LinkedIn Bans Scientist for Presenting Inconvenient Truths About CO2

“The big-tech censors are at it again: the CO2 Coalition’s Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone has been permanently banned from LinkedIn. What did Wrightstone do to earn the banishment? His ‘crime’ consisted of posting charts from peer reviewed research supported by official sources demonstrating that current global average CO2 levels are well within the natural range of concentrations throughout the Earth’s history. LinkedIn’s moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous and/or so severe that they couldn’t allow him to continue to use the platform.”

Originally published here at Climate Realism on 6 July 2022.

5 49 votes
Article Rating
109 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BallBounces
July 9, 2022 10:02 am

It’s Wokeness all the way down.

Peter Wells
Reply to  BallBounces
July 9, 2022 5:05 pm

Today they would probably ban Alfred Wegener.

Zane
Reply to  Peter Wells
July 9, 2022 7:33 pm

They would ban Albert Einstein on a 5-speed bicycle.

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  Zane
July 11, 2022 4:14 am

” Linkedl Ins moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous …so severe ” ……………………………… You have committed so many crimes Comrade Wrightsone …Confess to your ‘ publicist activities ‘ and “reformist delusions ” ……….Albert Einstein’s womanising and travel letters would have seen him disappear in the acid bath of Woke cancel culture ……Not the Woke Reformations gurus such as the Nazi professor Martin Heidegger , the sado masochist sex tourist pederast Michel Foucalt and the horrid racist Karl Marx who sexually abused his family’s maidservant never paid her a penny and shunned the son he fathered with her . The Woke puritans are not burning their books on the pyres and tearing down their statues ……And isn’t that all one needs to know

Tom Halla
July 9, 2022 10:05 am

Trying to win the Trofim Lysenko award?

Mr.
July 9, 2022 10:10 am

Openly held views on public interest topics are anathema to aspiring totalitarians.

I’m talking about you UN and WEF groupies.

Editor
July 9, 2022 10:11 am

LinkedIn also banned Pat Frank for similar reasons. Andy May quit LinkedIn due to the censorship.

On the plus side Andy will be speaking at the 2022 AAPG/SEG convention…

AAPG Division of Professional Affairs

(DPA)

Are Fossil-Fuel CO₂ Emissions Good or Bad?

Tuesday, August 30, 2022

11:30am–1:00pm

George R. Brown Convention Center

Description

It is common for the public and the news media to simply assume that fossil fuel CO₂ emissions are bad for us because they might cause Earth’s surface to warm. Is a climate warmer than the Little Ice Age (circa 1750) bad or good? The Little Ice Age was not pleasant, it was often bitterly cold, the Thames River frequently froze over, and there were icebergs in the Delaware River when Washington crossed it in 1776.

In 2016 there was a famous climate change debate between Princeton Professor William Happer and University of Melbourne Professor David Karoly. One of the topics they debated was: Is CO₂ good or bad? Professor Happer said: “There is no scientific evidence that global greenhouse gas emissions will have a harmful effect on climate. Quite the contrary, there is very good evidence that the modest increase in atmospheric CO₂ since the start of the Industrial age has already been good for the Earth and that more will be better.”

Professor Karoly said: “Science has established that it is virtually certain that increases of atmospheric CO₂ due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and on natural systems. Therefore, immediate, stringent measures to suppress the burning of fossil fuels are both justified and necessary.”

Which educated opinion is correct? Obviously, both cannot be correct. The subsequent debate between these two eminent climate scientists is illuminating. We will discuss their arguments and put them into proper scientific context. This talk is mostly from Chapter 10 of my latest book, The Great Climate Change Debate, Karoly v. Happer.

Speaker

Andy May is a former member of the AAPG and DPA, Certificate #2623, issued in 1983. He retired from oil and gas in 2016 and gave up consulting in 2019 to pursue a career as a full-time writer, blogger, and author. He lives in The Woodlands, Texas, and enjoys golf and traveling in his spare time. He is an editor for the popular climate change blog Wattsupwiththat.com where he has published many posts. He is the author of three books on climate change, and one history of pre-Civil War Kansas. He is the author or co-author of seven peer-reviewed papers on various geological, engineering, and petrophysical topics, plus op-eds in the Washington Examiner. During his 42-year career as a petrophysicist, he worked on projects in Texas, the UK North Sea, Russia, China, Indonesia, and many other places. Andy is a member of the CO₂ Coalition, his personal blog is andymaypetrophysicist.com.

https://www.imageevent.org/luncheons/luncheon/are-fossil-fuel-c02-emissions-good-or-bad

Last edited 1 month ago by David Middleton
Scissor
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 10:22 am

Allow me to finish Dr. Karoly’s thought.

