Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Google is failing to honour their pledge to prevent climate deniersblack magic sympathisers from purchasing advertising space on the Google advertising platform.
Google calls itself greenpure. But it’s still making ad money from climate-change denialpromoting evil.
Researchers found Google’s ads on at least 50 posts undermining climate sciencewitch hunting, despite its pledge to ban misinformation
By Cat ZakrzewskiToday at 6:00 a.m. EST
In October, ahead of the U.N. COP 26 climateblack magic summit, Google pledged to stop displaying ads on websites and YouTube videos that promoted climate misinformationevil. But in November and December the company ran ads on at least 50 posts undermining climate sciencewitch hunting, according to new research.
The findings, released Thursday from the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate, highlight the limits of these promises, despite Google citing pressure from advertisers not wanting products to appear alongside content undermining climate sciencewitch hunting when it made the pledge. All 50 of the articles were published after Google’s new policy took effect on Nov. 9, and Google ads remained on the pages as of Wednesday morning. After The Washington Post inquired about these ads, 37 of them were removed as of Wednesday.
The problem isn’t limited to Google. Facebook in November said it was expanding efforts to boost accurate content about climate misinformationwitchcraft. But the research to be released Thursday from the left-leaning group Avaaz shows that between Jan. 1, 2020 and Nov. 11, the company allowed 92 ads containing climate misinformationevil to run. In some instances, the ads remained after Facebook’s fact-checking partners debunked the posts.
…
“It’s difficult to deny climate changewitchcraft because people can see it’s happening,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University. In the face of this consensus, he said, denialism has gotten more sophisticated. “We’re seeing other tactics that have the same end purpose: to prevent us from moving away from fossil fuelsblack magic. … One of those tactics is division.”
Mann said though the most egregious forms of misinformation can probably be detected through automation, more human review is needed from tech platforms to deal with more “subtle” forms of misinformation. He argued climate misinformationwitchcraft is a greater threat than covid-19 misinformation, which companies have invested in combating, because it has the potential to cost more lives than the pandemic.
“These social media companies are basically aiding and abetting this effort from bad actors to prevent us from acting from greatest challenge we face as a civilization,” said Mann, the author of “The New ClimateWitchcraft War.”
…
“ … Tech companies are still allowing climate denierswitch sympathisers to use their platforms to spread misinformation,” Khanna said. “Until that changes, we won’t be able to muster up the public support necessary to solve the climateblack magic crisis.”
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/12/16/google-climate-change-denial-ads/
Just for fun, try replacing the phrase “climate denial” with “witchcraft” – or to see my version.
The Washington Post article is so anti-intellectual, you only need to substitute a few words and phrases, to convert the Washington Post climate rant into a hysterical anti-witchcraft bulletin which would not have seemed out of place in the 17th century.
Center for
CounteringCommencing Digital Hate.Gotta wonder if their offices have some kind of giant safe space room they all can escape into every few minutes after reading something ‘hateful’ on the internet.
It’s a wonder they aren’t carting out the guugle censors to the hospital by the busload.
Are “The Vapors” terminal? Do they have fainting couches for the staff while they are waiting for the next bus to the hospital?
In my experience, those who talk the loudest about eliminating hate, are the most hateful themselves.
And strangely we call them ‘liberals’.
But these folks aren’t liberals. These folks are Progressives, on a path to some odd contortion of progress.
Center for Countering Digital Hate = Ministry of Truth
George Orwell was a prophet.
He thought he was writing a warning, little did he know he was writing a guide book.
The Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is mostly funded by “dark money,” meaning by people and organizations whose identities are shielded or not released. But, we know something.
CCDH appears to have been created for the purpose of political hit jobs. Its
chairman, Simon Clark, is a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, which
is funded by dark money from a liberal Swiss billionaire named Hansjörg Wyss. Wyss
is also a board member of the Center for American Progress. According to Capital Research, through his funding of a Washington, D.C., consultant firm called Arabella Advisors, which allows his identity to be obscured, Wyss has been influencing American policy. Arabella runs a vast array of ‘pop-up groups’ called so because they consist almost solely of websites that may pop into existence one day and pop out the next, usually once the campaign is through. CCDH, AntiVaxWatch and Arabella founder is Eric Kessler.
