man with hundreds of millions in a foreign bank account.


So, what you have in higher education (particularly in the most prestigious universities) is an obsession with “social status”.

Now tie this article in with the article I posted below from Quillette, and a complete picture emerges. The Facebook – Yale alliance is not meant to push the “central route” of persuasion (based on the content of the argument) but on the “peripheral route” of persuasion (how much social status one accrue’s from adopting a particular position).

So, Yale is actually the worst choice (most apt to choose the “peripherali route”) if you are really interested in settling this controversy.

It is all pretty profound actually (two routes of persuasion), and I felt I really increased my understanding from this post.

Thanks Charles. 🙂

Last edited 9 days ago by Anon
Teddy lee
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 11:05 pm

You are living in the past Roger.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 3, 2021 11:28 pm

“Yale—the Harvard of Connecticut.”
—H.L. Mencken

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 2:58 am

Only truth has credibility, and Yale is not its friend

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 3:55 am

The Yale Climate Connections web site refuses to allow comments. I’ve suggested allowing comments to the site several times but they don’t bother to reply. By the way, education shouldn’t be thought of as an “institution”.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 6:06 am

Release Roger ….

Reply to  LdB
April 4, 2021 8:09 am

From my annual Easter religious observance (watching “Life Of Brian”).

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  LdB
April 4, 2021 8:10 am

And Wodewick!

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 6:49 am

Roger, try something different. Instead of your mindless drive-by insults, how about showing us how and why we all have it so wrong.

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 7:19 am

The same Yale that allowed Mao to distribute communist propaganda, and misinformation, through their China Campus book store?

Last edited 9 days ago by KT66
Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 7:51 am

In my post I forgot to mention this outstanding one 😀

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 8:55 am

I know families with honors students that have pulled away from Yale admissions because they saw where student orgs were promoting bestiality. They went elsewhere.

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 7, 2021 5:27 am

Some stupid families then !

They weren’t promoting bestiality.
It was a workshop entitled “Sex: Am I Normal,” discussing the whole range of sexuality including abstinence & “sexual diversity”. (the word ‘bestiality’ has been used as click-bait on tinternet.)
An anonymous survey at the workshop revealed that –
9% of attendees had been paid for sex,
3% had engaged in bestiality,
52% had participated in “consensual pain” during sex,
according to an article published in the Yale Daily News

Reply to  Roger Taguchi
April 4, 2021 5:54 pm

Uh, Yale is very biased on climate in my observation of its promotion of ‘surveys’ on the subject.

April 3, 2021 8:00 pm

The fact that Yale tolerates the YPCCC is proof positive that Yale has become a worthless institution.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pflashgordon
April 3, 2021 9:22 pm

I think they spelled it wrong. Should be the YCCCP.

Tom in Toronto
April 3, 2021 8:04 pm

I clicked the link and I couldn’t find the ‘six common myths’… Only a vague reference to a few (one of which is simply not a myth – Polar Bear numbers ARE increasing).
Can anyone list the ‘six common myths’ that the crew from Yale are out to flag?

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Tom in Toronto
April 4, 2021 11:01 am

Sure, I could list them . . . but the many censorship programs floating around on the Web— especially those designed to regulate the “climate change” meme—would likely prevent my response getting back to WUWT.

April 3, 2021 8:10 pm

Awesome! I’m going to post climate facts every day on Facebook based on observations and measurements; indisputable data from universally accepted sources like IPCC, NOAA, NASA, UAH that debunk the fictions from climate models, see if they censor me. I think I’ll throw in some bonuses like the fact that John Cook isn’t a climate scientist. Or a meteorologist. And is terrible at math, using his own ridiculous 97% consensus study. This is gonna be fun.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  stinkerp
April 3, 2021 8:31 pm

Th wonderful thing about Cook’s execrable 97.1% “consensus” survey Cook et. al (2013) is the rebuttal in Legates et.al. (2013) in which they show that Cook’s actual consensus is only 0.3%. That means 99.7% DON’T agree with the standard definition of AGW.

Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change

However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  stinkerp
April 3, 2021 9:31 pm

Cook has been regurgitating the same ‘97% consensus’ twaddle year-on-year ever since, that seems to be his shtick at the George Mason gig.
It’s a living I guess but it must be soul destroying.

Reply to  Chris Hanley
April 4, 2021 7:08 am

I once read some quotes from him where he said he was doing it for his young daughter growing up. I suggested he read the Wikipedia entry for the life of Joseph Goebbels … particularly the last part.