“Science has established that’s it’s virtually certain…” perhaps definitely, most likely the case that CO2 might cause climate change that may have adverse impacts in the future, if we don’t do something immediately, or at least in the next 10 years, 20 years at the latest, but definitely by 2050… perhaps.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Scissor
July 10, 2022 5:13 am

Yes, “science has established” and then “it’s virtually certain”.

So the truth is science has NOT established anything. “Virtually certain” does not equal established facts. Dr. Karoly may be virtually certain in his own mind, but that doesn’t establish anything as a fact.

This is typical of alarmist climate scientists: They are so sure of themselves that CO2 is causing changes in the Earth’s atmosphere, yet nothing they claim is based on facts other than that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The rest of it, beyond CO2 being a greenhouse gas, is just pure speculation, assumptions and assertions. No evidence.

You have no evidence, Dr. Karoly. That’s why you are “virtually” certain that CO2 is dangerous. You are fooling yourself, unless you are just a conniving liar. I don’t know which, but you are one or the other.

Stuart Hamish
Reply to  Scissor
July 12, 2022 9:00 am

. Science has not established any such thing ..There are no adverse catastropic increases in sea levels , hurricanes , fires and burned landmass,, droughts or floods . Nor is there any evidence from the glaciological records that CO2 precipitates – that is to say ’causes ” warming …Karoly, most unprofessionally, has confused causation with contribution ……Detailed analyses of the ice cores have determined that CO2 increases lag temperature rises in the order of centuries to millennia … ……………Now remember this is the same David Karoly who boasted in a Climategate email that dumping reams of data on requesters ” usually snows them ” …..Otherwise known as the Gish Gallop tactic .. The intention of the ‘snower ” is not to illuminate but to obfuscate and distract opponents in a blizzard of information …… It is not so much ‘virtually certain ” as definitive that the Gish Gallop or “snowing ” ruse is used by intellectually dishonest sophists with something to hide

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 3:43 pm

I would like Professor Karoly to explain to me why CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to improve the growth. Why would we not expect a similar beneficial reaction from vegetation in our world from the increased level of CO2? Can the Prof or any experts actually quantify the exact amount of CO2 that would prove to be detrimental to plants and tell me how far off we are from that amount?

John_C
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 9, 2022 5:03 pm

A quick search shows known toxicity around 1% CO2 (10,000 ppm) There are many allegations that as little as 2,000 ppm would be bad, but looking at the underlying protocols shows that more than one variable is changed (too conform to a ‘climate model’ projection of increased temperature and flood/drought caused by the increased CO2), rendering the results questionable. In no instance have I found the 800 to 1500 ppm levels (one or two doublings) reported as bad.So we have a lot of room for expansion.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  John_C
July 9, 2022 5:41 pm

John_C,
When you calculate doublings, you have to state your starting point and why you chose it. Some say the CO2 relation to temperature is logarithmic, so a doubling from 1 to 2 ppm is rather different in scale to a doubling from 100 to 200 ppm.
I have yet to see a scientific reason to choose a string point other than 1 molecule doubling to 2 molecules. It is more unsettled science. Geoff S

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 10, 2022 8:24 am

I have thought about this, but not researched it in depth. Don’t you suppose that the starting point has to be somewhere around a concentration where the mean free transmission falls below the scale height of the atmosphere? What I am thinking is an IR active gas can’t have much influence at all until there is a high probability of interaction on a vertical path.

Anyway, your point is well taken. We are most likely on the flat part of the curve.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 10, 2022 3:09 pm

Geoff,
I hope you realise that one molecule is a human derived measure of mass, it will tell you how much is there, not its concentration. It is derived using grams as a measure with the atomic mass of the elements being the multiplier, eg Carbon is approximately 12 grams per mole. It could just as easily have been pounds, kg or even the often quoted blue whales.

When talking about the concentration of a molecule in the atmosphere it should also be clearly stated whether the measure is via mass per mass, (or volume per volume) and it should clarify whether it is for an equivalent dry air or air as sampled. Water vapour within an air sample can significantly alter the reported values of well mixed gases.