Connected is The International Grand Committee on Disinformation (IGCD) that consist of “an international array of legislators, policy advisers, and other experts” who work together“to forge international alliances that bring shared, effective strategies into the battle against online disinformation”. The founders of the IGCD are four members of the British and Canadian Parliaments, including British MP Damian Collins, who is also on the board of the Centers for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH). The CCDH fabricates reports that are then used to strip people of their freedom of speech rights.
Logistics for the IGCD are provided by the Reset Initiative (for The Great Reset), which is part of The Omidyar Group of philanthropies. Omidyar funds Whistleblower Aid, the legal counsel for the fake Facebook “whistleblower” Frances Haugen, who has testified before U.S., French, British and European Union lawmakers, calling for more censorship. CCDH chairman Simon Clark also has ties to Arabella Advisors, the most powerful dark money lobbying group in the U.S.
I will end here now. This story is so deep and complex and goes down to funders of World Economic Forum.
To Cat Zakrzewski: When an article quotes Michael Mann and others of his ilk, the author and article lose all credibility.
Regards,
Bob
Indeed. If there is such a thing as ‘digital hate’ then Mann is the embodiment of it. Ask Mark Steyn.
How dare Google protect free speech in the pursuit of profits!
No wonder Jeff Bezos could buy the WaPo ar$e-wipe for one dollar and assumption of its ruinous debts.
I hate the “Center for Countering Digital Hate.”
I love radio programs that are promoting “Analog Hate!”
Indeed, hate is best served analogue (and cold).
Who? Who is denying climate change? Mann is entitled to his stupid opinions but not his facts….Mann’s stupid opinions are not facts..hockey puck lost the lawsuit because he refused to come up with facts.
Just a few problems with the WaPo piece.
WaPo leftist projection, yet again.
Nobody is calling for censorship. Refusing to display ads on particular webpages is not censorship. People are still free to post what they want where.
Isaac, per your rationale, one of us is from outer space. And it isn’t me.
Please parse again your ‘not censorship, only a platform’ reply. Pathetic.
Stupid comment, Isick,
Google is allowing Climate Alarmists to make money from their content but not allowing climate realists to make money.
I wrote Google about a false statement made on a YouTube video. The video claimed that 2/3 of humans would have insufficient fresh water by 2025 owing to extended droughts caused by climate change. I linked to the IPCC AR6 which found low confidence in increasing drought. I pointed out to Google that they prevent content providers who challenge the “climate crisis” narrative from profiting from ad revenue so, to be balanced, they need to do the same for Climate Alarmists when they present false information. No response. Google clearly has a dishonest agenda as they don’t apply their policies evenly.
You also have a dishonest agenda as you always (fecklessly) argue for the Alarmist position, even when the Alarmist position is false and ridiculous. Like just now.
meab,
Google is a private company and you cannot force them to advertise on a particular web site anymore than you can force someone to buy a particular newspaper. There is a huge difference between not being allowed to publish your opinion which is censorship and not making money from it which is simple the working of the free market.
It is not a free market when there is a green thumb on the scale of the disemination of ideas.
Cool so lets ban all adds depicting people of colour because that is okay.
Apparently you can if you are rabid climate change activists – WaPo and Facebook’s opinion checkers seem perfectly able to force Google to do what they want.
When in history have those who wanted to limit or suppress speech been the good guys?
It isn’t about whether they legally can do something, but rather whether they should. If they honestly desire to convince anyone hasn’t already been baptized into the church of global warming that they aren’t totally hypocrites they NEED to police their own lies at a minimum. They ought to just not suppress the opposing voices because that makes it very hard to convince dissenters that you are the good guy.
The simple reality that your argument fails to acknowledge is… by denying their opponents a voice and refusing to police people that are clearly telling lies (even by the UN climate change panel’s standards) it guarantees that us dissenters are going to assume they are literally incapable of being fair or truthful. Hence what’s happening to NYT, Washington Post, Politico, etc.
That has got to be the most pathetic thing you have ever written. Defunding is just as much censorship as is deliberately shutting down opposing voices.
I suppose you would declare that firing anyone who disagrees with the “consensus” doesn’t prevent people from being employed.
Mark,
if I started a newspaper do you think I could force advertisers to buy ads in it? Nobody is defunding anybody. Google has just said it would not place ads on certain websites. Plenty of websites don’t have ads and there are plenty of alternatives like subscription models that allow people to make money without going through ads.