Some people just don’t listen.

Roger Knights
Reply to  stinkerp
April 3, 2021 11:34 pm

The Center For Inquiry, a sibling of Skeptical Inquirer, thinks Cook is the cat’s meow and featured him in an April 1 online presentation, “John Cook: Gamification to Counter Science Misinformation.” CFI also has Mann on its Board, or in some high-level nook.

Reply to  Roger Knights
April 4, 2021 12:26 am

I quickly skimmed your comment and read it as “The Center For Iniquity”. I thought maybe you were being ironic and read it again more carefully and laughed. My mistake somehow seems more accurate…

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  stinkerp
April 4, 2021 8:11 am

Stinkerp, what’s your facebook page? I wanna watch.

April 3, 2021 8:29 pm

Social platforms competing with steering engines for master authority.

Mike Dubrasich
April 3, 2021 9:10 pm

I don’t do Facebook, or Twitter, or use Google, or read the NYT, or listen to NPR, or watch CNN. Not in their movie. I know they exist, but I ignore them.

I do WUWT. I pity the fools who are trapped in the propaganda, but not as much as I appreciate the smart and courageous people who post here. Fresh air, clear thinking, pretty good science, sometimes first class science, mostly polite, even the trolls — many of whom seem to be willing foils like Simplicio.

Facebook wants to rule thought? They can’t tie their own shoes. The hubris of the foolish is a gargantuan bag of nothingness. One pinprick and poof, there goes the balloon.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
April 4, 2021 3:46 am

So how do we, or anyone else, convince Facebook (or Twitter or Google or any of those things) to change their ways? The trouble is that nearly everyone who uses them don’t know what Facebook et al are doing.
And no, I don’t use any of them either.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
April 4, 2021 7:13 am

Excellent post and, as I mentioned above, if Facebook and some others go tits-up, San Francisco and possibly the whole peninsula and silicon valley could go full-on Detroit. I don’t think this is a likely scenario but you never know. I have my escape routes planned, just in case.

April 3, 2021 9:19 pm

After building a platform and making sure it’s open to get a monopoly on that market, they want to ruin it?

Abolition Man
April 3, 2021 9:37 pm

Facebook is trying to build an alternative universe with their fact checkers and debunkers! More and more people see what they claim and assume the opposite is probably true!
Hmmmm, YPCCC? What could we possibly do with that little chestnut? It does appear to be an homage to the old Soviet Union, but like most Climastrologists, they got it completely bass ackwards!
It’s good to see Roger Rabbitbrain getting out and about in the comments section; only this time he looks like a jack rabbit than ran out in the road just as a convoy of semis or 4WDs came roaring through! Alas, but it gives the ravens fresh meat for a few hours!

Robert of Texas
April 3, 2021 10:36 pm

Facebook doesn’t do facts – they regurgitate propaganda. If the propaganda happens to contain some correct facts it’s completely incidental. Same for the big universities like Yale. Their ability to distinguish facts from belief was lost years ago.

Facts do not matter to them – only agendas matter. You WILL be assimilated.

April 3, 2021 10:47 pm

John Cook? (facepalm)

He is a psychologist researching misinformation and reducing its influence.

I love his quote in the following article:

The Rise of “Kinder, Gentler” Climate-Change Deniers

John Cook, a professor at George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication who has studied public perception of climate change extensively, believes this type of denial is especially dangerous because it pretends to be balanced—thereby confusing people into apathy. “When you throw conflicting pieces of information at people, they don’t know what to believe, so they stop believing in anything,” he told me.


That quote in bold is easy to skip over, but really think about what it means: “no conflicting pieces of information”. And he is the founder of Skeptical Science?

My entire career in science has involved sorting conflicting pieces of information. I don’t even know what to say… I am dumbfounded.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” ~ John Stuart Mill

Last edited 10 days ago by Anon
Reply to  Anon
April 4, 2021 12:10 am

I used to have the link on my homescreen, but if you go to the first appearance of skepticalscience on wayback machine Cook tells us hes not a climatologist or a scientist, hes a cartoonist/web developer.

He setup SS and did his study with a preformed agenda to shut down all debate by concensus.

Simultaneously all the attack/smear sites went up listing the evil deniers.

Obvious propaganda war is obvious

Reply to  Anon
April 4, 2021 12:45 am

He’s a leftist. Modern left-wing thought cannot withstand being presented with any contrary information, since its basic tenets are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Reply to  Independent
April 4, 2021 7:29 am

That’s so true. I grew up in a real “left-wing thought” environment – the blue collar factories of Northern England. It didn’t stop me having a fantastic career in science, (still ongoing). While the BBC are trying to come up with BBC words, like “existential”, the word that they really should come up with is:


Stupid old hippie-wannabe farts.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Anon
April 5, 2021 7:33 am

“John Cook? (facepalm)”

Me, too! 🙂

Cook is the “97 Percent Guy”, or rather, the “97 Percent Lie Guy”.

He’s given stupid alarmists an easy reply to skeptic inquiry: 97 percent!” Even Obama used Cook’s “97 percent” deception.

The Climate Alarmist community is filled with Liars.

Eric Vieira
April 4, 2021 12:44 am

I recently saw a video from Catherine Austin Fitts (part of the coming film “Planet Lockdown”):
She talks about the need to “come clean”: we are unfortunately building our own prison. If we want to stop these people, we have to stop supporting them. No one has to be on FB or Twitter. No one has to buy stuff on Amazon (who took down Parler). There are other search engines than Google. No one has to do any banking with JP Morgan Chase or other “too big to fail” banks. There’s (still) a lot of other alternatives out there. If everybody reacted and started to boycott these people and institutions, “it would be a revolution”.

Reply to  Eric Vieira
April 7, 2021 3:05 am


Reply to  Eric Vieira
April 7, 2021 5:34 am

“There are other search engines than Google”

We’ve used ‘DuckDuck Go’ + ghostery for yrs no problems

April 4, 2021 12:46 am

Facebook is beneath contempt. The company should be held to account for the massive IP theft it enables and the blatant fraud it perpetrates on its users.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Independent
April 4, 2021 9:58 am

Isn’t FascistBook at least partially responsible for all the unnecessary deaths that occurred due to their suppression of therapeutics like ivermectin and HCQ? That should put them in the queue with Fauxi for the mass murder of tens of thousands! Any of the Tech Nazis that suppressed the free speech of doctors and epidemiologists should suffer the same treatment!
They hid the truth and lied; WAY too many people died!

Last edited 9 days ago by Abolition Man
Reply to  Abolition Man
April 7, 2021 3:09 am

I love how you think you counter these Bolsheviks by honouring them with the title of “Nazi”. Or “fascist”, for that matter. If you read history not written by a Bolshevik, you will find both those groups existed purely as opposition to the Bolsheviks. Remember that Bolsch declared International war upon the Nazis, on the front page of the NY Times, in 1936 already. Not upon Hitler, but on National Socialism.

April 4, 2021 2:47 am
Climate believer
April 4, 2021 3:17 am

It may seem cliché to some to quote Orwell, but I don’t care, to me he has never been more relevant:

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

Joseph Zorzin
April 4, 2021 3:50 am

“How much longer before other outlets of various kinds follow Facebook’s lead?”
YouTube keeps warning Tony Heller about climate change disinformation on his channel- because his channel is one of the best at exposing the lies of climatastrology. For months, they held his subscriber list to 99K and just let it rise to 100K. His followers know that was contrived because his channel has been growing rapidly for the past year. Several times in the past few months- they blocked the channel as a threat.

Curious George
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 4, 2021 7:43 am

That’s because it IS a threat. German Nazional Sozialists handled threats very decisively in order to build the Thousand Years Reich.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 5, 2021 7:46 am

I wondered how long it would take before they started trying to censor Tony Heller.

The Internet needs a little bit of conservative infrastructure and alternative social media platforms. The Leftist social media platforms in existence are just going to get more strict, until Republicans regain control of the government.

State’s allowing their citizens to sue Facebook and others for censorship may have some effect in the interim. That remains to be seen.

April 4, 2021 4:56 am

The worst of it is that people will die because they buy into the belief and they buy into the solutions. People already did die in Texas because the solutions meant to solve one perceived problem were inadequate to solve another real problem–very cold weather. And the spin on that hasn’t stopped.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  starzmom
April 5, 2021 7:48 am

“And the spin on that hasn’t stopped.”

They need to spin it because the Texas electric supply disaster made windmills look real bad. It exposed the limits of windmills when trying to use them to power a modern society.

April 4, 2021 5:56 am

Don’t want to be a member of Farce Book anymore.

Bruce Cobb
April 4, 2021 6:51 am

Well I guess the rivalry between Yale and Harvard now extends to which can be the biggest, baddest Climate Liar. I think Yale is winning.

Kevin kilty
April 4, 2021 7:02 am

The statement by Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity (whatever that is) is a doozy. Unintended dramatic irony if ever I have seen such. If a firm needs a Department of Integrity, at the VP level no less, along with its staff, then the Board of Directors should suspect very deep problems.

Bruce Cobb
April 4, 2021 7:35 am

Pity the poor Climate Liars, continually needing to squelch, and stomp out the truth, which tends to pop up everywhere like little brushfires. How annoying and frustrating it must be for them. Still, they soldier on.
Sucks to be them.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 5, 2021 7:49 am

A good description of the Climate Liars.

April 4, 2021 7:47 am

YPCCC Helps Facebook Debunk Climate Change Myths
Here we have griff and Loydo and two or three other debunker 😀

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Krishna Gans
April 5, 2021 7:56 am

Alarmist “Debunking” consists of making unsubstantiated assertions and claims about the Earth’s climate.

This is forced on the alarmists because they don’t have any facts to back up their assertions, so they just make the assertions anyway and hope the gullible take them as facts.

They run into a brick wall, here.

April 4, 2021 7:50 am

I just stumbled upon this and its seems to explain Facebook’s Yale decision and articulates a lot of what I suspected to be true (as well as the Roger comment):

Persuasion and the Prestige Paradox: Are High Status People More Likely to Lie?

Some highlights:

1] People are typically less motivated to scrutinize a message if the source is considered to be an expert. We interpret the message through the peripheral route.

2] This is one reason why media outlets often appoint experts who mirror their political values. These experts lend credibility to the views the outlet espouses. 

3] Returning to the peripheral route of persuasion, we decide whether to believe something not only if lots of people believe it, but also if the proponent of the belief is a prestigious person. If lots of people believe something, our likelihood of believing it increases. And if a high-status person believes something, we are more prone to believing it, too.

4] Highly-educated people appear to be the most likely to express things they don’t necessarily believe for fear of losing their jobs or their reputation. Within the upper class, the true believers set the pace, and those who are loss-averse about their social positions go along with it.

5] “Highly educated people tend to have more ideologically coherent and extreme views than working-class ones. We see this in issue polling and ideological self-identification. College-educated voters are way less likely to identify as moderate.”

6] In short, opinions can confer status regardless of their truth value. And the individuals most likely to express certain opinions in order to preserve or enhance their status are also those who are already on the upper rungs of the social ladder.


I suspect this is why many scientific breakthroughs come from unknowns (patent clerks) and people in their twenties, not because of ability, but because of the potential social status loss of opposing mainstream theories. Thus we transition from low status expendable “scientific explorers” to high status scientific “gate keepers”.

Last edited 9 days ago by Anon
CD in Wisconsin
April 4, 2021 8:45 am

“… YPCCC is playing a key role in Facebook’s new initiative to combat the spread of climate change misinformation on its platform.”


If I understand it correctly, the whole CAGW theory is supposed to be about whether a human component is detectable in the warming we have seen seen since coming out of the Little Ice Age and whether it is a cause for concern. It is not about whether the climate is changing. If organizations and individuals like the YPCCC can’t even get the definition of the issue correct, they make it difficult to assign any degree of credibility to them. Is there no such thing as natural warming?

Furthermore, seeing them behave like the Orwellian Though Police from Nineteen-Eighty-Four
on Facebook with the co-operation and support of Facebook management tends to paint a picture that suggests they are all scared to death of the skeptics and the skeptics’ science that refutes the alarmist narrative. Their vested interests in the climate scare are far too sacred and holy to be threatened.

Censorship is a behavioral characteristic of totalitarians and a totalitarian mindset. The constitutional amendment guaranteeing free speech only applies to government, and that leaves Facebook and Twitter management and their ilk free to behave in a manner similar to totalitarians or the ruling party and the police from Orwell’s novel. I find myself feeling as though I am in the shoes of Winston Smith more and more every day.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that that the individuals behind the YPCCC, Facebook and Twitter have enough (if any) background in a climate science or related field to determine who is right and wrong in the great climate change debate. Nor are their so-called “fact checkers.” This “initiative” demonstrates what appears to be a high level of arrogance, egotism and hubris on the part of the individuals involved, and it is all too easy to confuse arrogance and a highly overinflated ego for what the individual perceives to be morality and righteousness. Those who manifest this kind of confusion are the most dangerous people of all.

I am not at all comfortable thinking about where the U.S. and western civilization will be four years from now at the end of the current Biden administration. The environmental movement, in its current form and with the climate scare, has way more political influence in western governments than they should, and they are exploiting it for maximum effect. I can almost hear China’s leadership in Beijing laughing at our extreme level of climatic and environmental self-righteousness with which we have endowed ourselves. At that extreme level, it can be self-destructive as much as anything else.

One last thing: This is off topic, but perhaps the reader has heard about six of Dr. Seuss’s children’s books being banned on eBay because they are thought to have racist content. However, guess what is still available on eBay? The English translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf.
I am at a loss.

And always remember folks: Love Big Brother.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
April 4, 2021 10:13 am

I should say that the Dr. Seuss books were delisted from eBay rather than banned because of their perceived racist content.


April 4, 2021 8:46 am

The Little Green Book lives on.

April 4, 2021 8:51 am

They are riding on a name at this point.

April 4, 2021 9:09 am

Which adds to FoubarBook’s practice of hiring biased people and ‘fact-checking’ organizations. Yeah, the star of The Social Network documentary, who can’t make software reliable.

April 4, 2021 10:05 am

Consensus: Everybody knows THAT!!! So it HAS to be true.

Solo Skeptic: But what if it isn’t true?

April 4, 2021 11:34 am

The NOAA defines climate as 30 years of average weather in the geographic area of interest.

So in order to fight climate change, one must first be able to control the weather. For 30 years.

Fact check that, Facebook

Patrick Hrushowy
April 4, 2021 11:44 am

My Gawd!!!! John Cook is out with this “tool” to help people deal with misinformation. I sometimes feel defeated by this massive onslaught of thought-control.


Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick Hrushowy
April 5, 2021 8:03 am

You are not defeated, you are pushing back. Keep it up. 🙂

Peter Plail
April 4, 2021 1:25 pm

How does a graphic designer become an expert in climate. John Cook started as a graphic designer and was a web designer until 2011. He then gained a doctorate in psychology. We are constantly told that your opinion on climate matters is not relevant if you are not qualified in climate science.

Last edited 9 days ago by Peter Plail
Reply to  Peter Plail
April 4, 2021 2:28 pm

There’s always more on such angles. I actually also covered the major fault in Cook’s (as I said in the above guest post, no relation to me) doctorate degree as the 8th example in my blog post “Reposition Graduate Degrees as Theory rather than Fact.”

Keith Peregrine
April 4, 2021 2:29 pm

I see a classic logarithmic relation between the YPCCC trending towards the CCCP or even the CCP.

Mark Pawelek
April 4, 2021 11:23 pm

One of their offshoots is Yale Climate Connections?, which is a for-profit organization, yet publishes most of its propaganda under the creative commons license. They are ‘zero carbon’ and mindlessly pro-renewable.

Yale Climate Connections is grateful for the support of the Grantham, MacArthur, Energy, and Heising-Simons Foundations, the 11th Hour Project, and individual donors.

YPCCC don’t list their funders but YCC do.
PS: Grantham is a UK billionaire fund manager with over $100 billion AUM.

Last edited 9 days ago by Mark Pawelek
lee riffee
April 5, 2021 12:43 pm

IMO the main take-away from this and other accounts of Farcebook censoring various kinds of information and then providing their own “fact checks” is this: Believe nothing Farcebook says with regards to their “facts”. Kind of like people you know who lie a lot…you quickly learn to take everything they say (even if occasionally it turns out to be true) with a huge grain (or rather block) of salt. I might use these sites (FB, YouTube, Twitter, etc) here and there, but I know better than to trust anything they set down as fact.

Matthew Sykes
April 6, 2021 2:13 am

It is a new religion. They will be burning heretic books soon.

Reply to  Matthew Sykes
April 7, 2021 3:21 am

You been in a coma, or what? They have been burning books for some while already! As a matter of fact, they tend to burn the author, the publisher, even mentioning that you have read anything “concerning” now gets you burned, too. Even this site is being soaked in their special, plant-based, non-carbonaceous fire accellerant, as evidenced by the class of troll attracted lately. From Yale, brother, from Yale! You just don’t get a classier troll than Yale!

Reply to  paranoid goy
April 7, 2021 5:45 am

“As a matter of fact, they tend to burn the author”

eg: Peter Ridd … get his book –
Reef Heresy ?
It’s brilliant !

David Blenkinsop
April 8, 2021 2:44 pm

So, Yale University is encouraging Facebook to spread lies that try to discredit climate theory skeptics?

I’m shocked, just shocked, I tell you..

%d bloggers like this: