NOTE: The original post yesterday got derailed because the first commenter went off over COVID vaccine. With over 500 comments, almost entirely about that rather than Stossel’s issue, the thread was entirely off-topic and lost. So, I deleted the post and this re-post will be heavily moderated. No COVID comments will be accepted on this thread. – Anthony
Here is his video:
John Stossel writes:
I just sued Facebook.
I didn’t want to sue. I hate lawsuits. I tried for a year to reach someone at Facebook to fix things, but Facebook wouldn’t.
Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site.
That’s a noble goal.
Unfortunately, at least one Facebook “fact-checker” is a climate-alarmist group that cleverly uses its Facebook connections to stop debate.
Facebook is a private company. It has every right to cut me off.
But Facebook does not have the right to just lie about me, yet that’s exactly what Facebook and its “fact-checker” did. That’s defamation, and it’s just wrong.
My video this week shows videos that Facebook throttled.
The defamation started with the fact-checker, a group called Climate Feedback. They didn’t like that my video reported facts suggesting that government mismanagement probably played a bigger role in causing California’s wildfires than climate change.
Climate Feedback got Facebook to censor this as “misleading” and link to a page that still declares the following quote misleading: “Forest fires are caused by poor management. Not by climate change.”
As if that were something I said.
But I didn’t! I never said that.
In fact, I said: “Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees.”
I’ve worked at NBC, CBS, ABC and Fox. All would have fired me if I falsely attributed a quote!
I emailed Climate Feedback’s editor. She didn’t respond. But two of three scientists listed as their “reviewers” agreed to interviews.
Stefan Doerr of Swansea University surprised me by saying he’d never even watched my video!
“If this is implying that we have reviewed the video,” said Doerr, “this is clearly wrong.”
Another reviewer, Zeke Hausfather of The Breakthrough Institute, hadn’t seen the video either. “I certainly did not write a Climate Feedback piece reviewing your segment.”
After he watched it, I asked, “Is [misleading] a fair label?”
“I don’t necessarily think so,” he replied. “While there are plenty of debates around how much to emphasize fire management versus climate change, your piece clearly discussed that both were at fault.”
Still, neither Climate Feedback nor Facebook will change their smear.
Then things got worse. I re-aired a video on climate change myths titled “Are We Doomed?”
Three climate scientists argue that we are not “doomed” because we can adapt to climate change. They invited climate alarmists to debate them. None would.
Climate Feedback got Facebook to throttle that video, too, and declare it “partly false.” Why?
Only one of their reviewers agreed to an interview.
Patrick Brown of San Jose State University didn’t like that my video suggests America can adjust to rising sea levels. He claimed sea levels could rise 200 feet.
“You’re citing an extreme,” I point out. “The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] doesn’t consider that likely.”
“I don’t know if they assess sea level rise out to 1,000 years,” he responds.
They don’t.
It’s absurd that Facebook lets Climate Feedback censor me over something that might happen in 1,000 years.
Climate Feedback also cited my video for questioning the claim that hurricanes have gotten stronger.
But Brown, Climate Feedback’s own reviewer, said, “That’s wrong that you were criticized for saying that. … The IPCC [doesn’t] claim that [hurricanes] … are increasing.”
Later, Brown told us I was cited for “omission of contextual information, rather than specific ‘facts’ being ‘wrong.’”
So, their “fact-check” wasn’t about actual facts?
Still, they rated my video “partly false,” which Facebook defines as content that “includes some factual inaccuracies.” My video did not contain any factual inaccuracies, and they know it.
Climate Feedback and its parent group, Science Feedback, use Facebook to censor lots of responsible people, such as science writers John Tierney, Michael Shellenberger and Bjorn Lomborg.
Facebook has every right to choose who can use its platform.
But Facebook does not have a legal right to knowingly and recklessly lie about what I say. That’s defamation.
I hope my lawsuit will make them think twice about doing it again—to me or to anyone else.
John Stossel is author of “Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media.” For other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.
I often fall afoul of what I call ‘the Farcebook checkers’. ‘Farcebook, strikes again.
I’m repeating yesterdays post, ok?
You Sir ,are doing what thousands of other would have liked. To do, these ass…..oles think they have more power than God. We common people pray that you are successful please get a few trillion$ of there I’ll gotten wealth please. I pray to God for your success
Climate Feedback are a bunch of liars masquarading as “fact checkers”. They did a similar hit on Peter Ridd’s graph of coral coverage, with the same claim of “missing context”.
Ridd posted as graph using AIMS data and they claimed it was “not in the AIMS report”. He never said it was, he cited AIMS as the source of the data.
They accused Ridd of “misrepresenting” the data, though they never say how a graph of the whole of the data from GBR is “misrepresentation”. In fact is it the AIMS report which is engaging in misrepresentation in OMITTING a graph of the whole of GBR.
They quote a claim by Ridd then go on to prove something ELSE is not true. A most flagrant straw man attack.
Climate Feedback are a bunch of LIARS, fraudsters and political scam artists masquerading at “fact checkers”. I wish Mr. Stossel ‘bon vent’ in his attempt to hold them and FarceBerk accountable legally.
God speed.
G’Day Greg,
“…in his attempt to hold them and FarceBerk accountable legally.”
I somehow doubt the case will ever be heard. “Settled out of court” for “an undisclosed amount”, with a “secrecy” clause included.
John is a pragmatist. In his book he describes how his ocean front home was destroyed. The insurance was through the Federal Government. He thought about it, then went ahead and rebuilt.
Fuctbook has fuct-checkers … (admin, I will understand but it is funny )
California has not warmed three degrees. Rural CA hasn’t warmed at all since record keeping began. Its record high remains from 1913, although it’s under attack and NOAA has set up a second rigged station in Death Valley in a so far vain attempt to surpass it.
3 degrees is huge news and would be touted far and wide as THE PROOF. I too am just a tad skeptical
When Los Angeles moved its official 100-year old weather station from downtown to a UC Campus, the temperature dropped 4 degrees. There may have been a 3 deg rise in urban temps, but that isn’t what is burning in the state.
