Mark Zuckerberg. By Presidência do México - Flickr, CC BY 2.0, Link

EENews: Climate Denial Flourishes on Facebook

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Dr. Willie Soon; EE News reports that not only is heresy against IPCC approved scientific positions wildly popular, it is also producing a lot of revenue for the heretics.

Climate denial newspaper flourishes on Facebook

By Scott Waldman | 08/27/2021 05:32 AM EST

One of the most-viewed sites on Facebook in the last few months is a subscription page for a conservative media outlet that publishes climate denial.

The Epoch Times, a far-right newspaper that echoes anti-vaccine messages and promoted former President Trump’s false election claims, received 44.2 million views between April and June for a page that offers to sign up subscribers, according to a report released by Facebook last week.

That was 10th overall.

It’s a remarkable achievement for a media outlet that has been banned from advertising on Facebook for hiding its connection to ads that supported Trump’s candidacy. It also raises questions about how an outlet that spreads climate misinformation was able to reach millions of people through a social media platform that has voiced commitments against spreading false assertions about science.

The Epoch Times, which was founded by members of the Chinese spiritual group Falun Gong, pivoted hard toward conservative politics during the Trump administration. And while the paper had a history of objective climate coverage before then, it has become one of the larger media sources of climate denial.

That has been profitable for the paper, with revenues more than quadrupling during Trump’s presidency, public records show.

One recent piece, headlined “Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming,” focused on a study by a researcher connected to the fossil fuel industry whose work has been debunked by climate scientists. The paper also ran articles about the dangers that renewable energy poses to the electricity grid.

The inclusion of a subscription page for The Epoch Times in the most-visited link section shows that “Facebook doesn’t engage in any type of governance that is even aligned with their own policies,” Grygiel said.

Since its shift into hard-right politics, The Epoch Times has flourished financially, public tax records show. The Epoch Times Association reported $15.5 million in revenue in 2019, $12.5 million in 2018, $8.1 million in 2017 and $3.9 million in 2016, public tax records show. The paper claims to publish in 22 languages in 36 countries.

The Facebook report suggests that the social media behemoth has helped fuel that rise.

The Epoch Times’ Facebook page has millions of followers and adds thousands of people every week. Its growth comes as the outlet has faced sanctions for deceptive pro-Trump ads.

Read more: https://www.eenews.net/articles/climate-denial-newspaper-flourishes-on-facebook/

The study EE News is complaining about includes Dr. Willie Soon as one of its authors.

Facebook tried a half measure against Epoch Times, they banned Epoch Times advertisements in 2019, but Epoch Times flourished anyway.

Facebook might like to completely eject Epoch Times from their platform, for the crime of free speech about climate change and international politics. But what will happen to the substantial segment of their audience which mainly uses Facebook to follow Epoch Times?

Yet if Facebook does nothing, Facebook’s own supporters could boycott them. Thanks to Zuckerberg’s apparent foray into social engineering, Facebook whiners now expect Facebook to take an editorial position on views they don’t like – and will be bitterly disappointed if their demands are not met.

Keep squirming Facebook. You created this mess. If you had stayed true to your stated goal of promoting free expression, the whiners might still have complained, but most people would have respected your absolute commitment to the principle of free expression. Now your credibility as a free expression platform is in tatters, there is no easy path forward. No matter which option you choose, you lose – and deservedly so.

4.8 45 votes
Article Rating
142 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 29, 2021 6:14 am

“False assertions about science” include the notion that consensus represents the truth, and that science can be settled, and that there is a monoloth called The Science. Anyone who continues to assert those false beliefs should be kicked off Facebook.

Not that it matters because eventually Facebook will become an irrelevant platform.

S.K.
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
August 29, 2021 8:06 am

Facebook is not about eat their own.

lee riffee
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
August 29, 2021 8:30 am

Yes, when people mention “The Science” it totally smacks of some kind of all powerful religion like the Roman Catholic Church in the middle ages. In other words, you just don’t question it….

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  lee riffee
August 29, 2021 11:31 am

With deference, it smacks of the Holy Spirit

Bill Powers
Reply to  lee riffee
August 29, 2021 2:10 pm

It is almost as grating as when a sniveling Social Justice Warrior declares a position or belief in “My Truth” or “Their Truth” as if truth has a sociopolitical faith based construct.

They then turn off debate with an extension of “Their Truth” by declaring “I guess we will just have to agree to disagree” since they cannot substantiate their truth in an argument, they can only articulate a belief also known as wishful thinking.

GeologyJim
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 30, 2021 7:08 am

Candidate Biden famously said “We choose Truth over facts”

All we needed to know about this Anti-science clown

Observer
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 30, 2021 9:11 am

When does a Social Justice Warrior ever “agree to disagree”?

If you disagree with them, you are – literally – Hitler.

How can a decent person agree to disagree with Literally Hitler?