Renee
Reply to  John_C
July 9, 2022 10:18 pm

ASHRAE recommends a 1,000 ppm limit for office buildings and classrooms to ensure overall health and performance.
OSHA limits workplace exposure levels to 5000 ppm time-weighted average (over 8 hours).
Drowsiness can occur at 10,000 ppm (1%).
Symptoms of mild CO2 poisoning includes headaches and dizziness at concentrations less than 30,000 ppm (3%)
At 40,000 ppm (4%) CO2 can be life-threatening.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Renee
July 9, 2022 11:35 pm

Renee, perhaps you don’t realize that your own breath at the end of expiration (after the still relatively ambient air in the unexchanging broncho-pharyngeal ‘dead space’ has first been flushed out) will register that very same ‘life threatening’ 40,000 ppm you cited. Oh my gosh!

And should your excited dread of such a level cause you to hyperventilate so that your original circulating blood CO2 content indeed declines enough to result in a ‘respiratory alkalosis’, expect the very dizzy headachy result you referred to unless you re-breath much of your own exhaled CO2 from a paper bag until your breathing rate settles down again (which is the simple remedy for that transient malady). So do get a grip, if not some education in respiratory physiology.

Renee
Reply to  Doc Chuck
July 13, 2022 10:12 pm

Yeah and those limits are hundreds years off on a straight line projection.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Renee
July 12, 2022 8:54 am

High CO2 is indicated as a possible cause of mental confusion or “brain fog”.

badEnglish
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 9, 2022 5:32 pm

I asked a climate alarmist friend of mine a question along those lines recently: what is the optimal level of CO2, then? And cite your evidence. To which he replied, “Ninety percent of the world’s cities are polluted.” I told him he was equivocating, but to no avail. He has made up his mind. (By the way, earlier in that same conversation, he agreed with me that no matter how well-intentioned a government policy is, if the outcome is bad, it should be reconsidered.)

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  badEnglish
July 12, 2022 9:29 am

Your friend is being disingenuous when talking about pollution and CO2 in one breath. There may be many emissions and particulates in one city and far less in another though the CO2 levels may be similar. I have seen an enormous improvement over 50 years in some cities with far less particulates. Further, not all particulates may be as harmful as is the case where a city experiences a dust storm. Improvements in car engines and exhaust systems mean we can have less polution despite far more vehicles. The CO2 is another matter and needs to be addressed separately.

AndyHce
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 9, 2022 9:02 pm

Yes, it seems from the preponderance of the evidence that increasing CO2 concentrations are not dangerous but the fact that increasing CO2 promotes greater and more rapid plant growth, with the use of less water, in no way means that it might not also raise temperatures to the point that those faster growing plants, and a great many other things, are destroyed.

DrEd
Reply to  AndyHce
July 10, 2022 6:25 am

If you look at actual research you will see that increased CO2 not only allows plants to grow faster, but to allow them to do so with LESS water and to not only tolerate but to benefit from higher temperatures. Any minor temperature rise due to increase atmospheric levels of CO2 will be well tolerated by plants.
Your “fear” is BS, Andy.

Joe
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 10, 2022 1:20 am

Maybe Karoly doesn’t want there to be more plants. After all, people an animals eat plants, so more plants tends towards more people, animals, and plants.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 10, 2022 12:29 pm

We know that pumping CO2 into greenhouses is good for plant growth. One aspect I’ve never heard anyone mention is the temperature of the greenhouses. When they increase the CO2 does the temperature also rise significantly?

I Know About Horticulture
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
July 11, 2022 2:39 pm

Nope.
The CO2 increase in a greenhouse is as negligible as one expects from a trace atmospheric gas of no special qualities regarding heat retention.

The desired heating effects are entirely sought via trapping the heat of sunlight within the greenhouse as designed, a conventional heating system, or increasing the water-vapor content of the interior air.

CO2 increases are purely for encouraging faster and more vigorous plant growth, as is common knowledge, which magically disappears the moment climate science Alarmists discuss the gas.

Mike
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 11:33 pm

“Science has established that it is virtually certain that increases of atmospheric CO₂ due to burning of fossil fuels will cause climate change that will have substantial adverse impacts on humanity and on natural systems.”

That is a lie.

Doc Chuck
Reply to  Mike
July 10, 2022 12:17 am

Without some shared supreme value impressed upon personal accountability for truth-telling within a culture, conveying a shameless lie to further ‘the cause’ is readily doable, as is now commonplace among media spokespersons, because ‘Hey, why not’?

DrEd
Reply to  Mike
July 10, 2022 6:27 am

A bald-faced deliberate lie.

stinkerp
July 9, 2022 10:21 am

Why would anyone use LinkedIn to promote or debunk the theory of catastrophic human-caused global warming? Seems like the wrong platform for that. It’s supposed to be a place to make professional connections and (hopefully) improve your job prospects. I think it’s overrated, so the bigger question is why anyone would use LinkedIn at all.

Last edited 1 month ago by stinkerp
Reply to  stinkerp
July 9, 2022 11:37 am

Networking. I use it to network with other oil & gas professionals, academics and AGW skeptics.

The sad thing is that while real scientists like Gregory, Pat and Andy get censored, “Sailing Instructors” and “Songwriters/Pilots” are allowed to freely post alarmist propaganda and even stalk skeptical scientists.

Ed Reid
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 2:10 pm

I just canceled LinkedIn because of this. “Fakechecking” run wild.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Ed Reid
July 9, 2022 3:54 pm

I just BlinkedOut too!

Editor
Reply to  Ed Reid
July 9, 2022 5:28 pm

I left Linkedin years ago. I still get regular emails saying “you are being noticed”. Maybe they can notice me enough to ban me so that I don’t keep getting the emails. That would be nice.

DonM
Reply to  Mike Jonas
July 12, 2022 10:21 am

If anyone wants to give me a copy/past set of data that will get me kicked off, please do….

BrentC
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 2:58 pm

Yeah, the “sailing and power boat instructor” guy is comically misinformed, but preaches with conviction.

Reply to  BrentC
July 9, 2022 3:35 pm

He makes an occasional appearance here.

Gunga Din
Reply to  stinkerp
July 9, 2022 4:20 pm

I’d received invites to sign up because I was on a “list” for my past profession (retired now) or from friends in other professions but never did.
Kinda’ wish I had now so I could quit it.

Redge
Reply to  stinkerp
July 9, 2022 11:55 pm

Why would anyone use LinkedIn to promote or debunk the theory of catastrophic human-caused global warming? 

I agree to an extent, but there are far more people, mostly with the extensive knowledge of climate change as Wrightstone, pushing the doomster line.

Countering the Greens on LI with actual data leads to lost opportunities. Wrightstone was simply doing his job.

Gary Pearse
July 9, 2022 10:55 am


So, it appears that a dataset approved and used by world governments in the discussion of climate change is off-limits if a researcher uses it to undermine the notion carbon dioxide emissions are historically high, ..”

Indeed, the Dark Side doesn’t want the moldable masses to know anything, even official peer reviewed stuff, about climate science. They are fed MSM reports that take huge liberties with the ‘science’. One such example is that warming in the tropics is tightly limited by Hadley cells and ocean currents that move heat toward the poles for radiation to outer space, plus a variety of other phenomena that limit ocean warming (e.g. hurricanes that suck excess heat from the ocean surface and deliver it rapidly to the top of the atmosphere for direct emission to space).

These phenomena contribute polar amplification warming which they want the masses to worry about, but they also want to have people worry and feel guilty about warming in the tropics that actually isnt happening.

Rud Istvan
July 9, 2022 10:56 am

The more places like Linked In cancel skeptical climate voices, the louder those voices become.
Linked In is headquartered in Sunnyvale, CA. It is now owned by Microsoft based in Seattle. Both areas are hotbeds of climate alarmism, so naturally not willing to tolerate opposing views since in their minds the science is settled. Except it isn’t:

  1. The tropical troposphere hotspot predicted by climate models does not in fact exist.
  2. Climate model ECS is twice what is observed using energy budget methods.
  3. The predicted disappearance of summer Arctic sea ice by 2014-2016 didn’t happen.
  4. The predicted acceleration of sea level rise hasn’t happened.
  5. UK children still know snow 22 years after Viner said they wouldn’t.

Folks in Silicon Valley, Seattle, and places like PSU (Mann) and Harvard (Oreskes) cannot tolerate such objective facts. It gives them cognitive dissonance.

July 9, 2022 11:01 am

EARTHS MAGNETIC POLES SHIFTING AND THE LAMESTREAM MEDIA IS NOT ALLOWING ANYONE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO RESEARCH N PUBLISH THOSE FINDING RELATING TO ” CLIMATE CHANGE ” AND EARTHS MAGNETIC POLES SHIFTING…

Reply to  Zena
July 9, 2022 11:41 am

comment image

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 4:06 pm

Be kind, as much as it hurts

Reply to  Barry Malcolm
July 9, 2022 4:10 pm

That was my “kind” meme… 😎

DrEd
Reply to  David Middleton
July 10, 2022 8:29 am

You are too kind. They don’t deserve it.

HotScot
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 4:10 pm

Withering response………

MarkW
Reply to  Zena
July 9, 2022 12:24 pm

Earth’s magnetic fields weren’t shifting during the Medieval, Roman, Minoan or Egyptian warm periods.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  MarkW
July 9, 2022 4:08 pm

Wow, you are special! Any references?

Reply to  Barry Malcolm
July 9, 2022 4:23 pm

Over the last 2.6 million years alone, the magnetic field switched ten times — and, because the most recent occurred a whopping 780,000 years ago, some scientists believe we are overdue for another. But reversals are not predictable and are certainly not periodic.

https://astronomy.com/news/2021/09/when-north-goes-south-is-earths-magnetic-field-flipping#:~:text=Over%20the%20last%202.6%20million,and%20are%20certainly%20not%20periodic.

MarkW
Reply to  Barry Malcolm
July 9, 2022 7:39 pm

Pretty much any geology book that references magnetic fields.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2022 2:08 am

hmm there were multiple mag reversal ie pole flips recorded in rocks, and the magnetic pole IS still doing around 31km a yr still heading towards siberia last i read the other week.
zenas just a bit frantic it might be new news to her?

DonM
Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 12, 2022 10:27 am

appears frantic, based on caps and language.

But, it appears to me that what Zena is trying to say is that shifting poles (not flipping) may result in climate changes, & nobody cares … they even slap down any conversation about non-standard questions.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Zena
July 9, 2022 4:40 pm

Not clear on what you’re saying.
Man should stop mining for rare earth elements to make rare earth magnet because all those magnets are shifting the Poles?
Or are you making a lame attempt to justify banning a person that used the vaunted “peer-reviewed” research that went against the meme by equating it with nonsense.
Please clarify.
(PS The answer to the magnetic poles shifting is simple. Just reverse the polarity!)

eyesonu
Reply to  Zena
July 10, 2022 9:48 am

Zena,

I understand your shouting about the magnetic poles shifting. The magnets on my refrigerator are hopping back and forth! It’s extremely frightening !!! I have to be very careful to even get another cold beer !!!!!

DonM
Reply to  Zena
July 12, 2022 10:29 am

appears frantic, based on caps and language.

Zena, what is you point?

Are you trying to say is that shifting poles (not flipping) may result in climate changes, & nobody cares … and they even slap down any conversation about non-standard questions.

Tom Gelsthorpe
July 9, 2022 11:07 am

Banished for WrongThink by the all-knowing, all-wise Arbiters of Truth at Linked In?

Tut-tut. Maybe Linked In should admit non-dogma with the stipulation that original thinkers wear dunce caps.

Would that be a workable compromise?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Gelsthorpe
July 10, 2022 7:02 am

There is no compromise with radical leftists.

markl
July 9, 2022 11:09 am

Once again the media proves it kow tows to the Progressives. If you only get your ‘news’ from the MSM or certain social forums you’d never find out about these blatant attempts to control and produce the propaganda.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  markl
July 10, 2022 2:10 am

oh yeah friends think that ONLY msms news is truth and think anything not on tv is fake
i do despair

H. D. Hoese
July 9, 2022 11:10 am

I thought LinkedIn was supposed to be a scientific forum outfit? Maybe that’s the problem.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 9, 2022 1:14 pm

More like Farcebook for professionals.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
July 9, 2022 4:10 pm

Nope, yours for believing anything they “publish”.

HotScot
July 9, 2022 11:22 am

I was kicked off Twitter, I was suspended so many times on FB I just shut my account. I had an account with LinkedIn when it first began but recognised it as a slimy, self promotion, spam organisation so just never returned.

I have a variety of social media accounts, Reddit, Gab, Parler, Minds etc but they are only marginally better. I just use them for research into our corrupt governments. Willie Soon is my go to favourite, he doesn’t miss much but there are a few other reliable accounts.

I have three ‘go to’ sources for reliable information on climate and related events, WUWT, Paul Homewood’s notalotofpeopleknowthat and, of course, Roy Spencer.

I know there are lot’s more, and I do occasionally drop into them but, frankly, there are too many climate sceptic blogs to keep up with.

Rick C
July 9, 2022 11:27 am

I was on Linkedin for several years before I retired as a matter of corporate marketing policy. The company wanted senior staff to maintain a high profile and network with customers. I found it an annoying waste of time as I was constantly bombarded with requests to add people to my network who were not remotely connected to our business. Turning them down seemed impolite and may have offended. Never felt that I or the company benefitted. It’s as worthless as Facebook in my opinion.

HotScot
Reply to  Rick C
July 9, 2022 4:08 pm

Turning them down seemed impolite and may have offended. 

Precisely what social media of any type relies on.

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Rick C
July 9, 2022 4:11 pm

Agreed!

fretslider
July 9, 2022 11:47 am

Heresy will not be tolerated.

How many times do you need to be told?

Pete Bonk
Reply to  fretslider
July 9, 2022 12:50 pm

To be fair, heretics and apostates are NEVER tolerated by those that hold to The One True Faith, be it communism, climate alarmism or aggressive religions. Eric Hoffer discussed this in his 1952 classic “The True Believer”. Well worth the read.

Pflashgordon
July 9, 2022 11:53 am

Linked In has always appeared to me to be a pointless exercise. I had a membership for about 15 years, and I never saw any value in it. About the only activity was harassment by salesmen wanting to be my friend. Over time, LinkedIn members started posting about every topic imaginable, about like FarceBook. I finally pulled the plug. So ended my last social media account.

Like video games, youthful fascination with social media just appears to be a stage in life like puberty, eventually to be outgrown.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Pflashgordon
July 9, 2022 6:37 pm

Been playing video games since Pong. Haven’t outgrown them yet.

Philip CM
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
July 9, 2022 11:05 pm

There is increasingly strong evidence that online video games have beneficial cognitive effects in older adults (7). For instance, video game training improves several aspects of cognitive functioning (8), such as reaction time, memory, and attention span, as well as general cognitive control and multitasking (9). Complex 3-D video games improve hippocampal-associated memory (10) and also physical parameters, such as postural balance and muscle strength (11), particularly those games that concentrate on strategy (12). -NIH 2018

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Philip CM
July 10, 2022 7:08 am

I get most of that reading WUWT. 🙂

Redge
Reply to  Pflashgordon
July 10, 2022 12:01 am

Like video games, youthful fascination with social media just appears to be a stage in life like puberty, eventually to be outgrown.

The problem us youthful minds are being moulded by social media “influencers”, which they are not outgrowing

Philip CM
July 9, 2022 12:47 pm

It has become more than obvious that the *unmanipulated* facts are not wanted in the realm of social media, only strict adherence to ‘the agenda’.
Social media has been a cesspool of ignorance since the EQers took over, and censorship only confirms big tech’s desire to have it remain so.

July 9, 2022 12:57 pm

I’ve unsubscribed from linkedin

Walter Horsting
July 9, 2022 1:07 pm

LinkedIn restricted my account for posting the following.

Taking into account productivity for the same power output the installation and running of:
Onshore Wind power is ~7 times the cost of Gas-firing
Offshore Wind power is ~16-20 times the cost of Gas-firing.
Solar power is about ~10-12 times the cost of Gas-firing
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/22/weather-dependent-power-generation/

Joe Gordon
July 9, 2022 1:08 pm

I maintain an account, because it’s where people in my field tend to contact people if they’re looking to make business connections.

I’ve never posted anything, but whenever I look at the “feed,” it’s all spam and virtue signalling. I would imagine if you were part of a large corporation and had a LinkedIn presence that someone in HR is tracking your “likes” and this has some sort of currency within management.

In other words, you can do your standard brown-nosing from the privacy of your own home without having to abase yourself in the office. So I guess that’s a win. As for informative discussion of current events, it’s basically Twitter with fewer of Carlin’s infamous word lists.

Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 9, 2022 1:22 pm

I actually get material for WUWT posts from LinkedIn. Quite a few of my connections will comment on alarmist nonsense, which brings it into my feed. Rather than wasting time arguing with ski instructors and travel agents in the comments thread, I’ll ridicule it here and post a link in the LinkedIn comments thread, thanking them for the material… 😎

Call me a skeptic
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 2:58 pm

We are in a fight for the future of this planet. If the geenies win our future is toltarian rule. Fight them every step of the way. It seems an impossible task with no MSM support but the truth always eventually prevails

AndyHce
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 9, 2022 9:16 pm

sometimes after a thousand years or more

DrEd
Reply to  Call me a skeptic
July 10, 2022 8:36 am

Amen. Keep it up. Never give in. Take every opportunity to correct the lies.

Graham
Reply to  David Middleton
July 9, 2022 2:58 pm

This cancel culture is becoming quite toxic .
Thank you Anthony for WUWT so that the truth can be aired about climate.
I have many acquaintances who are scientists here in New Zealand that know that CO2 is not a threat to any one.
I wonder how long it will be before the Google or some other outfit tries to censor WUWT.
Here is what one reads when they google WUWT.
“WUWT is a climate change denial blog created by Anthony Watts.”
WUWT is not denying the truth about CO2 which is an essential gas to life on earth .
CO2 is not a pollutant as so many politicians and crooked scientists tell the public .
CO2 has warmed the atmosphere that is a proven fact but without CO2 this earth would be a cold rock like the moon .
The bandwidths that CO2 works in are all but saturated and very little if any future warming will occur .
The tropical hotspot is a central plank in the theory that CO2 will cause runaway global warming . The tropical hotspot does not exist .
The believers that have been hoodwinked by the UNIPCC who have no proof that increased CO2 levels will cook the world .
Climate Change ,Global Warming is a political power grab that socislist governments all over the world have grasped as a way to stay in power .
They will make the majority of us poorer with their stupidity .

MarkW
Reply to  Graham
July 9, 2022 7:43 pm

Leftism, which the cancel culture grew out of, has always been toxic. It’s just that in recently they have metastasized into an extremely virulent form of cancer.

mkelly
Reply to  Graham
July 10, 2022 3:27 am

Graham says:”CO2 has warmed the atmosphere that is a proven fact..”.

Any chance you can show the facts?

You u state something that is not true.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mkelly
July 10, 2022 7:14 am

I had that same quibble.

mkelly
Reply to  mkelly
July 10, 2022 9:41 am

So I get a couple of down ticks but no facts supporting Graham’s claim.

Graham I await your facts.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  mkelly
July 11, 2022 1:48 am

You won’t get any facts, either. That’s another one of those assertions not based on facts.

Even alarmists can’t tell us how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere, and after feedbacks, the alarmists can’t tell us whether CO2 net warms the atmosphere or net cools the atmosphere.

So claiming CO2 has net warmed the atmosphere is not established. It’s an assertion.

And there is that inconvenient fact that CO2 is rising while temperatures are falling. Alarmists don’t have an explanation for that.

comment image

DrEd
Reply to  Graham
July 10, 2022 8:45 am

Some more:
EVERY meaningful prediction made by the alarmists has failed.

The alarmists use and believe in climate models that are KNOWN to be in error and are useless for predictive capability. Nevertheless, they make predictions from the output of these models.

The alarmists DO NOT follow the Scientific Method that requires the rejection of hypotheses that a) fail to explain past observations (MWP, RWP, etc.) and b) fail to make valid quantified predictions of observable events.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  David Middleton
July 10, 2022 2:51 am

I simply request people to think

Earthling2
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
July 11, 2022 11:29 pm

No thinking allowed. You will own nothing and you will be happy!

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Joe Gordon
July 9, 2022 4:14 pm

Joe, you may be ostracized now because of your comments.

bob mounger
July 9, 2022 3:21 pm

cough cough alex berenson cough twitter cough cough

Earthling2
July 9, 2022 4:16 pm

So, now you get banned for posting simple facts.

I created a LinkedIn account many years ago, but haven’t logged in for about 7 years now. I have a hankering to post something absurd there, such as “I won’t rest until we get rid of every last molecule of that evil CO2 gas that is a poison to the planet”. I doubt one would get banned for that absurd statement, but wonder if anyone would correct me and say we should keep at least 150 ppmv to keep everything alive. Maybe they would get banned. It seems like carbon and CO2 are now curse words, no matter what the context is. It’s almost funny, if it weren’t so sad.

J N
July 9, 2022 5:08 pm

The next one will be Bjorn Lomborg, which is usually very active in Linked debunking CAGW ideas. However, as people usually do in Autocracies, he is subtle enough not to be censored. Even so, he is on the verge of being cancelled also sooner or later.

Last edited 1 month ago by J N
Tom Abbott
Reply to  J N
July 10, 2022 7:27 am

Lomborg still says CO2 is a problem that needs fixing.

So he’s actually a lukewarmer, and that probably helps in keeping him from being banned. He’s kind of agreeing with them that CO2 is harmful.

Of course, there is no evidence showing CO2 is harmful to anything in the normal course of events. It’s all speculation, and assumptions. Alarmists can’t even tell you how much warmth CO2 adds to the atmosphere with any certainty, or whether the end product is warming or cooling.

What I find disturbing is just how many people there are who can’t tell the difference between speculation, assumptions, and facts. Speculation and assumptions are *not* facts. Facts are facts. And alarmists don’t have any when it comes to human-caused climate change. All they have is speculaton and assumptions. Can’t you figure that out, Bjorn? Sheesh! Whatever happened to the scientific method? Whatever happened to logic? Whatever happened to clear thinking?

Climate Change Propaganda and Lies. That’s what happened.

michael hart
July 9, 2022 5:31 pm

Linkedin billed me for several unauthorised payments, and only returned half of the amount after my complaint.

Geoff Sherrington
July 9, 2022 5:58 pm

Back when LinkedIn and other social media made their debuts, I became a member for long enough to see if they might be useful to me. It took about a week to toss them all out, never to return.
Cannot people see that there is advantage to these social media but very little to the users. Indeed, harm to the users. Who wants self inflicted harm? YWhy join ignorant gossip mongers? Better things to do. Geoff S

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
July 10, 2022 2:49 am

Geoff
LinkedIn is actually very useful to me in my business, helps me to find people in companies I’m trying to break into but especially helpful for keeping in touch with people who have left their companies.
That’s it’s original purpose
It then added ability to post stories and like them etc which leads to all of this narrative enforcement

I continue to fight the narrative I just avoid posting links, instead asking people to think
Which is still very subversive

commieBob
July 9, 2022 7:23 pm

Stalin was famous for having pictures doctored. If an official picture showed someone who fell out of favor with Stalin, the offender would be expertly removed from the photo.

The picture at the top of the article featured Nikolai Yezhov in its original form. Of course, in this version, that’s not his head. link

The comparison with Stalin is apt. Around 46:08 in this video, Iain McGilchrist says the following:

… from trying to create a liberal society, which literally means one that is free, we’re creating a tyranny. And I have seen in my lifetime, the colossal change from a society that was largely free to one which is increasingly week by week, less free, less liberal, in which we are subject to rules, procedures, and the point of view of a small clique, that will not be contradicted. It can’t even be debated. If you so much as even raise a question about some of the things that it believes, then you are an outcast. So this is a very sad state of affairs. 

Indeed. The social justice warriors and their fellow travelers are willing to destroy you any way they can.

griff
Reply to  commieBob
July 11, 2022 7:32 am

I notice TV ads lately for some brand new phone which prominently display being able to easily and seamlessly edit people out of the picture as a ‘feature’…

Joe
July 10, 2022 1:02 am

Surely “needing” to ban anyone questioning your official narrative is an indication that this narrative is robust, true, verifiable, correct, and productive. Right? Right??

ozspeaksup
July 10, 2022 1:58 am

having an argument re ukraine the other day and mates said we had to be willing to fight for democracy
ha will fight for my country no worries damned if another usa war should see aussies there again(wherever the new there is)
hmm yeah forced jabs and govt approved censorship everywhere as well as the antisocial media following and making their own other rules up
looking less democratic by the day all over the place

Pat from kerbob
July 10, 2022 2:44 am

Yes, I think I skirt the edges of darkness on LinkedIn
I try not to post links but instead simply request people try to think for themselves, think logically, when they do the whole meme collapses.

No warnings yet although I’m sure they are coming

Capell Aris
July 10, 2022 4:41 am

If you object to the conduct of a ‘professional organisation’ and they won’t listen to reason: resign
Capell Aris (FIET resigned)

Yooper
July 10, 2022 4:56 am

Go into the WayBack Machine here and look at this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/

There’s typo in the link, it should say ….Ask a submariner….

Quinn
July 10, 2022 2:32 pm

Speaking truth in a time of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.

Kevin A
July 10, 2022 5:10 pm

We’ve closed your account.Your LinkedIn account is now closed. Although you no longer have access to it, it’ll take a few weeks for your public profile to disappear from search engines.

Tim Crome
July 12, 2022 11:28 am

The way LinkedIn works is that they use algorithms to identify people who don’t follow their policies. If you are posting things which many people appreciate but a few object to, the few can all send in complaints and your account will become suspended. It will then take several weeks or months to get it reactivated. This has just happened to me, for posting “false news” about the climate.

Unfortunately this happens without warning and you then have no access to your account, so you loose all old posts snd ability to contact others who are like minded, etc..

One of my misdemeanours was referring to Steve Koonin’s book Unsettled and stating that yhere is no climate crisis.

%d bloggers like this: