Essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Dr. Willie Soon; “… Its all about planting little seeds of doubt” – CBC climate reporter Jaela Bernstien lamenting Twitter is not as enthusiastic as China’s TikTok at censoring climate skeptics.
From the video;
“… if people are exposed to this blizzard of false information about climate change, then their right to be informed about risk is being undermined…”
“.. misinformation can create a false sense that the science is still in question, when its not…”
“… there’s plenty of research showing that exposure to misinformation about climate change leads people to take it less seriously, and to be less willing to support climate actions …”
“… climate denial … erodes trust in science and undermines support for cutting emissions …”
“… misinformation can still slow support for the work that’s still going to decide all of our futures …”
“… we asked social media companies what are you doing about climate misinformation? Twitter didn’t respond, but Meta, TikTok Youtube all did. Two videos we flagged to TikTok are no longer on their site …”
See it for yourself: https://youtu.be/cOYLDr0ZTog
I’d love for CBC reporter Jaela Bernstien to explain the difference between being a fascist, and supporting the suppression of dissenting views, to prevent the free exchange of ideas from undermining support for your political cause. But I’m not holding my breath while waiting for that explanation to be published.
“… climate denial … erodes trust in science and undermines support for cutting emissions …”
No, lies erode trust in liars. When you can understand that, you will be on the road to trust, grasshopper.
Canada does have the infamous “notwithstanding” clause in its mockery of a Bill of Rights. So Trudeau can do what he wants, as long as he has a parliamentary plurality.
So disagreeing with the official government position can get your bank accounts blocked, or whatever else Castreau wants, with little recourse.
Does “Castreau” refer to Fidel or to pretty boy’s junk?
You must have seen the memes noting the resemblance of Justin and Fidel? If true, he is acting like his daddy.
No, Tom, I’m aware of the communist-themed memes about pretty boy. I just thought “cast….” would have another meaning for pretty boys.
View on You Tube, and:
“Comments are turned off. Learn more
______________________________________________________
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I clicked on your link and found this: “we may turn off comments on content, even if that content doesn’t violate our guidelines. We do this to protect vulnerable creators or audiences”.
How kind, thoughtful and inclusive /sarc
Vulnerable to being provided the truth.
the owner of a channel can turn off comments so I bet she did it- not YouTube
It’s interesting to note as well that apparently CBS News – The National has 1.46 million subscribers (hard to believe) but this video has only 4800 views in 10 days.
Views will now drop off like a stone as it gets buried.
Out of the 4800 views only 68 people could be bothered to give it a thumbs up, and I bet most of them work for CBS.
Of course Youtube hides the thumbs down…
Gosh. So the BBC and David Attenborough are to be banished from Twitter? Oh…er…hang on…
If she’s like the rest of the socialists I’ve known, the reason is that fascists were bad people, while they’re good people. Therefore anything they do is justified.
Herbert Marcuse’s Repressive Tolerance in action. Anything done in support of the ideology is allowed, and the mere thought against it is to be derided.
YAWN !
CNN reporters are the ones that should be banned for misinformation.!
“.. misinformation can create a false sense that the science is still in question, when its not…”
For the umpteenth time, science is always in question. Anything that”s not in question is dogma and religion.
Well, that’s half the point, isn’t it?
The other half is that “science” is used as an euphemism here. This situation is not at all new and unprecedented; specifically, a long-standing tradition in a movement that folded into the dominant branch of nu-Puritanism:
…and, unsurprisingly, in the descendant movements we can observe rampant self-righteous antinomianism, up to and including the judges.
Likewise, if the Party redefines the word “science” to mean, effectively, “dogma”, and replacements for the original usage are absent… perhaps “some dismay” may be in order as well.
It is disappointing that a nominal human being could be so clueless.
yet so self-righteous
Yes, it can. Misinformation is responsible for 100% of the support for reducing emissions.
Speaking of misinformation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/harvard-journal-accepts-left-wing-paper-accusing-fossil-fuel-industry-homicide
story tip
He wants to prosecute petroleum companies for murder. Great idea, dude. Go for it. Maybe we can drive them out of business. The more really stupid things we can get them to do, the sooner we will be rid of them.
Not drive out of business. Just keep it hanging over their heads, so that they won’t forget to be sufficiently righteous and support the “totally not church” properly. Maybe, one show trial for the most unruly.
Phillip Morris
So when the EXTRA winter deaths caused by climate crazy reductions of dispatchable “energy” get added up in countries that have gone crazy, like the UK and Germany, can EVERY person who advocated for curtailment of FF use as part of a conspiracy to reduce available affordable “energy” an therefore be charged with every death thus caused?
Sounds like the leftists will be hoisted on their own petard if they can get this joke “prosecuted” I some jurisdiction.
The funny part is that the defendants should be able to get all the climate crazies to testify under oath to their actions setting up their future criminal prosecution for the climate deaths caused by cold weather without sufficient heat. The fact that most of them made their living by spreading falsehoods will just be a bonus for a jury trial.
Lets start with Al Gore and Tom Steyer.
Then prosecute them for lying and get the SCOTUS ruling stating lying is free speech overturned. (Stolen Valor case)
Just another Woke young person who has been indoctrinated, and determines what she “knows” to be misinformation by relying on what someone has told her. Her acceptance of that has become her truth. For so many like her, she is ignorant of any lessons from the Inquisition.
If you put her back in 1936, she wouldn’t be able to tell the difference in “climate” between then and now. But if you put her back in 1500, she’d definitely be able to tell, and would be clamoring for central heating.
With her mind so eager to be part of the in-group, in 1936 she would have been rushing to join the League of German Maidens.
And a few hundred years before that, the air conditioning
‘I report on climate change’, meaning exactly what? No doubt, she believes her role as a climate change gatekeeper for the Left, aka a useful idiot, is important work, but she might want to look into what Marx had in mind for the role of women under communism.
More good news, these scoundrels know they can’t win with science and facts all that’s left for them is lies and censorship. Their days are numbered.
Notice they never exactly describe this climate “misinformation.” That’s why I try to keep communications with and comments to these institutions and people to one simple issue. An example could be pointing out UN reporting that extreme weather has not increased in frequency, intensity nor duration globally over the last 100+ years of recordkeeping. I always say that you can get different results by cherrypicking short timeframes or specific locations on the globe. Silence is the usual response of climate experts and media types.
If enough minds can be changed easily , waste no effort changing resistant minds?
“Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.” ~ Michael Crichton
So sad he’s gone. Both for his writing and his work to reveal the utter nonsense presented as “climate science.”
I sense we’re supposed think TikTok is on our side.
Any time TikTok does something we should ask how it is in China’s interests. TikTok doesn’t work for us.
Yes. CCP-Tok wants us to destroy ourselves, so they’d gladly remove “denier” videos in order for the US left to continue their destruction unabated.
Corporate employees, especially ones educated in USA colleges, might act in their own best interest first.
Meaning: Neither TikTok nor China is a person with the illusion of free will (or more).
Dreams of a China’s democratic/dictatorial duality with labor and environmental arbitrage, mass carbon sequestration for social progress, redistributive change, and actual slavery in the modern model.
If _anyone_ could react to an externality-based disaster with self sacrifice…
As a young journalist, I am assuming Ms. Bernstien probably has little or no background in science. If so, how is she supposedly able to decide who is right and who is wrong in the Great Climate Debate? Does she actually believe that the UN and the IPCC are being honest and are not corrupting climate science for political and environmental activist purposes?
It is truly amazing that “climate journalists” these days are making decisions on matters of scientific debate based on what appears to me to be little more than religious faith. It is apparent that they know far less about science than they let on — if they know anything about science at all.
Considering that science has a history of getting some things initially wrong such as the status of the (now) dwarf planet Pluto and the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates, I suggest that the Orwellian thought control police in the mass media are the real problem, not CO2.
Critical thinking skills are not as high a priority on the education syllabus as they once were?
That would appear to be the case Eric.
How many human thought police do you need to police 7 billion trains of thought?
7,000,000,000
Kind of cute. Not very bright.
I don’t understand why we have all these preliminaries. Just stomp that jackboot on the neck and dispense with the “we’re censoring for your own good” stuff.
I would love to know her carbon footprint, eh? Fossil fuels every day, and fly to holiday, etc. of course!
at censoring climate skeptics…….here in the western hemisphere.
What a NOBEL and GOOD reason to stamp out free speech, to save the EARTH! Great justification. These leftists are scary, the way they want to control everything.
CBC reporter Jaela Bernstien appears to be someone with all the life experience of a high school senior.
“.. misinformation can create a false sense that the science is still in question, when its not…”
It’s not? So, one side says it isn’t and the other side says it is – means…it isn’t. I see….
If anyone is looking for one-sided reporting on climate and environmental issues, let him tune into the CBC, which gives the impression it has to get approval from the Suzuki Foundation, Greenpeace, and the Sierra Club before it broadcasts anything. In fact, there’s a strong belief among citizens that it gets donations from those organizations as long as it doesn’t present any facts and arguments that could undermine their beliefs. What’s particularly ironic about this is that the network is publicly funded to the tune of $1billion a year. So taxpayers are on the hook to support the government and the the various alarmist groups to spread their propaganda. Yet despite all of this, Canadians are still among the last nationalities on the planet to make major lifestyles changes to ostensibly save the planet. Even more ironic is the fact that during the past 35 years the Canadian government has had at least eight emissions reductions plans, and not one has come close to reaching its target. So the CBC may not realize it, but it’s whipping a lame horse on climate issues, and its suppression of the other side of the whole climate argument certainly hasn’t helped its credibility.
An arrogant CBC cub reporter is one thing. But she is only showing off how the Trudeau regime is moving to impose its woke concerns upon the nation’s structure. Canada Supreme Court hearings yesterday and today are debating overthrowing the federation in favor of central control by Ottawa.
Don Braid outlines the dangerous ploy in his article Liberals are striving to change Canada’s very nature. The future rests with Supreme Court
https://calgaryherald.com/opinion/columnists/braid-liberals-change-canada-supreme-court
My synopsis with exhibits is
https://rclutz.com/2023/03/22/overthrowing-canada-federation-for-climates-sake/
So funny if not so tragic!
They can’t even image the tables being flipped on them!
They fully believe their own BS 😂
The end justifies the means. A crisis which requires drastic measures to resolve. A great project so important all dissent must be silenced.
Can’t think where I’ve read ideas like that before…
“They can’t even image the tables being flipped on them!”
I think that every time someone demands unprecedented response to an opposing action. What happens when the opposition finds that special tool in their toolbox? How wise were the USA federalists of the revolutionary war to constrain government in a set of limitations- if t you can forgive their acceptance of 3/5ths.
Sometimes (not always) the best thing to hit with the big stick is nothing. Keep walking quietly.
“A false sense that the (climate) science is still in question.” Well:
Did anyone else notice her introduce the concept of ‘good science’ as a thing?
It would be fun to see her define ‘good science’ and how she differentiates that from what we regard as Science.
I suspect, for her good science is what agrees with her position. whether her good science is validated or not.
Another staple comment they use is, “the science is out there”, but never in their head.
“The science is out there” implies that “the science” has yet to be found. c.f. “The truth is out there”
Chuckle. The battle on social media for short attention spans is an amusing concept. This reporter seems well suited to that venue. Understanding the complex issue of climate is rather more meat than that diet allows.
In the mainstream media, she’s not an outlier. Just a bit more confident in her opinion of herself as an expert. (Expert parrot.)
“… climate denial … erodes trust in science and undermines support for cuttinemissions …”
Yes it’s important to always trust the scientific community and their utterings on this-
‘Embarrassing’: Faculty of Theology awards Greta Thunberg honorary doctorate (msn.com)
According to LinkedIn she has a degree in English Literature so it is unsurprising that there is no scientific understanding.
Engineering is a lonely world.
Another snot-nosed English major pseudo-journalist lacking even a shred of curiosity.
“blizzard of false information about climate change, then their right to be informed about risk is being undermined… “
It doesn’t occur to her that the “blizzard of false information” is coming from the CAGW climate cult. Taking that perspective, her statement is entirely true.
“snot-nosed” unnecessary.
Not really
The usual question: When in history have those who try to silence others been the good guys?
I wonder what The National and Jaela Bernstein Would have said about Copernicus if we had YouTube back in 1543?
She needs to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNSPiMmuIvI
To paraphrase Darth Vader: the pomposity is strong with this one. It would be nice if reporters learned just a little humility. Jennifer and Joanne from Oz know a lot more about the climate than this CBC reporter. Sadly, virtually all Canadian media are essentially bought and paid for (literally via subsidies) by the government, so the populace are not allowed to see anything other than the party line. I’m glad I don’t live there any more.
The true intent is to stop debate then they can do what they want with their state sanctioned propaganda which is a ONE-WAY flow into the increasingly gullible mostly science illiterate people.
“increasingly gullible mostly science illiterate people”
probably always seems true when a 35-55 yo says it because the next generation is younger by definition.
A tech-based battle between an “average” 15 yo and an “average” 75 yo might be telling.
“How do I open ap store?!”
“Is Hotboots12345@hotmail my new best friend?”
“Should I click the link?”
As a nearing-oldness type I disdain kids less and less for their inexperience.
…though there will always some smarter than others. (Will there? I suppose. Sounds like an argument in need of words with tight definitions)
BREAKING NEWS – CBC Reporter refutes E=mc2; does not account for Dark Matter/Energy.
I just did a quick search for “Flat Earth Society TikTok”.
Lots of hits.
(I don’t do TikTok so didn’t check the content.)