Go for it John.. Defamation aside, this is a highly visible opportunity to put the IPCC’s fake science on trial. There many alarmist scientists to call as hostile witnesses and put under oath as they attempt to defend the IPCC’s fake science …
Unfortunately, it’s not the science that will be on trial. The facts to be determined, is whether or not Mr. Stossel was defamed.
Technically you are correct…….but in the public mind? We can only hope!!
As nice as that would be to see that happen, that’s not going to happen with this lawsuit. Mr Stossel isn’t targeting the IPCC fake science he’s targeting the biased censorship and defamation coming from social media.
But it’s the broken science that’s the primary cause of the bias.
Not, it’s the politics that’s the cause of the bias. The broken science is just one of many issues that is used in the name of the cause.
I think of it more like a recursive feedback loop where the broken politics broke the science and the broken science reinforces the broken politics, amplifying the lies from each.
I can agree with that.
You can break this loop by attacking either and objective science is much easier to definitively attack when it’s wrong, then the subjective politics driving the defamation. Besides, Stossel is a public figure and proving defamation has a much higher bar then it would otherwise.
The newspaper Barons used to control the information made available to the public, and now online media does….It’s still public control by propaganda, maybe now a little less under control of a few powerful individuals, probably worse in the sense that a nutcase case easily put together a thousand person demonstration for the price of his data plan, instead of having to actually pay for postage stamps.
Actually, in the “old days” newspaper barons didn’t really control the narrative because there were daily papers representing various viewpoints that competed with each other. So there were Republican papers and Democrat papers.
But alas, with the rise of digital information, newspapers could not survive unless they drove their competitors out of business, or bought them out.
I’ve lived in Gulf Coast Florida for several decades now. For a long time I subscribed to and read the Tampa Tribune, which was a mostly straight down the middle, or leaning slightly right, publication, and never read the St. Petersberg Times, which was a straight down the line leftwingnut rag, comparable to the Miami Herald or the New York Times. But a few years ago both papers were struggling for revenue, and the deeper pocketed St. Pete Times bought out the Tampa Trib. So it’s been nothing but lib propaganda in the Tampa Bay area ever since.
The newspaper barons held power in the big population centers, and yes, smaller centers were more independent. This resulted in the so called urban/rural divide today. Urbanites are more easily convinced by their media exposure to try new, hopefully better, doctrines and political strategies, ruralites more into pragmatic rationalism and traditional success strategies.
Urbanites are totally dependent upon the rural areas for the essentials of life (food) and therefore more susceptible to propaganda convincing them that they are dependent upon government for survival.
Rural areas are self sufficient with regard to life’s essentials and therefore more self responsible.
It has nothing to do with “exposure to try new, hopefully better, doctrines and political strategies”
Actually, the biggest as well as the bigger cities were all able to support multiple competing newspapers with opposing viewpoints. Only the biggest cities support them now – such as New York City with the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal; Washington with the Post and the Free Press. There may be a few others, but the smaller cities and towns long ago lost their competitive papers.
Back then, no paper supplier controlled what was printed on their paper.
Today, we do have people what is printed on their “paper”.
OOPS!
Today, we do have people that control what is printed on their “paper”.
“ So there were Republican papers and Democrat papers.
Can you name 5 Republican papers?
“probably worse in the sense that a nutcase case easily put together a thousand person demonstration for the price of his data plan, instead of having to actually pay for postage stamps.”
Today’s data plan probably costs more than 1000 stamps 100 years ago.
Ratio of the consumer price index values for 2021/1921 is 271.4/17.9 = 15.2
1000 first class stamps (2c) = $20 in 1921 dollars
15.2 x $20 = $303 in 2021 dollars
A typical data plan for a mobile phone can easily be had for $50/month
So the stamps from 100 years ago are at least 6 times as expensive.
CPI data from
https://www.minneapolisfed.org/about-us/monetary-policy/inflation-calculator/consumer-price-index-1913-
And if you consider that a troy ounce of gold was $20, and is now $1764, the comparison is even more lopsided at about 35 times as expensive.
The price of gold is completely meaningless. It has nothing to do with productivity or value of goods.
But for some reason it continues to track the value of other products quite closely and has for centuries.
Stossel suing Facebook for $2M (which is probably a fraction of what Facebook will spend on attorney fees) is a micro drop in the bucket. The way to do it is to sue the individuals, not the organization or company. When individuals become responsible for what they say, then things will begin to change. Same way with government. When the faceless government decision makers have their face and name known, they will be less likely to make rules and regulations that are not what the public wants.
Like it or not, a civil lawsuit has to be constructed around proving monetary damages.
True. Until or unless you can prove criminal culpability against individuals, it’s the best you’ve got.
Facebook is a corporation. Corporations exist to shield individuals from liability. Try again.
Doonman: Corps can be sued. Aren’t your dear leaders trying to sue Exxon?
Corporations limit liability of individual members from corporate debts and other financial obligations. They will also generally indemnify officers, board members and employees for legal actions taken on behalf of the corporation or while performing their corporate duties.
They will very often not indemnify nor protect from liability an individual member or employee who commits an intentional tort even if in the name of the corporation.
The problem Stossel has is not the corporate veil but proving defamation from statements alleging the facts he quoted are false or for misquoting him, especially in the face of Sullivan.
True, but if he wins then there will be a template for other such lawsuits to prevail.
Death by a thousand paper cuts?
“Here’s the problem: Facebook uses “independent fact-checkers” to try to reduce fake news on their site.
That’s a noble goal.”
Of course that’s a noble goal, but the system chosen by Facebook, et. al. to achieve that goal sucks.
The correct system is for the fact-checker to respond to the error-filled post with an explanation of what is wrong. With facts all sourced.
I doubt they are independent, and I doubt they really check facts.
If the content doesn’t follow the narrative, it’s fake, that’s simple.
Hello? Vaccines?
If you read the “fact”checks they do that. the problem is that the sources are biased and incomplete. The explanations are vacuous and illogical. Most “fact” checks are self refuting if you read them carefully. But Facebook and others simply use the conclusions as if they are accurate.
Unfortunately, “fact check” is not their primary goal.
It’s not a noble goal, its anti-free speech.
Free speech is fundamental in relaying truth and therefore justice. The fact that lies are published has nothing to do with that.
The remedy for fake news is more news, not less.
I’m told the average moderator at Facebook has roughly 40 seconds to evaluate a posting.
I seriously doubt that the reason Facebook employs “fact checkers” is to reduce “fake” news. It’s more like they use “fact checkers” to suppress views they do not like.
bingo. we have a winner.
Hey now that common sense stuff will get you in a lot of heat these days. Watch it :>
Good idea. Is WUWT being plastered with COVID filler talk these days?
Unless it is a post that is all about it, it will be DELETED in all other new threads.
I was very disappointed that so many participated in the off thread activity, now I will be all over this thread with my delete finger ready for action if a whiff of COVID stuff shows up.
Of course, nothing new ever under the Sun.
😶
Sniff, sniff! Are you going to delete your reply to Resource Guy and his comment? 🙂
Yeah, someone tell ‘tommy he missed one, heh!
Great, let’s keep the comments on topic. I was very disappointed by the highjacking of the thread. I’ve no problem with us discussing Covid here but why can’t we just keep those comments to a Covid article? Just makes it easier for us all to follow the head post.
Alternatively maybe the moderators could keep off-topic commentts to a small number…maybe close them off after 5 or so comments. Would that work? I do appreciate that the mods are giving of their own time so it needs to be easy and workable for them.
I get that you might have hoped for more of the comments to be focused on climate change as such. At the same time, are you guys serious? Go back and watch the head posted video, and you tell me where the ‘Forbidden Topic’ gets a major mention!
I don’t think that this is a big deal, but if the comments wander around something that was most definitely brought up, is that harmful? The narrative is not sufficiently disciplined then?
All I’ll say on the topic is this: the reason it blew up here is because any discussion and dissent from the officially approved narrative is being suppressed just about everywhere else, by the very same actors who attacked Stossel, and who want to utterly silence any dissent from the climate narrative. The same battle is playing out in both fields, yet a disappointing number of people seem willing to support in one case the very thing they claim to oppose in the other, using the very same rhetoric and tactics they decry when the tables are turned.
Such is life, I suppose.
Agreed but there is a time and a place for these things. Parachuting a series of posts and replies with very little to do with the original article isn’t the way to go. If you want to have an article on that subject that addresses these points then write it – I’m sure that Anthony and the moderators will give you tips and hints on how to go about that. In the meantime, let’s get back to the article in question.
I think Anthony would be best off keeping at arm’s length from this one. I like the idea of a post every few days that can be a free-for-all on the latest Coronavirus findings. I like to learn, and if something doesn’t look right I’ll research it more.
Congratulations, you’ve got a 5-year lurker to post.
There’s a time and a place. WUWT has several threads specific to what’s going on with that topic where such a conversation would be totally on topic, you and everyone else are more than welcome to discuss it in any and every one of those threads. Hijacking a thread on a different topic, however, is the wrong place to have that discussion and the wrong way to have that discussion. IMO.
Censorship is alive and well, two days ago at a well known Irish forum my post was removed for posting this:
A few years back, I saved NOAA’s graphic for Los Angeles Max Temperatures May – October.
I had forgotten it and it turned while looking for something else. Anyway, let’s see if the
numbers are still the same as they were in 2017. Here’s what that comparison looks like:
It’s a matter of opinion as to why the graph was changed, but it’s a matter of fact that it was.
An argument whether or not there’s a Climate Crisis can be made, but there certainly does
seem to be a Science Crisis. Historical data is being rewritten, this seems to be true for sea
level, Arctic sea ice cover and ocean temperature.
They said, “Your post contains claims or statements with no credible source cited.”
The image clearly indicates the source, but that doesn’t seem to matter.
I’ve seen trolls on here state various reasons for the adjustments including UHI, but if UHI is a problem, and it is, then the second adjusted graph should have an even greater downward slope than 2017.
I decry censorship of any kind for any reason, however:
“Historical data is being rewritten, this seems to be true for sea
level, Arctic sea ice cover and ocean temperature.
They said, “Your post contains claims or statements with no credible source cited.”
Their statement is correct. You made unsubstantiated claims about Arctic sea ice cover and ocean temperature. They weren’t concerned with facts, only whether you had good sources.
Wow! There is over a two degree difference in the mean temperature. How did they read the thermometer so badly back then? Very bad eyesight until 2017.
The adjusted temperature record is a scam. The historical, written, unadjusted temperature record tells us so.
They obviously wanted you to post a link to the source site so “They” could go there and “Disappear” the source content. If you don’t link they can’t delete.
Common, you must know… you were not censored… you just happened to be off topic.
TheWayBackMachine is your friend.
This is for Columbus Ohio.
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.erh.noaa.gov/iln/cmhrec.htm
A comparison of just two list. (I hope “pre” still works!)
<pre> Record Highs for the day as listed in July, 2012 compared to what was listed 2007 Newer-April ’12 Older-’07 (did not include ties) 6-Jan 68 1946 Jan-06 69 1946 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower 9-Jan 62 1946 Jan-09 65 1946 Same year but “new” record 3*F lower 31-Jan 66 2002 Jan-31 62 1917 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list 4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946 “New” tied records 5*F lower 4-Feb 61 1991 23-Mar 81 1907 Mar-23 76 1966 “New” record 5*F higher but not in ’07 list 25-Mar 84 1929 Mar-25 85 1945 “New” record 1*F lower 5-Apr 82 1947 Apr-05 83 1947 “New” tied records 1*F lower 5-Apr 82 1988 6-Apr 83 1929 Apr-06 82 1929 Same year but “new” record 1*F higher 19-Apr 85 1958 Apr-19 86 1941 “New” tied records 1*F lower 19-Apr 85 2002 16-May 91 1900 May-16 96 1900 Same year but “new” record 5*F lower 30-May 93 1953 May-30 95 1915 “New” record 2*F lower 31-Jul 100 1999 Jul-31 96 1954 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list 11-Aug 96 1926 Aug-11 98 1944 “New” tied records 2*F lower 11-Aug 96 1944 18-Aug 94 1916 Aug-18 96 1940 “New” tied records 2*F lower 18-Aug 94 1922 18-Aug 94 1940 23-Sep 90 1941 Sep-23 91 1945 “New” tied records 1*F lower 23-Sep 90 1945 23-Sep 90 1961 9-Oct 88 1939 Oct-09 89 1939 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower 10-Nov 72 1949 Nov-10 71 1998 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list 12-Nov 75 1849 Nov-12 74 1879 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list 12-Dec 65 1949 Dec-12 64 1949 Same year but “new” record 1*F higher 22-Dec 62 1941 Dec-22 63 1941 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower 29-Dec 64 1984 Dec-29 67 1889 “New” record 3*F lower Record Lows for the day as listed in July, 2012 compared to what was listed 2007 Newer-’12 Older-’07 (did not include ties) 7-Jan -5 1884 Jan-07 -6 1942 New record 1 warmer and 58 years earlier 8-Jan -9 1968 Jan-08 -12 1942 New record 3 warmer and 37 years later 3-Mar 1 1980 Mar-03 0 1943 New record 3 warmer and 26 years later 13-Mar 5 1960 Mar-13 7 1896 New record 2 cooler and 64 years later 8-May 31 1954 May-08 29 1947 New record 3 warmer and 26 years later 9-May 30 1983 May-09 28 1947 New tied record 2 warmer same year and 19 and 36 years later 30 1966 30 1947 12-May 35 1976 May-12 34 1941 New record 1 warmer and 45 years later 30-Jun 47 1988 Jun-30 46 1943 New record 1 warmer and 35 years later 12-Jul 51 1973 Jul-12 47 1940 New record 4 warmer and 33 years later 13-Jul 50 1940 Jul-13 44 1940 New record 6 warmer and same year 17-Jul 52 1896 Jul-17 53 1989 New record 1 cooler and 93 years earlier 20-Jul 50 1929 Jul-20 49 1947 New record 1 warmer and 18 years earlier 23-Jul 51 1981 Jul-23 47 1947 New record 4 warmer and 34 years later 24-Jul 53 1985 Jul-24 52 1947 New record 1 warmer and 38 years later 26-Jul 52 1911 Jul-26 50 1946 New record 2 warmer and 35 years later 31-Jul 54 1966 Jul-31 47 1967 New record 7 warmer and 1 years later 19-Aug 49 1977 Aug-19 48 1943 New record 1 warmer and 10, 21 and 34 years later 49 1964 49 1953 21-Aug 44 1950 Aug-21 43 1940 New record 1 warmer and 10 years later 26-Aug 48 1958 Aug-26 47 1945 New record 1 warmer and 13 years later 27-Aug 46 1968 Aug-27 45 1945 New record 1 warmer and 23 years later 12-Sep 44 1985 Sep-12 42 1940 New record 2 warmer and 15, 27 and 45 years later 44 1967 44 1955 26-Sep 35 1950 Sep-26 33 1940 New record 2 warmer and 12 earlier and 10 years later 35 1928 27-Sep 36 1991 Sep-27 32 1947 New record 4 warmer and 44 years later 29-Sep 32 1961 Sep-29 31 1942 New record 1 warmer and 19 years later 2-Oct 32 1974 Oct-02 31 1946 New record 1 warmer and 38 years earlier and 19 years later 32 1908 15-Oct 31 1969 Oct-15 24 1939 New tied record same year but 7 warmer and 22 and 30 years later 31 1961 31 1939 16-Oct 31 1970 Oct-16 30 1944 New record 1 warmer and 26 years later 24-Nov 8 1950 Nov-24 7 1950 New tied record same year but 1 warmer 29-Nov 3 1887 Nov-29 2 1887 New tied record same year but 1 warmer 4-Dec 8 1976 Dec-04 3 1966 New record 5 warmer and 10 years later 21-Dec -10 1989 Dec-21 -11 1942 New tied record same year but 1 warmer and 47 years later -10 1942 31 ? Dec-05 8 1976 December 5 missing from 2012 list </pre>
MODS! It looks like “pre” doesn’t still work.
Feel free to delete
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/30/john-stossel-sues-facebook-climate-feedback-for-defamation/#comment-3356274
I found an old comment that might be readable but it’s only about the record highs.
“But I have the record highs and lows the NWS posted in 2007 for Columbus Ohio. One small spot on the globe. I also have the record highs and lows they posted in April of 2012. Here is a comparison of the record highs. I did not include new records set after 2007. I was looking for changes to records recorded in the past.
(Note: The 2012 list included ties. The 2007 list did not.) Again, I hope the copy/paste works right!
Newer-April ’12 Older-’07 (did not include ties)
6-Jan 68 1946 Jan-06 69 1946 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
9-Jan 62 1946 Jan-09 65 1946 Same year but “new” record 3*F lower
31-Jan 66 2002 Jan-31 62 1917 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list
4-Feb 61 1962 Feb-04 66 1946 “New” tied records 5*F lower
4-Feb 61 1991
23-Mar 81 1907 Mar-23 76 1966 “New” record 5*F higher but not in ’07 list
25-Mar 84 1929 Mar-25 85 1945 “New” record 1*F lower
5-Apr 82 1947 Apr-05 83 1947 “New” tied records 1*F lower
5-Apr 82 1988
6-Apr 83 1929 Apr-06 82 1929 Same year but “new” record 1*F higher
19-Apr 85 1958 Apr-19 86 1941 “New” tied records 1*F lower
19-Apr 85 2002
16-May 91 1900 May-16 96 1900 Same year but “new” record 5*F lower
30-May 93 1953 May-30 95 1915 “New” record 2*F lower
31-Jul 100 1999 Jul-31 96 1954 “New” record 4*F higher but not in ’07 list
11-Aug 96 1926 Aug-11 98 1944 “New” tied records 2*F lower
11-Aug 96 1944
18-Aug 94 1916 Aug-18 96 1940 “New” tied records 2*F lower
18-Aug 94 1922
18-Aug 94 1940
23-Sep 90 1941 Sep-23 91 1945 “New” tied records 1*F lower
23-Sep 90 1945
23-Sep 90 1961
9-Oct 88 1939 Oct-09 89 1939 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
10-Nov 72 1949 Nov-10 71 1998 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list
12-Nov 75 1849 Nov-12 74 1879 “New” record 1*F higher but not in ’07 list
12-Dec 65 1949 Dec-12 64 1949 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
22-Dec 62 1941 Dec-22 63 1941 Same year but “new” record 1*F lower
29-Dec 64 1984 Dec-29 67 1889 “New” record 3*F lower
And definitely US wildfires have been altered dramatically to show an increase, instead of a major decrease:
https://www.cfact.org/2017/10/17/fires-far-worse-last-century/
Just look at the link!
The forest service deleted all the information before 1983, because it did not suit their narrative:
Total Wildland Fires and Acres (1983-2020)Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes. As a result, there is no official data prior to 1983 posted on this site.
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/statistics/wildfires- JPP
It’s total acres – I submit that the whole data set from 1926 is accurate!!!
Here is the WUWT article about this{
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/13/caught-inconvenient-u-s-wildfire-data-has-been-disappeared-by-national-interagency-fire-center-nifc_fire/
Here is a quote from that article i WUWT:
Not only is that a lie of omission, it is ridiculous. Their agenda seems very clear. When the data was first published, they only advised the public that some data prior to 1983 might be “…revised as NICC verifies historical data”.
There was no published concern that the data might be invalid, or that we shouldn’t use it. Besides, the data is very simple; a count of the number of fires and the number of acres burned. How hard is that to compile and verify as accurate?
What’s worse is that this data has been trusted for decades in almost every news story about any wildfire that ever occurred in the U.S. In virtually every news story about a wildfire, the number of acres burned it THE NUMBER the press uses in the story, without it, there is no scale of the severity of the fire. Similarly, for every story about “what a bad wildfire season we’ve had”, the press cites the number of fires as well as the acreage burned
Stossel needs to start a regular series on the Agenda Climate Crusades since the problem has become so large.
Still Zuck is not the one breaking the Bob Ward record.
The problem is that Zuckerberg does not know much science, or how to do research, so he hires “fact checkers” whose politics he approves of.
His fact checkers are self-selecting – motivated to politically censor. I can’t remember exactly when, but several years ago all this was forming and there were even some University of Illinois students noted in local media as offering this fact check cure for “fake news.” But it was clear from the get go that they were after inconvenient facts to Democrat positions and official (deep) state narrative.
Deception at inception.
The same deception at work in Wikipedia edits. Inconvenient facts are not allowed.
The edits are ‘managed’ ….
What has science to do with Zuckerberg? Nonsense!
” … so he hires “fact checkers” whose politics he approves of.”
Yes, but the criteria for hiring is not based on his scientific opinion: he hires those who will attract more money! He approves, as you say, those that bring him more money!
The point is not science: the point is money!
The current preference of Zuckerberg’s shows that superstition is far higher at money-raising than science!
So the question is not argue with Zuckerberg to try to lead him into a more scientific mood: the question is shaking the money-making processes, procedures and characteristics that make superstition so fit and successful in attracting money, and make science occupy its place! You we can reach that objective, then Zuckerberg will follow!
Comment not accessible to edit, apologies for having to re-paste it:
” … so he hires “fact checkers” whose politics he approves of.”
Yes, but the criteria for hiring is not based on his scientific opinion: he hires those who will attract more money! He approves, as you say, those that bring him more money!
The point is not science: the point is money!
The current preference of Zuckerberg’s shows that superstition is far higher at money-raising than science!
So the question is not argue with Zuckerberg to try to lead him into a more scientific mood: the question is shaking the money-making processes, procedures and characteristics that make superstition so fit and successful in attracting money, and make science occupy its place! You we can reach that objective, then Zuckerberg will follow!
Wikipedia (Re comment here by Joel O’Bryan at September 30, 2021 9:20 am) is another thing: there are “sections” where it is pretty well, others where superstitious have encroached themselves at all levels of decision. The problem is, they have made this move while the scientific minded and researchers sat quietly. I had some battles with the lower level activists whose resolution I pushed up to higher levels that happened to be occupied with more responsible (and scientifically knowledgeable people), so I could restore a fair portrait of the state of science in those articles. But, with time, most certainly those low-level activists will be promoted at higher, and decison, levels. Why? because we, resarches have lots of things to do and let Wikipedia in the hands of those opportunists. For instance, when we let them violate the fundamentals of what is an encyclopedia, establishing an “orthodoxy” about C19 dictated by what the WHO says! All conflicting information will be removed! As far as I could see, there was not a vigorous objection to this move, and it passed quietly. Wikipedia is not a commercial venture, so it is the outcome of what the community wants of it. Again, it seems that the community prefers “settled science” and no discussion, just the same that carries money to Zuckerberg’s pockets. In Wikipedia as in Facebook, the question is, how science should dispute and take the place of superstition.
With most very rich people money is no longer the object. Like most things individuals differ but Zuckerberg now seems more driven by political beliefs and imposing his opinions on others.
You may be right, and you carefully say he “seems”. My hypothesis is that he seems that because it is where the possibility of making money is. Just like the drift to dogmatism that we observed in the “Nature” group of publications in the last years. If the situation were reversed, I would bet that he and “Nature” would follow suite.
Is not Facebook a public forum?
What needs to change is a removal of Section 230 of Communications Decency Act that allows Big Tech to be content hosts shielded from liability while also editing and removing content it doesn’t like for political reasons.
Then potentially the Big Techs either need to be broken up under anti-trust laws and/or declared a public utility like the phone company. The phone company can’t deny service to say a GOP campaign headquarters, so neither should FB or YouTube be allowed to censor, throttle, or suspend service to those it’s corporate staff doesn’t like.
Joel, thanks.
But to be fair, my point is mostly orientated as first identifying the possible problem, before the consideration of a remedy.
What am trying to say is that, like for example;
if I end up in your castle, where you a master there,
still either I end up there as a guest or a serf, invited or uninvited, still you suppose and expected not to be unjustly discriminating or unjustly insulting or unjustly prosecuting me whatever the momentary given could be…
as for/in proposition of what we call and uphold and cherish as civility.
A remedy even when called for or justly considered still may not be good enough unless or until the problem that it supposes to deal with is clearly identified and widely acknowledged as real.
Oh well.
cheer
Facebook may be in trouble in about 15 months. Then the Republicans will get their shot at them, and the Republicans are not very happy with Facebook.
I would recommend an Executive Order that doesn’t allow usage in the Executive branch of any service that doesn’t provide 1st Amendment protections.
They use the same technique with colleges so it shouldn’t be to hard.
Don’t count on the feckless Republicans and RINOs to accomplish much even if they do win big in 2022. Sadly the Republicans with spines are a tiny minority of the party.
No, 230 is the reason the web is so free in the west. Without, big tech would be even more free to censor than they already are. The “good faith” clause needs to be tightened and clarified.
Section 230 requires that actions be made in “good faith” but supplies no definition.
The Cal Fire report of several years identified poor forest management as a major issue in California’s fires. In response to that, the California Legislature passed a bill to improve forest management.
Poor forest management has lead to a huge buildup of fuel, tree density much higher than historic levels, and 150 Million dead trees standing in California forests. Theses factors mean that today fires are devastating.
It would appear that Climate Feedback has not read the Cal Fire report which supports John Stossel’s actual statements.
Good for you, Anthony. Unfortunately WUWT was victimized by a thread hijacker on the original posting.
Yes, the story of Stossel suing Facebook is important and should be read by all.
Social media has never truly been held accountable for their lies and defamations, let alone censorship. A whole lotta people, on all sides, are getting fed up.
As for me, I once tried using Facebook a decade ago, and was thoroughly disgusted by it and the content posted on it, and have never missed it a bit.
“Good for you, Anthony. Unfortunately WUWT was victimized by a thread hijacker on the original posting.”
I read the original posting. I had it open in a tab on my computer after it was deleted, and the first post of the thread referenced Covid in conjunction with John Stossel’s connection with it, but then turned the conversation to the censorship issue in the next sentence and connected the two. Other posters just took off from there, but the original poster could not be characterized as a “hijacker” of the thread, since censorship was referenced by the poster.
I wonder if this post will be allowed since I referenced Covid?
Only if it passes the ‘sniff’ test.
If it’s got covid on it then I’m not sniffing it!
“I don’t care who you are. That’s funny right there” – Larry The Cable Guy
Thank you Tom! I certainly did not intend to hijack the thread. This is a very contentious subject, obviously a lot of people who visit here have strong feelings about the C word.
This event was certainly not the first time the subject has showed.
Then don’t bring it up totally out of context with the subject of the post which said not one word about COVID.
Sorry but it WAS a hijacking. Any time a commenter, particularly the lead commenter, brings up an extremely contentious issue totally out of context with the rest of the story, for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the subject of the story – as was clearly the case – that is a textbook thread hijacking. She did not just write the word COVID mistakenly or in reference to something other than an attack on the subject of the post.
I should have saved Pamela’s quote. Unfortunately, I refreshed the page to see if it had been deleted, and sure enough, it had been.
I think you would sing a different tune if you saw her actual words.
I certainly didn’t consider that it was hijacking a thread, which I see as a deliberate act, and that was not the case. She mentioned Covid in passing. And she had help with the direction the conversation took, about 400 comments worth, but she wasn’t originally directing the conversation that way, imo.
Nope dude I read her words and she explicitly attacked John Stossel for his position on COVID in her first comment. It was never just a passing mention of COVID.
Textbook thread hijack
(Tom and Duane, Please no more discussion on this “hijack” caper) SUNMOD
Ok.
Mostly for my own amusement, since I know its pointless, I frequently flag stories about climate change from NPR, BBC, and CNN, as false when they make false claims. Not once has a story been taken down by facebook, or even flagged for lacking context. I wonder if a lawsuit could make Facebook obey its own rules?
Do they keep your corrective viewpoint comment posted? I continually find mine “disappeared”….I presume by the article author, who doesn’t like the editor to see that his $1 per word article was un-researched junk.
Trump saw this right: Facebook, Twitter & Co. pretend they have the right as a private firm to delete and censor content as they wish. On the other hand, they have enormous tax rebates because they contribute to public information, and as such, they should not select the information they publish. You can’t have it both ways.
In Facebook’s case, they support partisan Democrat political agendas with lots of money. Facebook is not a neutral arbiter of the truth. You don’t hear lefties complaining about being censored by Facebook. It’s only on the Right.
Including CTCL, the Fakebook subsidiary responsible for distributing ZuckerBucks to democrat election causes. CTCL was directly responsible for a lot of the illegal absentee ballot stuffing in Nov. 202.
Orwell nailed the two human pyschologies at work with these FaceBook fact checkers and wealthy Facebook executives living and working in Kalifornistan:
-GroupThink
– DoubleThink.
GroupThink is social tribalism, of wanting to be part of a social group with stature. It’s at the heart what drives liberal’s Virtue Signaling idiocy – the rich tech exec driving a highend turbocharged Euro supercar one day, and then driving his/herTesla Plaid or Model X the next day and talking about how we must reduce consumption and go “green” and make affording those things completely off-limits to the middle class.
That brings in the twin sister to maintenance of GroupThink (GT) – DoubleThink (DT). DT is Holding two diametrically opposed positions in one’s belief set and thinking they are both true. DT is also frequently seen as a blind hypocrisy – which the Libs deliver in spades. DT is the Left accusing conservatives and Libertarians like Stossel of doing the very things they if fact do or are doing. In their brain that has turned off critical thinking. Its Arnie Schwarzenegger telling us we must get off fossil fuels and then jumps in his souped-up $200K hummer or V12 Bugatti and zooms off feeling like a Hero. Or John Kerry private jetting in the family GulfStream around the globe to tell other countries’s leaders to throttle their building a middle class.
Orwell understood very clearly the descent vector to totalitarianism the West is now on. Climate Scam has long been that Trojan Horse for the Left and the Agenda 21/2030 crowd. The reason Anthony is having trouble with threads getting derailed on COVID is that that has become an even faster track to totalitarianism than the slow moving climate scam in countries like Canada, Australia, NewZealand. The Left has been getting impatient with Climate Change and the more informed among them privately worry about a coming global cool down period and energy crises brought on by their scam policies, policy debacles we are now seeing in energy shortages and soaring prices thus derailing their climate scam. COVID has become their dual pathway backup plan gone mainstream to Orwell’s dystopian future.
See above why Orwell wrote 1984 – the Managerial Revolution.
That’s not why Orwell wrote 1984.
“Climate change has made things worse. California has warmed 3 degrees.”
Even if global warming was the dominant factor in California wildfires, that would be a call for better forest management. Unless the warmists are expecting rapid cooling (no, they’re not), forest management is the way to go. Facebook wants to dishonestly censor an advocate for good policy. Shameful. Good luck with your lawsuit, Mr Stossel.
I guess most problems with climate change and the censorship is based on the fact that many people think that the temperatures , at the end of two really cold periods(ie 1760), are the norm. In reality, today’s temperatures are more “the norm” for us humans but if it goes cold, to prove a point, I’m moving south.
Sorry for my contributions to a wildly OT comment string. John Stossel is the type of person you can disagree with, he will let you speak. He’s basically a lib journalist who didn’t turn in his BS meter, and when (years ago) he reported on consumer laws that hurt consumers, the Left attacked him. He’s held onto his integrity. Thanks for giving him notice. Shoulda said it the first time.
He’s a libertarian journalist he was never a liberal one even if he worked for an organization that was.
I’ll agree with that.
I have a bit of a Fake News challenge to John’s video acknowledging that California has seen a 3 degree F increase in temperature over the last 50 years due to climate change. This embraces the ignorance of UHI’s influence on temperature history as Jim Goodridge’s work points out, to the dismay of Phil Jones and Tom Wigley.
Climategate 2.0: Phil Jones and Tom Wigley – calling a scientist “the jerk” over his UHI discoveries in California – Watts Up With That?
Other than that, have at it John.
I recently got censored by Facebook for responding to a local newspaper article on a recent heatwave event. I referenced Cliff Mass’s scientific assessment of the event, included an EPA graph and quoted NOAA data on temperature extremes. Didn’t fit the narrative. Facebook also told me because of COVID, I had no option to challenge their decision.
Maybe this could help : Ever heard of the Managerial Class?
James Burnham wrote a book on his vision for “The Managerial Revolution.” And that it was in fact, these ideologies of Burnham that triggered Orwell to write his “1984”.
Many cite Orwell here, yet a deeper look is necessary.
To take on the managerial revolution, if full view, one must look at this :
https://canadianpatriot.org/2021/09/21/how-the-great-reset-was-first-thought-up-by-the-original-proselytizer-of-totalitarianism-and-the-father-of-neo-conservatism/
In other words the neoconservative, totalitarian and Great Reset memes spring from the same source.
Orwell’s scathing critique, well shown at that report, is surprising indeed. This is why he wrote 1984.
Burnham again :
“Most of these intellectuals are not in the least aware that the net social effect of the ideologies which they elaborate contributes to the power and privilege of the managers and to the building of a new structure of class rule in society. As in the past, the intellectuals believe that they are speaking in the name of truth and for the interests of all humanity…Indeed, the intellectual, without usually being aware of it, elaborate the new ideologies from the point of view of the position of the managers.”
Facebook will of course claim Congress upped the ante, but hey they all of the same class, the Managerial Class.
Burnham’s book alone didn’t trigger 1984. It was among many books which influenced Orwell’s story, but not just books inspired him. So did his experiences and current events. He may have gotten the idea for constant warfare among three superstates from Burnham’s 1941 prediction that Germany and Japan would split up and dominate the USSR. Power for its own sake might also possibly have owed something to Burnham, but that’s more dubious.
As an experiment, we could all go out on Facebook and make ridiculously extreme statements to see if any of them get removed. Like:
——I have heard that:
——People are now saying:
Within two years many parts of the U.S. will experience temperatures over 145°F.
By 2025 only the head of the Statue of Liberty will be above water.
etc.
But then, the leftards are so dumb, they would believe it, and we would only be enforcing what they are already saying.
They didn’t fact check Stossel’s erroneous +3°C for California! I know sceptics who take on the clime syndicate have to walk a thin line but that was an overly generous obeisance. Do California climateers themselves even say +3°C?
Stossel’s most memorable upset of the syndicate, never to be forgiven, was catching live on his show Gavin Schmidt scuttling off the set when Roy Spencer came on to debate Schmidt! The optics replaced a couple of thousand word essay on the crisis warming ‘experts’ not having game.
Now that is the kind of critical reporting that stands up to fact checks. More of those and ‘open mike’ gems are devastatating. Also, in depth research on the checker individuals the way Democrats do for their cancel culture projects. Dirty, but effective.
I do hope that John will pursue this through to the end and not accept an out of court settlement if offered. Facebook and associated clowns can not afford a conviction because such would be a precedent attracting the attention of, for instance, the taxman: it would be a confirmation that Facebook is a publisher, not a platform. Therefore they will go for an ooc settlement if they figure they will lose the case. Don’t accept and go for the jugular.
Oh man how I detest FB and ‘social media’ in general. I rarely peruse it these days.
It caters to the lowest common denominator. That is why is is referred to as ‘social media,’ instead of “news” or “science” media.
Is there any estimate as to when this lawsuit will be heard in court (if there isn’t a settlement before that)?
This is a lawsuit that isn’t going anywhere. For starters the terms and conditions of signing up to Facebook include the line: “We and you agree that, by entering into this arbitration provision, all parties are waiving their respective rights to a trial by jury or to participate in a class or representative action.”
Similarly facebook have set the rules that state:
“Specifically, when you share, post, or upload content that is covered by intellectual property rights on or in connection with our Products, you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, and worldwide license to host, use, distribute, modify, run, copy, publicly perform or display, translate, and create derivative works of your content”
So by signing up to facebook you have effectively signed away any right to sue them for defamation. You have given them the right to do what they like (i.e. modify) with any videos you upload and they do not have to distribute them to your followers.
If an action is against law, there is no way an organization can shield themselves, even with an agreement. You cant slander an individual. You can reject his ideas but falsely attacking an individual is actionable if it causes him harm to him.
That is complete nonsense and has nothing to do with defamation.
Even if we accept your stupid premise above all it moves is whether Facebook is the author or publisher of the defamation.
In Australia we actually just had a high court ruling on whether websites were publishers for comments on articles and the answer was yes. Lots of websites are turning of anonymous comments because of that you have to identify yourself legally to be able to comment on the site.
My covid-free comment yesterday was a hope that Stossel was knowledgeable enough to do a little judge/court shopping to get a speedy resolution to his case.
If his case gets in front of a judge who will allow interminable delays, ala the Mann/Steyn saga, the defense will bleed Stossel dry before he has even a shot at a favorable verdict. Stossel can’t put even a scratch, let alone a dent in the defendants’ deep pockets.
I wish Stossel well in this effort. It will have a positive effect for others who have been defamed by Farcebook and Climate Feedback, and Stossel has a lot of company there.
Hundreds of suits would start to add up to some bucks for Farcebook and Climate feedback to start shelling out.
Judge shopping isn’t allowed. The terms and conditions state:
In all other cases, you agree that the claim must be resolved exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County. You also agree that you submit to the personal jurisdiction of either of these courts for the purpose of litigating any such claim, and that the laws of the State of California will govern these Terms and any claim, without regard to conflict of law provisions.
The Compleat Angler writes that “Judge shopping is not allowed.”
–
–
Yup. He filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
Good luck to him.
I had no idea what the Facebooks user agreement entails. I’ve never signed up for it and I can’t view anything on Facebook because I don’t have an account.
I’m a first strike kind of guy. I’ve censored them from my life so there is no possibility of them ever censoring me.
Defamation is country by country not the point of origin, a ruling in USA has no standing in another country. Whether you can get the person to come under your country law can be problematic but the next move is usually to apply to block the website.That is how websites are put onto the blocked list in other countries.
Pick any country and search “List of websites blocked in xxxxxxxxxxx”
If you have defamation proceedings against you try travelling to that country and see what happens.
And which country or countries do you think John Stossel filed in? Admittedly if he had any sense he would have done so in the UK which is well known for letting Russian Oligarchs sue publishers for libel but I doubt he will be going down that route.
Which contradicts your statement above .. you said he waived his rights by signing the terms and conditions. You seem very sketchy about exactly what you are saying.
He automatically disagrees with the previous post. It can make him look like a contortionist at times, but he seems to enjoy it so I’m not judging him!
It’s a funny old world we live in, and sometimes things happen that no one would have predicted. Or could have predicted.
Censorship in liberal democracies in peacetime has been almost non-existent. Expressions of opinion have traditionally been limited by governments, using laws about obscenity, national security and suchlike. Legal actions based on libel and slander have also acted as a bit of a brake on personal attacks in public forums.
So when the internet came along and it promised freedom of expression for every one of us, it seemed as if the world was going to be an even more free and open place. Who would ever have thought that the owners of a handful of websites would come to dominate the exchange of news and views to such an extent that they were able to suppress opinions and facts that they didn’t like?
And who would have ever thought that university professors would be fired for engaging in academic debate? Aren’t universities supposed to promote the vigorous exchange of ideas?
And governments are getting on the censorship bandwagon. In the UK, police officers are employed to monitor Facebook and Twitter, looking for people saying the “wrong” things, mostly about gender issues. It’s worse in Scotland, where “hate speech” (which has been illegal for some time) now appears to mean absolutely anything as long as someone objects to it.
I’m glad I’m getting old; I won’t have to listen to stories like John Stossel’s much longer. Good for him, standing up to the Masters of the Universe. But he really shouldn’t have to, in a sane world. Best of luck, John.
For decades there have been speculative fiction stories written about dystopias where *conservative* overlords, often owners or officers of large corporations, rule with an iron fist, especially the control of information.
But now that we are here, in that future so many wrote about, it’s the “liberal” owners and officers of large corporations that are acting like despots.
Power corrupts.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
History repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.
Does anyone else see the irony here? We are going to delete your post if it does says anything about X…just saying.
For the first few hours after posting on Youtube, Stossel’s video was labeled “Private” and necessitated a password (which no one had). The next day everything was normal — no password, designated Public. I wonder if Youtube had one of their famous “mistakes” and if they found the could correct it after Stossel’s lawyers suggested a lawsuit against them.
Just for the record the accepted maximum level the sea can rise is 195 feet (60m).
That requires every glacier and ice sheet on the planet to melt and that can’t happen in 1000 years it’s too big for that timeframe.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/ice-melt
Candace Owens had a pretty strong case yet it utterly failed!
My skin crawls when I read or hear the word Facebook. It’s a hideous nighborhood filled to overflowing with broken identities. Most of the web these days is nothing but cancer.
WUWT, ZH, TGP is about all I can take usually.
AP’s fact checkers recently declared that the NSPA (National School Board Association) had never asked Biden to declare parents who oppose critical race theory and mask mandates as domestic terrorism.
Despite the published memo that showed they did.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/ap-factcheck-claims-nsba-never-labeled-parents-domestic-terrorists