There’s an important difference Izaak.
Google, Facebook etc claim to be common carriers, like a telephone company, so they are not supposed to editorialise. But they are IMO stretching the law by editorialising content.
Looking forward to seeing how that works out for them.
Izaak,
You said “if I started a newspaper”
Important legal difference between Google/Facebook and a newspaper. Do you know what it is?
Nobody is talking about forcing advertisers to spend money on your site.
This is a demand that nobody be allowed to advertise on someone else’s site.
Nice of you to once again try and change the subject. Just more evidence that even you know you can’t support your original claim.
So lets use your logic Izaak so if they decide they won’t allow adds with black, chinese, hispanic or jewish people or content that is completely okay. That follows on exactly from what you said they have the right not to take adds based on a criteria they select.
Has it dawn on you now why that is a problem.
Oh, so you think the purpose of the Washington Post article and the Center for Digital Hate is to encourage Google to support the publishing of differing opinions on climate science?
too much common sense Rud.
1000 likes.
The WaPo does seem to be chaneling King James.
King James? Are you referring to the term auld reekie ? The phrase was an old reference to Edinburgh (stink of waste and bodies), But James I is reputed to have worn a thick layer of clothing to deter knives (which was justified), so it fitted him as well. WaPo are the knife carriers, not the victims.
Also smokiness.
“an old reference to Edinburgh (stink of waste and bodies)”
“Auld Reekie” is a reference to the heavy smoke pollution in that city in past times, caused by everyone burning coal fires in their houses.
London was called “The Smoke” for the same reason.
This is one reason why the wealthy folk tended to live in the Western parts of the city and the poor folk ended up in the East – the prevailing winds are West/South West and so blow the smoke towards the East, making the West the desirable area to live in.§
I’m not saying that there was no stink from waste – there certainly was, but it ain’t the origin of the terms for the cities.
https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2019/10/royal-obsession-black-magic-started-europes-most-brutal-witch
James I/VI’s witch trials.
He was James VI of Scots before he was James I of England, so James VI/I.
And note he was King of Scots, not King of Scotland.
Wait. Isn’t much of climate science the promotion of climate disinformation?
CliSciFi does have its mouthpieces. Government monies fund alot of lies.
I have only one question. At what concentration does CO2 saturation occur?
If models are useful we should already know the answer to this question!
Very few of the AGW “true believers” would understand your question.
Guy Callander provided your answer in 1938. It doesn’t, but becomes exponentially weaker since a logarithmic curve. The physical reasons are complex, but have to do with elevation of the effective radiating level (ERL) with increasing CO2 concentration given lapse rate. Explained and illustrated in essay ‘Sensitive Uncertainty’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
That’s logical, without understanding the physics. Coffee is black. Brew it twice as strong, it isn’t much blacker.
And what about the hypothetical H2O feedback. Does this not add to the exponential weakening, increasing the saturation?
DP, yes partly. Water vapor overlaps CO2 mainly in the CO2 absorption shoulders. So is about ‘half’ separate (I am oversimplifying from my essay, itself a simplification of the physics). But water vapor disappears as temperature decreases with lapse rate, so is not a major factor at the ERL.
The big problem with modeled WVF is that ARGO salinity measurements show it is overstated by about half. WE’s emergent tropical thunderstorm hypothesis explains why: it rains out twice modeled. So the troposphere is more IR transparent than modeled.
In fact, as commented many times before, IPCC ECS ~3 implies a Bode feedback sum of ~0.65. AR4 gave WVF ~0.5(twice Grey earth ~1.2 with no feedbacks, so ~2.4), and per AR4 the residual is mostly cloud feedback so Bode 0.15.
Now, Dessler’s 2010 paper ACTUALLY showed that cloud feedback is about zero. And Argo 700m salinity about halves WVF (twice the rain, half the expected salinity). The remainder is about Bode 0.25, which amazingly yields an ECS of about 1.7, just as Callander calculated in 1938, and as most energy budget methods since (e.g. Lewis and Curry) also estimate.
Pretty solid observational grounds.
Very nice, terse summary, and gives all the pointers necessary to look up the full story.
Most religions historically have used as their justification false or mistaken assertions of fact. They have mostly fallen out of favor because the assertions were refutable by observation or established science.
As they fell out of favor their original purpose has withered. This was the justification of morality, or social mores. We have increasingly substituted law for morality, so that we no longer care whether something is right or wrong, the only question is whether its legal.
In fact, moral relativism has triumphed so that its now generally felt that to assert something is right or wrong is ‘judgmental’, a Very Bad Thing. In the culture right and wrong have come to mean right for me or wrong for me. Its purely subjective now.
This has led to the phenomenon where new religions have two key characteristics: they have no moral content and they are based on mistaken junk science assertions. The first is because of the evaporation of morality. The second is because so much more of our knowledge is now loosely speaking scientific.
In the formerly protestant countries of the West this has also led to the reappearance of the practice of justification by faith, not works.
And so we get to the situation regarding climate where what counts is public testimony to mark one as a believer. But very little else is required other than assertions of belief and denunciations of unbelief and unbelievers. Its like testimony at a revival meeting. Its a new religion and about as rational as Scientology.
Take a look at the other two hysterical manias of our time, race and gender. You will find a similar pattern. The current woke consensus on gender is phrased in scientific terms. There is such a thing as gender in humans, its independent of biological sex, its subjective (a speaker testifying to his or her gender cannot be mistaken), and its possible to change sex by the latest procedures of medical science.
When you look at this attentively you notice that the 1950s have returned, because now behavior which does not conform to rigid sex roles is now a sign of gender dysphoria. Formerly it was a sign of malajustment, and before that of being a bad person.
In race, the woke consensus is that there is such a thing, that you can tell which race someone is by the color of their skin, that race determines culture and that people of the same color constitute a distinct race and community. And in following this consensus with its entirely subjective judgment of membership of one of these races, the woke, without realizing it, reintroduce the racial classifications of South Africa or 1830 Mississippi, right down to (under different names) the notion of quadroons and octaroons and Cape Colored.
We live in hysterical times. There was a blessed interval of rationality from about 1850 to about 1980 or so. But its over now.
The idea of painting windows has been mooted too. I don’t believe that either are appropriate.
The reasoning that my limited understanding has gathered is that adding more CO2 still affects radiant heat. If a photon (of the relevant wavelength) is captured by a molecule, it is then re-emitted (or simply absorbed in some way as kinetic energy). If re-emitted, it will carry on its merry way until it hits another absorbing molecule. If there are more molecules, this will necessarily occur more often than if there are fewer of such molecules.
The only way additional molecules wouldn’t further delay radiation is if there were so many that none got through at all, ie like a window painted many times.
In my again limited understanding, the density of absorbing molecules is so slight that they make no difference. Claiming that saturation has been reached implies that there are so many molecules that no photons (of the relevant wavelength) get through.
So you can have it one way, photons are hardly affected (have your cake), or they are all captured (or eat it), but not both.
Lindzen’s analogy is painting a wall white. Each additional coat contributes less effective whiteness.
Its a very common phenomenon, its simply that when you double a quantity, you don’t necessarily double the effects. Sometimes you more than double them.
Take death rates as a function of speed in auto accidents. Go from about 20 to about 30 mph (I forget the exact numbers), and death rates double, though speed has only risen by much less. Similarly the force of wind on the sails rises as the square of wind speed. Area of a screen rises faster than the diagonal measurement. Non-linear responses are all around us, and CO2 in the atmosphere is no different.
What happens with CO2 heat absorption is a diminishing curve. Double the proportion and you will get a constant increase in forcing, something like 1C per doubling.
That is, if nothing else happens, and you double the CO2 percentage, you will produce a 1C rise in average global temps.
However, this means that the passage from 200ppm to 400ppm has the same effect as that from 400ppm to 800ppm, and from 800ppm to 1600ppm.
So depending on how much CO2 there already is in the atmosphere, the effect of adding some more varies, and the last 800ppm in the above example has the same effect as adding 200ppm when there was only 200ppm to start with. Diminishing returns.
In addition to diminishing returns with respect to the purely hypothetical effect of CO2 on temperature, you have the “feedbacks,” which are, on balance, negative, offsetting feedbacks which reduce the purely hypothetical effect of increasing CO2 such that it cannot be differentiated from zero. This is shown by observation – there is no empirical evidence of an effect of CO2 on temperature, but a good deal of empirical evidence for no such effect at all.
What is being denied?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!
Or at least they’re trying.
As per above they banned adds with people of colour or certain ethnicity they aren’t denying anything according to you 🙂
Bet you woulds squeal like a stuck pig then unless your racist
What???
So, no answer to the easy to understand question that is a relief!
You asked what they are denying?
Clearly the ability to be in and to advertise grants you something because when I suggest it’s okay to deny it to groups based on race you have issues.
So now if you have half a brain you should have a clear idea what is being denied.
So, no answer to my simple question that is good to know!
I already know the answer while you obviously do not.
Cheers.
Wth hell are you talking about?
“The ads remained after Facebook’s fact checking partners debunked the posts”.
As we now know there is no fact checking, merely opinion
Just like Piltdown Mann is allowed his opinion
“Center for Countering Free Speech” would be a more appropriate name for this nest of misanthropes. I sometimes wonder what people like that do for amusement.
“People who promulgate the increasing-dangerous-weather meme are either profoundly uninformed, or evil.”
I posted that a few days ago on a different article.
Michael Mann is not uninformed.
Mickey Mann seems to be in the spotlight quite a lot recently, just the other day he was hyping Let’s Go Brandon’s! Bribe Back Broke Green New Deal-Lite bill. It has been tabled in the U.S. Senate for lack of Corrupto-crat Party votes, which will now supposedly shift work to Pelosi’s unconstitutional Federal election takeover which enshrine the 2020 election fraud into law and guarantee Corrupto-crat Party criminals remain in their cushy seats. Fortunately the Election Fraud bill was also tabled earlier this year for lack of votes.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/hockey-stick-climate-fraud-michael-mann-says-joe-bidens-build-back-broke-bill-will-prevent-tornadoes-getting-worse-video/
We can thank Joe Manchin for the former, and Kyrsten Sinema for the latter.
Pretty slim reeds our constitutional republic now depends on. One vote in Senate.
At least there are a few Corrupto-crats who have not been bribed/blackmailed.
We are in a daring climate crisis in Alberta: temperatures are 10-15C below normal. I though Canada was weaming 2x as fast.
Only 1/2 the time 🤓
That’s what I was thinking, too! I loved to Southern California just over 10 years ago, and what I’ve seen over the last 5-6 years is that it’s getting colder and wetter, consistently!
The whole “cancel culture” is based on opinions and abetted by propaganda.
Yes and it’s dangerous and is no different to racism.
From the article: ““It’s difficult to deny climate change because people can see it’s happening,” said Michael E. Mann, a professor of atmospheric science at Pennsylvania State University.”
What an idiot!
Naw. Greta Thunberg can even see CO2 carbon pollution with her own eyes, despite the fact that in beer and Coke Cola the bubbles are transparent. What, you want actual observations rather than what warmunists can ‘see’?
‘See’:
SLR is not accelerating.
Arctic summer ice has not disappeared.
Cyclone ACE has not increased.
Children still know snow.
Oh yes.
From the article: ““These social media companies are basically aiding and abetting this effort from bad actors to prevent us from acting from greatest challenge we face as a civilization,” said Mann”
Mann is the bad actor.
Eric, made me laugh so hard I blew out all my candles and knocked the chicken entrails and frog feet from my witches brew preparation. But it actually makes a lot more sense than as originally written.
Thanks eyesonu :-). The witch version just jumped out at me when I read it, their frenzy against people who disagree with their pseudoscience is beyond absurd.
I have been using witch hunts as an example to argue with my MP. He’s saying that although we cannot detect significant trends in climate indicators because of uncertainty, we still need to act. So I said:
“The existence of witches cannot be detected by any known statistical test. Concluding that there is “uncertainty” about the presence of witches and proceeding to enact policies to get rid of their malign influence on the basis they do exist but they are undetected because of uncertainty is clearly absurd. But this is effectively the basis on which policy makers proceed.”
ThinkingScientist: If your “representative” is anything like mine (a certain Jeremy Hunt), you will never get a sensible answer, or even an acknowledgement.
The “burden of proof” in this matter is a most important battleground.
Hi Neil,
I do get responses and not just one liners. My MP is Desmond Swayne. He doesn’t agree on climate change, but he does read and answer his own emails. If we cannot persuade Conservative MPs to break away from the Climate Change agreement with the other main parties there will no change.
I still keep putting out the same point to many people – we need to find a way that MPs can back away from the policy madness without losing face.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate, the basis of the WPo article, started out as being against online hate but morphed quickly into calling a hate crime at any opinion it does not agree with. They are funded by “philanthropic organizations “, according to their website, but refuse to say which organizations. So one can only wonder, who is paying to rebrand non politically correct, non hateful , pro science opinions as hate crimes? And why?
Center for Countering Digital Hate….
Hmm…. Perhaps inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center? Comes to mind the old joke about a candidate on the stump: I will not stoop to the low, mudslinging tactics of my opponent.
Leftists have been labeling any thought they disagree with as hate for generations.
Would not all all be surprised to find Soros money among the fund sources.
To follow up on my own comment: When I tried to comment on a msm news article on this by calling attention the CCDH lack of transparency in its funding, my comment was removed by the Google moderation as going against community standards by promoting hate! You can’t make this stuff up!
Isn’t it all about Free Speech, to listen to both sides of an argument?
To avoid getting charged with mail fraud, the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” should consider changing their name to something like Center for Promoting Progressive Propaganda.
Mann is not a Climate Scientist or even a Physicist. He is a Mathematician. Mann has no idea how the atmosphere or climate actually work. His specialty is data manipulation. He promotes the 500+ pages of nonsense that Ray Pierrehumbert, another Mathematician wrote as a textbook, to support the AGW myth being promoted by Marine Biologist David Archer, to Arts students at University of Chicago.
It is apparent that neither of these Cli-Sci(-Fy) giants understands Thermodynamics and the thermophysical properties of the matter involved.
He’s supposedly an “astrophysicist,” in his case more like an “assholepropagandist.”
The poor babies are butt hurt. Oh dear, how sad, too bad, never mind.
Link insert in The Washington Post article:
Fact check: There is nothing happening at the North Pole that hasn’t happened before in relatively recent history and there has been no net temperature change at the South Pole in the entire record.
Are humans more intelligent now than in the 17th century?
No way!
What in the hell is “undermining science”?
Isn’t that what Einstein did?
There is no such thing as “undermining science” any actual journalist would have said they were “undermining belief in science”.
Translation – “undermining belief in bullshit.”
I’m pretty sure there were 100 scientists that thought so.
Well, 97 out of 100 – with the other thousands ignored and the 100 very cynically “selected” as supposedly being the only “relevant” ones by the perpetrators of the “survey” which supposedly, but really doesn’t, support overwhelming “consensus.”
They really mean “undermining pseudo-science” – but will never admit THAT.
Michael Mann protests his innocence too much
Google is being fined $13.54 million in mid-March 2022 if it fails to comply with the Moscow Arbitration Court’s decision ordering it to unblock a Russian TV channel’s YouTube account which it blocked, it says because of sanctions, with no warning. The fine will escalate per day and week.
What happens if D.C. issues climate sanctions?
Is WaPo about to start another
RussiagateClimategate, the reverse of the original?The nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate. Housed next to the Ministry for Silly Walks. Only those are funnier.
Which is next to an empty cheese shop.
“It’s difficult to deny climate change because people can see it’s happening,” said Michael E. Mann
Such statement is unacceptable coming from a university professor, a researcher, or even from an average cultivated person.
Mickey Mann sees hockey sticks. But only after he invents them.
I have searched using google for controversial studies and analysis regarding the pandemic and climate change and stuff doesn’t show up that I see on other search providers. It looks like censorship but my understanding of the internet is weak.
When money talks, unsupportable climate change propaganda walks.
How does climate science argue their position?
It can be summarized just 4 letters STFU.
I’ve seen Peter Gleick and Michael Mann use these four letters in twitter messages.
Google, WaPo, Facebook and other outlets are automating this method of argument.
“Center for Countering Digital Hate” – so the way to counter “digital hate” (whatever that really means) is wholesale deplatforming of people with contrary beliefs?
Actually, they are the “Center for Legitimization of Digital Hate,” because they promote the suppression of free speech when they don’t like what’s being said.
“It’s difficult to deny climate change because people can see it’s happening,” said Michael E. Mann.
Whereas the actual issue “dangerous (Obama) man made climate change” remains undetectable. Far better they dismantle such strawmen and make strawbales for eco houses and let the duplicitous cranks live in them in some godforsaken wilderness.
Wonder how long they would last away from the grid, cars, medicine and modern drainage?