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
August 29, 2021 9:03 am

Dr. Feynman would be shocked by the way many people define “science” today.

Duker
Reply to  Brooks H Hurd
August 29, 2021 7:53 pm

yes. He would know that in the Halls of Academe the disputes over what one academic ‘knows’ and another in the same field can be enormous.
And thats the normal state of affairs .

You can read about such scholarly disagreements all the time, some are quite frank about throwing completely away some existing or new found theory.

One that stood out was new paradigm about Australian Aboriginal agriculture that seemed fashionable. Then a person ,who’s lifetimes work with aboriginal communities, said it didn’t exist and said why in an impressive book. He even said at first he never took much notice of the novel approach by someone who was an ‘amateur’.

Not a word can be said against Climate Science as that will mean being caller a denier..

Chaswarnertoo
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
August 29, 2021 9:17 am

Fake ache lies.

Spetzer86
Reply to  Karim Ghantous
August 29, 2021 10:59 am

But output from computer models IS data!! /sarc

August 29, 2021 6:16 am

Partly it is a matter of whether one is seeking information, or affirmation, and how willing one is to read something one disagrees with.
Knowing that the Epoch Times is associated with Falun Gong would lead me to be very cautious about anything I saw only there, but quite biased sources, like the Grauniad or the New York Times, are useful as well, as long as one knows their particular biases.

Reply to  Tom Halla
August 29, 2021 6:59 am

I find the Epoch Times is a more accurate source than most mainstream media.

Request:

  1. Name major news sources that you think are more accurate.
  2. Also, feel free to list the multitude of news sources that routinely publish false hysteria about global warming and Covid-19, such as the New York Times.
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 29, 2021 7:53 am

The Daily Caller, or the Townhall group are fairly reliable. The Hill is somewhat leftist,but more reliable than most of the legacy media. Breitbart gets a bit wonky at times, but is fairly good.
My point is to not rely on single sourcing for anything that matters.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2021 4:40 am

blacklisted news is ok too
Before its News…needs to be filtered for the daft items and crazies:-) but runs the odd item of worth

BCBill
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
August 29, 2021 8:47 am

I subscribe to the Epoch Times. It is a wonderful anachronism in this age of canned left wing propaganda. Besides balanced reporting on climate, Covid, CRT and other popular themes, it has a wonderful games page and a lovely “arts and leisure” section with actual thoughtful articles on art, music, etc. It is a paper that harkens back to before the left driven decline and fall of the news industry.

Last edited 18 days ago by BCBill
Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  BCBill
August 29, 2021 12:59 pm

I question if the U. S. news industry was ever “…balanced reporting…”. Or was it just that prior to the internet there was no place to go to verify or refute what was published in the daily rags? I hesitate to ascribe motive, but in effect the “media” created the Spanish-American War, WW-I, WW-II and the USSR which became The Cold War. But no one corrected the Lame-Stream media’s misrepresentations and lies until decades after the fact. With the internet I can uncover the bias in any given headline or article before the end of the day.

BCBill
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
August 29, 2021 4:37 pm

Yes, I too wonder if there ever was anything approaching truth in the news industry. What the Epoch Times captures is a wholesomeness where there is hope in the world, where we don’t have be afraid of warm summer days and colds and where family and community are the most important priorities.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
August 30, 2021 3:37 am

When I went to elementary school they actually taught about yellow journalism and the fact that there were multiple newspapers in every city and they all had their own political bias.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
August 30, 2021 4:42 am

msm is so yellow it needs a liver transplant

Brooks H Hurd
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 29, 2021 9:18 am

When the Epoch Times has an article abut Falun Gong, I will take it with a grain of salt. Otherwise, the articles are closer to factual then what I have watched on CNN or read in the NYT or WaPo. Epoch Times is tough on the CCP and they were among the first to investigate the Wuhan Lab as a possible source of SARS CoV-2.

Derg
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 29, 2021 10:18 am

No kidding Tom, The NY Times won a Pulitzer for the Russia colluuuusion coverage…which was all fake. Simon is still a believer 🤓

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 30, 2021 4:38 am

yeah youd think that…
cos china sledged em locked em up etc etc
so?
reckon they might NOT be the nutters but the ones who spoke out and got framed for crimes they might not have committed as so many “dissidents” are in China?
have to admit I visit their webpage NOT f u over book and some items ARE good

John
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 31, 2021 9:08 am

Epoch Times was reporting on a peer-reviewed paper. How does Falun Gong factor into the information in the paper?

Carlo, Monte
August 29, 2021 6:20 am

debunked by climate scientists” — what a laugh, glad no liquids were being ingested while reading this.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
August 29, 2021 8:43 am

Translating Libtardian language to normal English language, debunked = not debunked.

Sunderlandsteve
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 29, 2021 3:39 pm

I find it more a case of debunked = cos we say so.

Captain climate
August 29, 2021 6:29 am

The slightest quibble on climate science is now called “denial.” Keep it coming. The sooner these people discredit themselves to the middle of the road people, the better.

MarkW
Reply to  Captain climate
August 29, 2021 7:04 am

It’s not just climate science. Very rapidly they are taking the position that anything said by government is truth. All else is denial and must be banned.

Meanwhile they want to keep their protections as just being a “platform”, while having full editorial control over everything posted on their sites.

bill Johnston
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 7:25 am

“anything said by government is truth”. Where have I read that before. HMMM.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  bill Johnston
August 29, 2021 8:29 am

I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 9:28 am

nonsense.

‘some website’ is not always better than scientists, doctors, medical experts, mainstream news.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 9:37 am

Then you’ve never heard of Retraction Watch?

The idea the the narrative driven media is reliable is very funny.

After the MSM blast the headlines out and when the paper is retacted, the MSM never prints a correction – especially the BBC and The Groaniad.

Last edited 18 days ago by fretslider
Graemethecat
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 11:12 am

You really don’t seem to understand that Science is NOT consensus, and never has been.

leowaj
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 11:22 am

Griff, neither are your implied opposites better: scientists (plural), doctors (plural), medical experts (plural), and mainstream news (plural).

Consensus among a plurality of scientists is not “better”.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 12:43 pm

Notice how griff can’t be bothered to actually refute anything on those “websites”. Instead he just declares that we must only listen to those he considers to be experts.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 1:01 pm

…except when it is.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 2:49 pm

I bought an Epoch Times gift subscription for my brother. 🙂

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 4:56 pm

Project Veritas, Yorkie…

Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 8:49 pm

Griff, you are a one person follow the consensus clone, wedded to the liberal party line and incapable of coherent thought. You only come here to cause trouble, but are incapable of that, too. You don’t provide examples of your diatribes, so you are just a slanderer. You’d make a great example by pulling your lip over your head and swallowing.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 4:55 pm

The so-called Jan. 6th “commission” is downright scary; the real purpose is to clamp down on “disinformation”, which is defined as anything in opposition to the leftist-democrat one-party line.

Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 6:32 am

By reflecting away 30% of the incoming solar energy the albedo/atmosphere make the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere much like that reflective panel behind a car’s windshield.

The non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render “extra” upwelling energy from ideal body long wave infrared impossible. The 396 W/m^2 upwelling from the surface is a “What if?” theoretical calculation without physical reality. (refer to: TFK_bams09)

Without the 396 W/m^2 upwelling there is no 333 W/m^2 GHG energy up/down/”back” LWIR greenhouse gas loop to not “warm” the earth.

The greenhouse theory and man caused climate change is negated by these three points. Hysterical speculations over sea levels, ice caps, glaciers, extreme weather, etc. are irrelevant noise.

Zero greenhouse effect, Zero CO2 global warming and Zero man caused climate change.

Version 1.0 082921

K-T Budget solar & calcd.jpg
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 6:51 am

Nick, do you have a theory of why climate cycles?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Anti_griff
August 29, 2021 6:56 am

The elliptical orbit, tilted axis and albedo plus chaos.
And Malinkovich, not that it matters to us.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 8:05 am

Nick, Which of the M cycles would you say causes the quasi-millennial warm periods (HCO, Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval, Modern)?

How about the quasi-60 yr cycles that seem to occur with Arctic sea ice?

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 8:13 am

Why does that matter?

The earth is cooler with the atmosphere not warmer.
The GHGs demand “extra” upwelling energy from the surface radiating as a black body.
As demonstrated by experiment such is not possible.
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW.

Concede
Or
Refute

All the rest is moot.

Schneider.jpg
Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 8:31 am

Huh?

This answers my question how?

Q: “Why does that matter?”

A: That was the original question that Anti-Griff asked you.

Last edited 18 days ago by Rich Davis
Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 9:45 am

No it wasn’t.
He asked why climate cycles & I provided my answer.
So far you have ‘splained zip!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 10:37 am

Anti-Griff hasn’t given any pronouns to my knowledge but going with “he”, he asked you why you think the climate cycles. I guess we need him to clarify if he was referring to the ice ages (colloquially speaking), or what most people would think of as climate cycles (within recorded history and within living memory). It is you who have splained zip about climate cycles of the latter type.

I didn’t engage you on your pet theories about the GHE because first of all, I don’t care. Secondly, I know enough from prior observation than to argue with you since you’re impervious to reason and evidence.

Just to give you something to ride around on your hobbyhorse, the moon is both hotter and colder than earth’s extreme temperatures. So your statement falls flat in the face of data.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 11:37 am

And without the atmosphere so would be the earth.
That’s not what RGHE says.

The earth is cooler with the atmosphere not warmer.
The GHGs demand “extra” upwelling energy from the surface radiating as a black body.
As demonstrated by experiment such is not possible.
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW.

Concede
Or
Refute

How difficult is the response to this?
Apparently you are the one without reason or evidence.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 11:53 am

You’re boring me Nick. The moon’s extreme cold relative to earth is due to nothing delaying radiative cooling. The moon’s extreme heat relative to earth is due to nothing reflecting away insolation so that it all warms the surface.

There is no extra energy it’s all just a matter of delayed cooling. You’ve been over this ground many times with others here, far more worthy.

It’s not worth my time to try to disabuse you of your pet theories. It’s enough for me that you understand that CO2 is not causing a climate catastrophe.

Swenson
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 5:47 pm

Rich,

Delayed cooling is not heating.

That is just silly.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Swenson
August 29, 2021 6:09 pm

Let’s not start with your demented theories Swenson. If heat comes in from the sun and is delayed in going out, the surface temperature is heated by the sun to a greater degree than it would have if the heat radiated away without any restriction.

I only replied for the sake of anyone you might have confused.

Swenson
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 11:11 pm

Rich,

Complete nonsense. Atmospheric insulation works both ways, and around 30% of the Sun’s total radiation never reaches the surface anyway.

You just can’t accept the fact that the Earth has cooled, can you?

More energy emitted than absorbed. It results in cooling, dummy.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 3:01 pm

All bodies above 0 K radiate, blackbody or not. Please provide proof (actual references, not made-up math) that the Earth’s surface as a whole does not have an effective emissivity of about 0.9.

Swenson
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 29, 2021 5:54 pm

Dave,

What a stupid, irrelevant, and pointless demand.

As I pointed out to Rich, slow cooling is not heating.

It is cooling.

As in “The Earth has cooled very slowly on average over the past four and a half billion years. At present, it is cooling at a rate of between one and four millionths of a Kelvin per annum.”

Maybe climate cranks don’t want to accept reality.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Swenson
August 29, 2021 6:11 pm

Maybe climate cranks don’t want to accept reality.

We have common ground in this comment at least, Swenson.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Swenson
August 29, 2021 6:35 pm

What does that have to do with the surface of the Earth radiating at a rate consistent with about 288 K with an emissivity of about 0.9? Or of the TOA radiating at a rate consistent with about 255 K with a similar emissivity? Or do you believe in Nick’s emissivity of about 0.16 using his creative math?

Call me in 1 to 4 million years when the Globe cools by 1 K. We should have had a few glacial periods during that time where the Earth cooled by more than 1 K. Then again, it would have heated up during the interglacials. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Swenson
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 29, 2021 11:17 pm

Dave,

The Earth does not magically “heat up” and “cool down”. That is just wishful thinking by climate crackpots.

Think about for a bit. A big piece of essentially molten rock, sitting in the sunlight. Cooling down, then heating up?

By surrounding it with CO2? Really?

You must be quite mad, if you truly believe in something like that.

Richard Page
Reply to  Anti_griff
August 29, 2021 6:56 am

It can’t afford the bus fare?
Sorry, couldn’t resist. I’ll get me coat.

bill Johnston
Reply to  Richard Page
August 29, 2021 7:30 am

Carbonated beverages are deleterious to ones health. Especially when passed thru the sinuses.

Joe Campbell
Reply to  Richard Page
August 29, 2021 8:05 am

Belly laugh…Thanks!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard Page
August 29, 2021 8:34 am

Lol RP, but I think it’s because it is worried about Covid so it stopped riding the bus.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Anti_griff
August 29, 2021 7:05 am

The orbit.

Albedo & Heat & Cool 081921.jpg
Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 8:56 am

100,000 year period
Thus a thousand times longer than the quasi-period observed for warm periods.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 9:27 am

Oops senior moment…
100 times not 1000, duh!

But 1667 times longer than a 60-yr cycle.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Anti_griff
August 29, 2021 7:05 am

The tilted axis.

Albedo & Heat & Cool 081921 2.jpg
Sara
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 8:14 am

Nick, not doing any nitpicking here, but the axis “wobbles” around a circle, takes about 25,000 years +/- a millenium or two. That’s something that gets left out all the time.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sara
August 29, 2021 8:43 am

I guess you mean precession?

Seems like all of the M cycles are virtually unchanging in the timeframe of common climate quasi-cycles (60-, 1000-yr periods). So logically there’s another driver and it’s certainly not CO2.

Richard M
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 10:51 am

The ~1000 year cycle is likely driven by ocean currents bringing salinity changes to the surface. The 60 year AMO cycle is likely also salinity related within the longer cycle and tied to the Atlantic basin geography.

Overall, the 1000 year cycle is a remnant of the melt pulses at the beginning of the Holocene (or any interglacial). That means they were set in motion by orbital Milankovitch cycles.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Richard M
August 29, 2021 11:24 am

That sounds plausible, RM, but my gut says that there’s a solar component as well.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sara
August 29, 2021 9:15 am

25.8kyr cycle btw

And then there’s apsidal precession which is how the plane of the earth’s orbit varies in how well aligned it is with the plane in which the sun orbits the galaxy core. That period is 112,000 years.

So my point here is that Milankovic cycles play a role in glaciation cycles, but not quasi-cycles of warm and cold periods.

Those cycles were well-established long before human influences were signicant and so must be natural in origin.

Least of all human influences would be the burning of fossil fuels, which has only potentially become significant within living memory time periods.

Sara
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 10:37 am

Least of all influences: burning fossil fuels….

Such heresy!!! (sarc) You are depriving the greenwienies of their one and only source of complaint!!! How DARE you!!! 🙂

Now ask yourself what might those uninformed persons do/say if they ever find out they’ve been completely misled and at the same time, spring comes late, growing/hsrvesting seasons are shortened drastically everywhere, and soy lattes are no longer available at their latte shops? (all asked in sarc mode).

Rich Davis
Reply to  Sara
August 29, 2021 10:59 am

If they are ever jarred out of their virtual lives into the real world, it could be quite traumatic for them, Sara. But I suspect that they will stay safely within the bubble of their social media where any shortages will be failures of capitalism to protect the basic human right to soy lattes whether a person is unable or unwilling to work.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 8:58 am

41,000 year period
Also can’t be responsible for 60- or 1000-year climate cycles

Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
August 29, 2021 2:54 pm

You, too, can make up your very own math! Just follow Nick’s lead. Those of you that do so are dumber than when you started the exercise.

And Nick hijacks another Thread with his kooky ideas. Do you believe Nick or every reputable physicist? Hint: Nick isn’t a reputable physicist.

Swenson
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 29, 2021 5:56 pm

Dave,

Name one reputable physicist who believes that the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature from the molten state!

You climate crackpots point blank refuse to accept reality!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Swenson
August 29, 2021 6:57 pm

Elsewhere on this Thread, you stated the world is continuing to cool from its molten state, currently cooling at 1 to 4 millionths of a degree K annually. Call me a crackpot, but I’ll give it a few more years before I get excited.

Last edited 18 days ago by Dave Fair
Swenson
Reply to  Dave Fair
August 29, 2021 11:19 pm

Dave,

So you can’t actually name a reputable scientist who believes that the Earth has not cooled to its present temperature.

Why am I not surprised?

Coeur de Lion
August 29, 2021 6:36 am

Surely slanders against Soon are actionable?

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
August 29, 2021 7:03 am

Well his name wasn’t mentioned and they only said his work has been ‘debunked’. That’s untrue, but not libel. (Slander is when you malign someone in speech.)

Tab Numlock
August 29, 2021 6:53 am

Funny that the climate cultists never name any of these “scientists” they worship. I hope they don’t mean Michael Mann or James Hanson.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Tab Numlock
August 29, 2021 8:36 am

That would be James E. Hansen

Hanson is an American pop rock band from Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Mumbles McGuirck
August 29, 2021 6:57 am

Since its shift into hard-right politics, The Epoch Times has flourished financially, public tax records show. The Epoch Times Association reported $15.5 million in revenue in 2019.

Go woke, go broke.
Go right, you’ll do alright.

MarkW
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
August 29, 2021 7:06 am

The European political model, goes like this. Communism, Socialism, far right, fringe right.

Most American socialists are adopting this model as well.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 10:07 am

Yes, you’re certainly right about that.

It’s hard to understand how anyone would seriously imagine that all the world’s political systems fall on a one-dimensional spectrum. I’m sure that a better model is at least three-dimensional. Three axes I would suggest are collectivist-individualist, democratic-authoritarian, and secular-religious.

Ancient societies were collectivist (tribal), authoritarian (hereditary chief), religious.

Communists are collectivist, authoritarian (but not hereditary and with a pretense of democracy), secular/anti-religious

Fascists are collectivist (but generally nationalist rather than internationalist), authoritarian (often anti-democratic whereas communists pretend to a type of democracy), and may vary on the religious spectrum (but not tolerant of any religion that is not submissive to the state).

Classical liberalism that formed America and arose in Britain was individualist, democratic, and tolerant but generally religious.

In contrast, the French Revolution was statist/national-collectivist, democratic, and secular (hostile to religion). The socialism that has evolved out of it shares those characteristics.

The Taliban is collectivist (tribal), authoritarian, and intolerantly religious. Not very different from fascists.

This sort of model makes it very clear that classical liberalism is a very different kind of system from all others.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
August 29, 2021 11:16 am

Many people are sick of the lies of the MSM, and are abandoning them for less conventional but more truthful media like the Epoch Times.

August 29, 2021 6:57 am

Climate denial? How about climate alarmism … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV2nwRszj8k

Drake
Reply to  John Shewchuk
August 29, 2021 9:38 am

Nice, TY.

fretslider
August 29, 2021 6:58 am

One of the most annoying things about the left is their abuse of the English language.

“publishes climate denial”.

But they must have a real target for their ire, surely

“founded by members of the Chinese spiritual group Falun Gong”

The rest is pretty much a bunch of ad-homs

“connected to the fossil fuel industry”

“paper also ran articles about the dangers that renewable energy poses to the electricity grid” 

In short they’re really peeved that there is a different point of view out there – be it right or wrong. Heresy will not be tolerated.

Last edited 19 days ago by fretslider
Bruce Cobb
August 29, 2021 7:01 am

The EE in EE News stands for Environmentalist Ecotards.

Dr Gary M Vasey
August 29, 2021 7:03 am

Who wrote that nonsense. Science is a debate about hypotheses not a religion to be believed in with faith! Moronic.

August 29, 2021 7:19 am

Why is that man, Zuck, smiling?….becuz he’s making billions from…nothing….Fakebook. The Fakebook Police will fact check anyone in climate error…and give that person a strike or something…you have been warned…..he’s serious….better stop it.

mark from the midwest
August 29, 2021 7:32 am

Facebook has always been about revenue, and now that they’ve become a legacy advertising platform they’re forced to walk a tight rope. If they ban / alienate substantial segments of their audience it’s very problematic since, for most products, social leanings and product preferences do not align all that well. Subsequently their value to advertisers drops in a greater than linear fashion. The same can be said for Twitter, etc. They dug their own hole by believing their own shtick.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  mark from the midwest
August 29, 2021 8:21 am

Beware of companies advertising on social media, many are fraudulent.

Pat from kerbob
August 29, 2021 7:34 am

It is readily apparent the dangers RE poses to the grid and its stability.
For decades the only time I experienced blackouts living on the southern canadian prairies was during thunder storms. Now they are occurring in blue sky, blackouts happening.

That is a danger.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 29, 2021 8:16 am

But surely Pat, with the unprecedented warming and all, you would no longer have too much concern about going without power for a few days in late January?

A minor correction, I think you meant UE rather than RE? (Unreliable vs Renewable Energy)

Bill Rocks
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 29, 2021 8:27 am

Please elaborate concerning the new types of blackouts you mention.

griff
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
August 29, 2021 9:26 am

Renewables don’t destabilise grids: weather and not winterising fossil fuel plants does.

Derg
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 10:24 am

No kidding Griff, when the unreliables don’t produce power the unicorns kick in to stabilize the grid 🤓

Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 10:36 am

Unfortunately for this claim, a dead calm also counts as “weather”, Griffie. So do high winds, and freezing rain, and snow.
Wind and solar are inherently intermittent, and not charging to the unreliables the cost of maintaining conventional backup distorts the economics of a grid.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 29, 2021 3:12 pm

As Texans, sadly, found out for themselves. Although the profiteers are spinning blame.

Rich Davis
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 11:16 am

Sage commentary, griff! Weather-dependent unreliables do not destabilize the grid. It’s the weather that is unreliable. That just makes a ton of sense. The solution then is for somebody else to spend trillions of dollars building storage systems to address the unreliability of the weather. The windmills and solar panels can’t be held responsible for the unanticipated failure of the weather!

In which time period would you prefer to live your life?
[__] Benign low CO2 1675-1750
[__] “Dangerous” CO2 1950-2025

Swenson
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 6:03 pm

Rich,

Accept reality. You don’t get a choice when you live.

Stupid, stupid, stupid!

Reduce CO2. Stop breathing. See if I care.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Swenson
August 29, 2021 7:50 pm

You are probably the only person reading comments here who doesn’t understand that the question to griff is whether it would be desirable to change the climate back to conditions of the Little Ice Age if reducing CO2 from the levels he thinks “dangerous” would even do that. And whether he would prefer to give up all modern conveniences that depend on the fossil fuels he demonizes.

Swenson
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 29, 2021 11:27 pm

Rich,

Change the climate back? What a stupid thing to even suggest!

CO2 levels have no quantifiable effect on weather, and climate is just weather statistics.

Why bother questioning griff? Will it change a single fact, or are you just attempting to demonstrate how “clever” you are, by posing pointless and stupid questions?

Do you have any verifiable facts to contribute? Useful ones, preferably.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Swenson
August 30, 2021 4:37 am

ah Swenson, it’s hard to tell if you’re just a particularly dull tool, or a badly written bot.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 12:33 pm

You sound deranged. Grid destabilisation is a fact occurring whenever a certain proportion of unpredictable power supply is added to the grid. Hence, the efforts to stabilise it via pumped hydro, batteries, and other schemes which force extra costs on consumers.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 12:52 pm

Did the voices in your head tell you to say that?

tygrus
Reply to  griff
August 29, 2021 9:53 pm

Where is the control knob on the solar panels or wind turbine to turn them up when not generating enough?
You can disconnect them. Battery storage is too small for yearly cycles. Hydro fills some of the dips each day/week but you can still run out of water if you had no fossil/nuclear for base loads & mitigate peaks.
If I add 100MW load (more than yesterday) to a mixed grid, it will be mostly gas/coal increasing to meet the demand.

B Clarke
August 29, 2021 7:36 am

There’s something else sinister about fb, I used the site for market place only, after a while ,they said you must join a group to continue, so I deleted my details and closed the account, or so I thought, they said we have temporarily suspended my account, I can come back at any time,

So every time I turn my comp on ,theres a log in page for fb without me even going to the site, the log in page overrides anything I might be doing, I deleted history and cookies and it still appears.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  B Clarke
August 29, 2021 8:43 am

I think you have to delibertly “cancel” and then there is a 30 day ‘get back in period’, or something.

I was getting about a dozen fb notifications per day on a “social” tab. Now gone.

B Clarke
Reply to  John F Hultquist
August 29, 2021 8:50 am

Thanks John

Mr.
Reply to  B Clarke
August 29, 2021 8:59 am

Yes I’ve been excommunicated from Zuckerism too.

Not for anything I posted or did, but for what I didn’t do – submit the names of anyone I would deem “friend”.

Then they needed a current photo of me, and date of birth.

I was getting that uncomfortable impression of “papers please!”

But like you, I was assured that I could return to the faith as soon as I completed my penance.

So I guess I’m now suffering in limbo, denied the glorious benefaction of archangel Mark, and the state of Grace that that bestows on unrepentant atheists like me.

lee riffee
Reply to  Mr.
August 29, 2021 12:37 pm

That would have turned me off right away….but I signed onto Farcebook almost two decades ago and so I was able to pick a handle that incorporated my name but wasn’t really my legal name. It was a nickname + my real last name, so people who knew/know me can still find me. I got married in the intervening years and sometimes I wonder if I shouldn’t change my username to reflect my married name but there’s no way I’m going thru all that nonsense to change it!

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Mr.
August 29, 2021 5:02 pm

I’ve never had a flakebook account, never even got as far looking at the web site. Absolutely no desire.

Carlo, Monte
August 29, 2021 7:45 am

Is this an actual photo of Alfred E. Newman?

S.K.
August 29, 2021 8:04 am

Get woke. Go broke.

Empirical data rules.

Sara
August 29, 2021 8:10 am

Will someone please let me know when the difference between climate (long term, slow change, etc.) and weather (here today, hurricane/tornadoes/blizzard tomorrow, gone next week) finally sinks in with the Maddening Crowd?

I’d appreciate it. 🙂

John F Hultquist
Reply to  Sara
August 29, 2021 8:47 am

 That date will be January 1, 2050.
I’ll let you ponder that.

Sara
Reply to  John F Hultquist
August 29, 2021 10:39 am

Thank you. I feel much better now. 🙂

lee riffee
August 29, 2021 8:28 am

It really sticks in my craw the way these self-righteous clowns suffer from such severe self-inflicted cases of “who died and left you God?”….In other words, just because they don’t like what someone else says, they slap them with all sorts of negative names.
They would never refer to the NY Times as a “hard-left” platform that promotes “climate hysteria”, draconian vaccine mandates and a head in the sand outlook on voter fraud. Nope, NYT and other MSM outlets are just “news”…..
All this kind of talk is just more divisiveness. Just because powers that be declare something to be the truth, doesn’t in any way make it so. Anyone who knows history should know that. 1930’s-1940’s German government is a great example of that. Certain people were declared (by the “science” of eugenics) to be subhuman, and therefore not worth being allowed to live. All because the powers that were at the time came to a consensus on that.

Mr.
Reply to  lee riffee
August 29, 2021 1:31 pm

Yes, The Guardian objects to being labeled “left wing”, while they refer to many other media outlets as “right wing”.

Hypocrisy always goes undetectable to those who practice it.

Eric Vieira
August 29, 2021 9:19 am

Again, a portrait of Alfred E. Newman in person….

Jeff Alberts
August 29, 2021 9:30 am

And while the paper had a history of objective climate coverage before then…”

“Objective climate coverage” means max alarmism.

Mark Kaiser
August 29, 2021 9:34 am

OMG please take a minute to read the article in full. It’s breathtaking in its arrogance but quite humorous at the same time. Here’s a few to get you started, and believe me, it was tough to just pick these as there are dozens of loaded statements (bold is mine).

“I think it’s a pretty good paper. I think they are a lot more objective on certain politically controversial issues like climate change than The New York Times is, or The Washington Post or E&E News,” said Myron Ebell, who led Trump’s EPA transition team and is a longtime opponent of climate science.

Not only does Myron deny climate change, he also denies climate itself!

One recent piece, headlined “Study Finds Sun—Not CO2—May Be Behind Global Warming,” focused on a study by a researcher connected to the fossil fuel industry whose work has been debunked by climate scientists. The paper also ran articles about the dangers that renewable energy poses to the electricity grid.

I bet the author knows that the threat to the energy grid is legit. But inserts it right after trashing a completely unrelated story (that uses the word May). Guilt by association.

Since its shift into hard-right politics

Isn’t that term so yesterday now?

The Epoch Times uses Facebook to blast its message of climate doubt to its growing audience.

He blowed up, he blowed up real good (apologies to Big Jim McBob and Billy Sol Hurok).

Even the spaces between the words are full of arrogance.

Wow haven’t laughed that much in a long time.

Robert of Texas
August 29, 2021 9:57 am

Change the laws that protect Facebook – they are publishers, not a platform if they are censoring what can and can’t be published.

Whenever you see the term “Climate Denier” you immediately know you are dealing with a bunch of politically driven activists who wouldn’t know science if it bit them. AGW is a form of religion, right up there with Scientology. It isn’t enough to believe, you must believe without question and damn those that disagree. And yes, money is the goal.

lee riffee
Reply to  Robert of Texas
August 29, 2021 12:27 pm

Yes, real science welcomes questions, new information and debate.

Doonman
August 29, 2021 11:11 am

I notice that liberals never call anyone the “Far Left”, but always call conservatives the “Far Right” as if the left is somehow the middle ground of all political thought.

I think they have their measurements skewed somewhat. Perhaps balance is not a liberal trait.

MarkW
Reply to  Doonman
August 29, 2021 12:58 pm

I’ve lost track of the number of socialists who have proclaimed that they are neither left nor right.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 1:36 pm

Leftness and rightness are unimportant. Nazis were “right” but were socialists nevertheless … although you’ll never get a socialist to admit that.

MarkW
Reply to  Rory Forbes
August 29, 2021 7:32 pm

How can a socialist ever be “right”. Unless like socialists, you define everything you don’t like as “right wing”.
Racism is neither left nor right. In fact, the most vicious racists that I have ever known have all been leftists. Usually the further left, the more vicious.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  MarkW
August 29, 2021 9:28 pm

Racism has nothing to do with politics or economics, which is probably why I didn’t include it. So there is that. The difference, as I view it is; Nazis and Fascists have the socioeconomic system forced on them by an elite headed by a dictator. It becomes an end in itself, in that it doesn’t follow Marx’ theory that socialism is just a precursor to communism, a dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than an elite.

Left and right are determined by the degree of authoritarian vs. libertarian. These two can be divided into left and right. However, what things look like in theory and how they end up becoming is where all the controversy comes in. Hitler and Mussolini would be far right, authoritarian socialist, whereas Castro should have been far left libertarian, but he really loved the power so he never trusted anyone to allow communism to develop. That’s about as simple as I can make it.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2

Try the test, it may surprise you. I am smack dab in the center.

Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2021 11:21 am

One day someone ought to explain the concept of ‘climate denial’ to me. ‘Climate’ is a noun. Other nouns are for instance ‘car’ and ‘rain’. So if ‘climate denial’ were a valid concept so should be ‘car denial’ or ‘rain denial’. But I have not the foggiest what such could mean. Ideas anybody?

lee riffee
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2021 12:33 pm

They use this phrase the same way some people use the word “speed”. Speed doesn’t mean something is fast; rather it is simply a quantifier of how long it takes something to move from point A to point B. Speed can be the top speed of a turtle or the speed of a hare….or of a horse and buggy or a Ferrari..

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2021 1:41 pm

It isn’t meant to have a fixed meaning, like “climate change”. The terms are equivocal. In other words they are fallacies of ambiguity. It’s a characterization … ad hominem.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
August 29, 2021 2:20 pm

It’s purposefully lazy language, Ed. What we actually do deny (at least I do) is catastrophic, human-caused CC, because there is no supporting evidence.

But I suppose in their minds, there is no other kind of climate change.

Robert of Ottawa
August 29, 2021 11:30 am

In normal times, the Epoch Times would be called middle-of-the-road

August 29, 2021 12:38 pm

The EE articles are a study in the language of alarmism. Skeptics are “far-right” and funded by FF and the skeptical arguments have all already been refuted, etc. one could tick off a checklist of ridiculous cliches.

Andre Thomas Lewis
August 29, 2021 6:10 pm

The Epoch Times is certainly conservative in outlook but definitely NOT “far right”.

WXcycles
August 30, 2021 4:47 am

Does the head of faceplant always look like he’s just smoked a bunga?

richard
September 1, 2021 6:08 am

“That has been profitable for the paper, with revenues more than quadrupling during Trump’s presidency, public records show”

General public are finally waking up.

%d bloggers like this: