Note: read on for the full Josh cartoon below.
I know that many of you have experienced censorship of climate information at some level. Whether it is on Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, YouTube, Google search, or other platforms, there has been an almost a universal effort to reduce what our Mann-inspired Climate Information Overlords deem “misinfomation.” In some cases, such things are warranted, as there is some climate information that is held up by climate skeptics that is in fact, wrong. I think we do a pretty good job here at WUWT of weeding that out and we work hard to present information that is factually accurate – even though it is often disagreed with.
Unfortunately, there has sprung up a plethora of so called “fact-checkers” in the past couple of years who believe they are on a mission to “save” the planet. In almost all cases, they suffer from an inflated sense of self-importance bolstered by what is called “noble cause corruption.”
From that WUWT essay: Stephen Schneider recognized the dilemma for scientists and was quoted in Discover Magazine (October 1989 vol. 10 no.10):
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Essentially, while the climate alarmists of the world deal in “scary scenarios,” such as the recent hype that the coming El Nino will push us past the “dangerous” 1.5°C tipping point, we point out that we’ve already experienced 1.5°C of warming, and the world didn’t roast, and we are still here.
Climate alarmist claims are almost always driven by questionable climate model projections, such as the now overheated and discredited RCP8.5. Climate skeptics deal in the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts – but we are excoriated for doing so. A good example is my survey of NOAA stations last year, where I found that 96% of them don’t meet NOAA’s own published standards for station siting, leading to a warm bias in temperature. Standards are in place for a reason. Yet, despite that, I was told in no uncertain terms by Polifact that none of this matters, and that climate scientists are “handling it.” Newsflash: they aren’t. Of course just like Zack, neophyte climate “expert” Madison Czopek didn’t want to hear the facts we presented, deferring instead to opinions.
Despite our best efforts to inform the world of the the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts, we are labeled pejoratively as Exxon funded “climate deniers” when in fact we at WUWT don’t (and never have) received a dime from Exxon, Koch, Texaco, BP, etc. It’s just a convenient fantasy to apply a derogatory label so that low-information activists can slime us. We don’t deny the climate is changing – not at all, we simply don’t feel it is a crisis, and that the methods, science, and conclusions that are being used to totally rework global energy policy in chasing unobtainable goals such as “net zero” is an overwrought, overzealous, and overhyped viewpoint that does more harm than good.
Enter Climate Regime Censorship Enforcers Zach Fishman and NewsGuard.
NewsGuard assigned their new hire Zack Fishman, who was fresh out of “climate journalism finishing school” to perform an evaluation and rating.
I went through an “evaluation” last year with Zach to determine the rating. Looking at the their process then, and thinking “well, maybe it isn’t biased,” I received and considered a number of questions, many of which had nothing to to do with content or accuracy. Charles’s response at the time was to “tell him to [sanitized] himself.” In retrospect, I probably should have followed Charles’s advice.
The result? Their own rules about platforms were simply ignored, which indicated to me that there was an agenda from higher ups; Zack admitted as much in the email exchange then. Needless to say, WUWT received a terrible rating. The same thing occurred at The Heartland Institute, where I am a Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate.
NewsGuard is a Pentagon funded member of the US Government’s Censorship Industrial Complex.
Embedded in the post was a picture of a nearly $750,000 award from the Department of Defense to NewsGuard, an organization the independent journalists characterized as a “government-funded” entity implicated in the Censorship Complex.https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/newsguard-claims-not-to-be-government-funded-but-a-750k-grant-suggests-otherwise/
They work to strengthen and enhance government approved narratives and work to suppress, starve, and deplatform independent thinkers and publishers.
In response to Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz’s question — “Who is NewsGuard?” — Shellenberger explained: “Both the Global Disinformation Index and NewsGuard are U.S. government-funded entities who are working to drive advertisers’ revenue away from disfavored publications and towards the ones they favor.”https://thefederalist.com/2023/03/13/newsguard-claims-not-to-be-government-funded-but-a-750k-grant-suggests-otherwise/
In addition to attacking revenue and deplatforming, NewsGuard works with the ideologically captured teachers’ unions and school system to block, discredit, and censor wrongthink and thoughtcrime.
AFT Partners with NewsGuard to Combat Misinformation Online
National Partnership Will Roll Out Crucial News Literacy Tool to Tens of Millions of US Students and Families
Tuesday, January 25, 2022
WASHINGTON—The American Federation of Teachers has launched a national partnership with a leading anti-misinformation tool NewsGuard to protect and champion legitimate journalism and fact-based reporting and to help educators and their students navigate a sea of online disinformation.
Under the terms of the pathbreaking licensing agreement, coinciding with National News Literacy Week, the AFT’s 1.7 million members, tens of millions of kids they teach, and their families, can now receive free, real-time “traffic light” news ratings and detailed “Nutrition Label” reviews, via a licensed copy of NewsGuard’s browser extension, whenever they search the web for news and information.https://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-partners-newsguard-combat-misinformation-online
This control of information into schools by NewsGuard is partly the reason I wrote Climate at a Glance for Teachers and Students: Facts on 30 Prominent Climate Topics last year (get a free digital PDF copy here.)
This year, I received a fresh set of questions from Zack as did The Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute decided not to waste any time on Zach again. After seeing how it all went down last year, I came to the same conclusion; interacting with Zack and NewsGuard is a pointless exercise in futility. From my own observations, the process goes like this:
- You publish something based on data, observations, etc. You back it up with citations. Or you report on someone having an opinion (read on).
- Zack/NewsGuard flags it, because it doesn’t agree with the climate alarmism agenda. They also ignore everything else on your website that they haven’t flagged, choosing to rate your website based on only the items they choose.
- Zack/NewsGuard sends questions so that they can give the appearance of fairness and transparency.
- Zack/NewsGuard cites someone else (a selected “expert”) who claims that none of that matters or that you’ve “misinterpreted.”
- Zack/NewsGuard believes the other person, so you’re wrong and you will get a bad score.
- Bad score equals Internet invisibility. Earth is saved!
It’s the same song and dance we’ve witnessed being used to smack down peer reviewed papers that show any skeptical content. In my opinion, the NewsGuard process is rigged from the start because they pick and rate only the content they flag and ask about, but ignore everything else you’ve published.
Here is a perfect example of zeroing in on a flagged item. One of the questions Zack sent this year was about a statement in a video interview by Dr. Richard Lindzen.
We reported on a video interview, and in the interview a world-class atmospheric physicist presents an opinion, one backed by experience and his knowledge, yet somehow fresh out of college twenty-something Zack, with not even a fraction of the knowledge and experience that Lindzen has, expects us to correct Lindzen in our publication of the interview?
Additionally, Zack couldn’t even get his argument right. Lindzen was talking about the human caused percentage of warming since 1960, while Zack countered with complete rises from the past back to 1850. It was an exceptional example of Zack proselytizing but not actually fact checking. Zack would do well to study this reference post before he asks questions again.
Unlike Zack, at least Dr. Lindzen has done the actual science, using REAL-WORLD OBSERVATIONS instead of models to determine climate sensitivity, and thus shed light on the the likely human contribution to warming:
Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi, “On the Observational Determination of
Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications,” Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science,
article number 377, August 28, 2011, doi:10.1007/s13143-011-0023-x, https://link.
The hubris on display from Zack is almost Mannian in its largesse. Counter opinions, even by respected atmospheric scientists with publications aren’t allowed. They must be destroyed.
So tell me Zach, when the IPCC and the collective climate science community can’t even agree on the most basic premise, climate sensitivity – the response via temperature of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere, what makes you or even the IPCC more likely to have a “correct” opinion than Dr. Lindzen? Hell, they can’t even agree on climate sensitivity for the latest CMIP6 model predictions:
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Climate science would not stand up to scrutiny in a court of law. If climate science were held to the same standards as forensic science, it might, but the emphasis on projections with such a wide range of climate sensitivities would surely make real legal determinations of our actual risk impossible. So much for “settled” science and “correct” opinion.
It isn’t just hubris with Zack and NewsGuard, it is, in my opinion, “Noble Cause Corruption” at its finest. But more specifically, the idea behind NewsGuard is to suppress alternate viewpoints and information they don’t agree with. Their goal is to make that information invisible, essentially performing a modern-day digital book burning.
If you’ve ever read the Ray Bradbury book, or seen the movie about Fahrenheit 451, you’ll see the parallels between what NewsGuard is doing and Fahrenheit 451.
From the Wikipedia description:
Fahrenheit 451 is a 1953 dystopian novel by American writer Ray Bradbury. It presents an American society where books have been personified and outlawed and “firemen” burn any that are found. The novel follows Guy Montag, a fireman who becomes disillusioned with his role of censoring literature and destroying knowledge, eventually quitting his job and committing himself to the preservation of literary and cultural writings.
For those unfamiliar, here is a short excerpt from the 1966 movie, which seems to be set in Britain:
I pity Zack, whose role as “climate information destroyer” via his application of NewsGuard ratings leading to Internet invisibility, makes him in my opinion, an enabler of modern-day digital book burning.
Josh helped me sum it all up:
Perhaps someday, Zack will come to his senses, and realize, like Guy Montag did, that being a party to censoring literature and destroying knowledge is the wrong side of history to be on.
Of course, few people in the NewsGuard sphere of censored information will see this rebuttal, because they aren’t allowed to make up their own minds, and have to be shielded from inconvenient facts that run counter to the approved narrative.
For fun, fast forward to 12:18 and see Dave Rubin take on NewsGuard, specifically the climate “activist rat” (per Dave Rubin), who is the subject of this post, Zack Fishman.
Good posting by Anthony and help by Josh. Any Scientist struggling with the conflict “…right balance is between being effective and being honest.”, is not actually a Scientist, but would be a Politician. The FBI Whistleblowers now coming forward would fit into the fireman’s role in Fahrenheit 451, so maybe there is hope for us after all..
I will 15th the accolades for this article. Thank you Anthony and Josh. The most egregious thing to me is that this is government funded. Where do we go to get our money back? And isn’t this some sort of 1st Amendment violation by the federal government??
The Wikipedia page on NewsGuard doesn’t mention the government funding. I’m a long credentialed Wikipedia editor, and I’d add that to the page, but anything I edit on the climate topic gets removed. People like me get tagged. That’s how Wikipedia works.
On Zack discounting Lindzen, Zack couldn’t get admitted to the college where Lindzen taught.
If only climate alarmists were as unambiguous as Anthony’s essay. 👍
Speaking of ambiguity, did anybody else’s mind go in the wrong direction when Zack wrote, “it’s time for a bio change.”?
A year ago I wouldn’t have any idea what you are talking about.
Doesn’t take long for things to really fall apart.
“In some cases, such things are warranted, as there is some climate information that is held up by climate skeptics that is in fact, wrong.”
Even then, people should have a right to give their opinions without being attacked for “disinformation” which implies they are purposefully lying- ’cause their their funded by the ff industries. In such a case- it’s NOT warranted.
By definition, science is the right to be wrong.
The appropriate remedy for an erroneous statement is rebuttal and correction, not censorship.
Thank you once again.
Stephen Schneider said:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”
But wait a second- since when is the idea that science provides truth- in the sense of absolute truth? That may be the goal, but not much science can be considered absolute truth so it might be better not to use that term.
“I think we do a pretty good job here at WUWT of weeding that out and we work hard to present information that is factually accurate…”
Same here- science can never say 100% for sure that it’s discovered facts. Neither facts nor truth- though both are the goal. I doubt that Einstein ever say he found truth or facts.
I suggest no science can advance if differing perspectives claim absolute truth and facts.
basicly, I’m just saying all science is a “work in progress”- it never gives absolute truth or facts- so those words should be avoided- I suggest skeptics understand this very well, which is why they’re skeptics- it’s the “true believers” who say their science or their religion is the final word – who need to be reminded
The “true believers” have a faith (i.e. logical domain). Their religion (i.e. behavioral protocol) is notably an ethical or relativistic model.
That said, science is a philosophy and practice in the near-domain.
Do you ever speak English?
As I like to put it, “Science is NEVER “settled.”
Social media science discussions in a nutshell.
Good cartoon. But it’s arts graduates, not “leftists”. Several of those comments are specifically right-wing errors.
It’s too partisan and so drops a powerful payload way off target.
Leftist talking points have become synonymous with arts, humanities, x studies graduates, rooted in Marxist notions of the structure of information.
They are inseparable now. What you call Right Wing errors are what was said a decade or two ago, no longer.
Here is one example among ten of thousands if not millions.
I wrote a post specifically about this issue.
Epistemology has become partisan.
when it comes to knowledge, I trust engineers more than scientists- because engineers test their knowledge in the real world- I recall a story, not sure where I heard it- I think from an architect friend, that in the ancient world, often when a lintel is put in an arch- the architect who designed the structure would have to stand under it- so he’d be the first to know if it failed- so he has “skin in the game”- something that Mickey Mann doesn’t have
Real scientists do their best to test their theories against real world data.
Of course this is harder for some fields than others. But they still try. For example Einstein’s equations predicted that gravity could bend light. They then designed an experiment where they measured the apparent position of a star that was close to the sun during an eclipse. They built the equipment, waited for an eclipse and made the measurements. And that aspect of Einstein’s equations was confirmed.
There is almost a 1 to 1 correlation between arts graduates and leftists.
I know quite a few leftists who aren’t arts graduates who think that way as well.
The very notion that companies have “social obligations” is a left wing imposition on others.
The claims of mis-information have been coming almost exclusively from the left.
It’s not just claims of disinformation, it’s also a massive amount of actual disinformation (or propaganda) that is generated by the left. See “Climate”, “Covid”, “Hunter’s Laptop”, “Biden’s competency”, etc.
Russiagate is another. Even though it’s been completely disproven some Democrats just can’t let it go.
It’s really funny watching Democrats justify why whistleblower protections that they have spent 40 years building up, don’t apply to people who blew the whistle on their scams.
I don’t think that there is a lack of claims of disinformation about false claims made by the climaterati or the left. However, as the investigations behind this article and the reports it contains reveal, many of those claims are suppressed. You have to be aware of the Samizdat circles where such information can be found, and still to have an open enough mind to read and evaluate them. We have yet to reach the Nirvana of loving Big Brother, the objective of Schwab for his brave new world of clockwork oranges.
Leftists: 2+2 “=” 5
Measure the CO2 gain constant instead of using invalid computer models. The test apparatus would need to be big and would be expensive to build.
Test apparatus details:
Determine the gain factor by changing the CO2 concentration, the temperature at the base and the pool being dry or wet.
This is a giant Pirani gauge.
To measure the CO2 gain constant, just as the first sentence explained.
“The CO2 gain constant” is gibberish.
Going to be tricky. You’d need to have an open top to allow water vapor and OLR to escape. You will still miss the reduction in water vapor at high altitudes which compensates for the increase in CO2 IR absorption.
In some cases, such things are warranted
I know my opinion doesn’t count for much, but it appears to me that you are suggesting that censorship (the previous sentence about “effort to reduce misinformation” – not intended as an exact quote – appears to be what you are referring to). I don’t think any form of censorship or suppression is warranted: combat bad information with good information. Once you start down the path of censorship you allow for all sorts of censorship, which is where we are now. Who decides what is “misinformation”?
From my time here, I think I’m reading this wrong. WUWT has always been open and never engaged in censorship that I’ve seen, and generally abides by what I say above (combat bad information with good information). But I’ve read over that section several times now and I don’t see any different interpretation.
If you would, I would appreciate clarification of the point that was intended, that I appear to be missing.
We have for over a decade a policy of not publishing on certain topics. You can read it here:
The relevant sections are:
As a platform publisher, I have the right to veto certain topics submitted for publication, especially topics that have a tendency to devolve into flame wars and bring the entire website into disrepute.
I should probably update the list to include flat Earth theory and moon landing denial.
Some topics might be promoted primarily so that they can be associated with others?
My 2 cents.
Sometimes the line gets fuzzy.
But most commenters here put their pies down before it becomes a food fight in Anthony’s living room and the ModSquad needs to step in.
Reading through the comments, Joseph reminded me that you also said “I think we do a pretty good job here at WUWT of weeding that out and we work hard to present information that is factually accurate”
That’s probably the part I was missing. With the volume of submissions I’m certain you get, WUWT probably can’t publish everything that is submitted so you have to choose what to publish. In such a case I can understand a certain amount of vetting.
With regard to more open platforms (i.e. the TwitFace stuff), I stand by my statement.
We get submissions using UFO sightings as a proxy for temperature, that say F=MA can be applied to changes in concentrations of gasses, and that runaway water vapor will fry the Earth in a decade if we don’t stop it. I’m sorry if some of your pet ideas, not quite as crazy as that stuff, but just as wrong logically, do not make it through to publishing.
Charles, what is roughly the ratio of articles received to articles published ? I’ve always assumed it wasn’t statistically worth the effort to submit anything other than comments…sometimes too wordy…
The more groundbreaking and definitive it claims to be, the less likely it is to be sane and published.
Submissions that cover too much ground, attempting to refute any point ever made are likely to be nothing but assertive rants and will likely be rejected.
The publishing rate is pretty high, perhaps as high as`30 percent, but a lot of these are from repeat submitters, and generally more focused on media, politics, and energy policy.
Most of our crazy submissions are from people with a novel take on pretty simplistic science and physics.
I remember hearing back in the the late ’70’s, early ’80’s that there was a push to introduce the idea of the probability that 2+2=4 into school math classes.
Well, the obvious example it is not is when rounding is introduced. There is a lot of this in climate science:
2.4 + 2.4 = 4.8
That rounds to
2 + 2 = 5 which is technically true. We see that all the time with columns of % that do not add to 100%.
It doesn’t say 2.0 + 2.0 = 5.0 which would not be true.
2.04 + 2.04 = 4.08
That rounds to
2.0 + 2.0 = 4.1 another true statement given the inputs. There is normally a caveat at the bottom of a chart indicating how these inconsistencies come about.
That is simple math. Climate math is, “If we keep emitting CO2 at the present rate, the temperature of the world will increase 3 degrees C by the year 2050,” and omit to report the uncertainty of the model results which is ±20 C.
It is suspected that Zack would happily approve the model mean while suppressing the uncertainty because, “That would give ammunition to the deniers”. Facts are pesky and persistent.
Great article. Name names. Shame scoundrels.
I like that.
Keep going back and forth until you get the answer you want.
Add decimal places where needed. Round them up or down as needed. Ignore any decimals that don’t fit when needed.
Completely ignore that the original was 2+2, with no decimals.
That’s all the significant digits you have … until you homogenize…
Yes Principia Scientifica site is the perfect example of why you must have some limits. WUWT is extremely reasonable and more than willing to debate anyone in the comments section on climate issues and allowing reasonable off topic excursions .
Charles, none of those are my “pet ideas” and I can’t imagine any ideas I hold that might fall into that category. My point was that once you engage in censorship, the next step is “who decides”, and that’s how we got to the place we’ve gotten on the public forums.
In the case of WUWT, Anthony decides, as is his right. I may differ on some of his choices (I can’t say if I do since I don’t see all the submissions) but I can certainly agree with limiting those that historically become nothing but flame wars. Also, as I noted, I’m certain WUWT simply can’t publish everything that is submitted. It’s a different type of forum than the unrestrained social networks.
The comment that you are replying to is a reevaluation of my original statement in light of a comment that Joseph Zorzin made. It’s a distinction between private and purportedly public platforms that I was not considering in my first comment.
My apologies, I deal with so much crap, I forget whose pushing it.
I deal with so much crap, I forget whose pushing it.
I don’t think I could do your job around here.
The mere fact that Zach Fishman is employed by Newsguard says that climate skeptics are slowly winning. There are some BIG undeniable truths that the alarmists think can be disappeared via censorship. But they live and are easily found on the internet so cannot ever be disappeared.
Rud, regarding your #2 — hotspot that does not observationally exist.
“But they live . . .”
On the right side of joannenova com au (add dots . ) there is a link to “The Skeptic’s Handbook” from 2009. On page 4 is a section called “The greenhouse signature is missing”
WUWT came on-line in 2006. I started reading in 2008 with access via DSL. One of the first articles I found was Stephen McIntyre’s (Climate Audit) Ohio State Presentation
Another interesting article can be found as “edblickrant” — real title is “UN Infects Science with Cancer of Global Warming”; a 2008 document.
In the past 17 years or so a lot of information has been presented on WUWT and other sites. It is claimed that info on the internet never goes away. I wonder how much Zack Fishman has read?
JH, my opinion is that he has read nothing of the voluminous skeptical literature. Not just all the factual blog posts but many books, most recently Koonan’s Unsettled. My Lindzen vetted long climate chapter in The Arts of Truth published in 2012. My ‘Blowing Smoke: essays on energy and climate’ with a foreword by Judith Curry published in 2014. At that time, Zach was entering high school.
An old saying applies: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.
You can lead a liberal to water, but you can’t make it think.
10. Extreme weather patterns have not changed (grown worse) in over 100 years of recordkeeping.
In fact, if there’s been any change, it has been an improvement. See EF3 – EF5 tornadoes.
I did spot a news headline today about Manhattan sinking because of the weight of all the skyscrapers.
You have to wonder whether his change of bio included a name change. Fishman seems so apt for his current occupation. You have to hope he meets Frank Butcher sometime. Perhaps a new name for Rubin – though he seems to enjoy rubbing it in?
Think that was the “West Side Highway” Hanson spoke of.
‘NewsGuard is a Pentagon funded member of the US Government’s Censorship Industrial Complex.’
If the American electorate / Republicans don’t quickly act to eliminate these and other similar government-funded erosions of the 1st Amendment, it’s game over.
I respect the US military as much as the next person, but if they’re funding crap like this then maybe we’d be better off with a well-armed citizenry and state militias, rather than the standing army which many of the founders feared.
Good to know that the DOD spent about $1900 per Twitter follower of Mr. Fishman.
It’s actually infuriating that they spent a nickel on promoting Mr. Fishman’s propaganda echo chamber.
Something that is not well known, but the Constitution still contains a section that forbids Congress from funding a standing army for more than two years consecutively. To wit, in the section on the powers of Congress, it says: “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” It is my interpretation that what makes a standing army legal is that any appropriations must be renewed at least bi-annually, if not annually.
I hadn’t thought about this before, but I think you’re probably correct that we technically don’t have a ‘standing army’ due to the allowed two year limit on funding. Makes one wonder how the Pentagon accounts for long-term weapons procurement programs, base leases, pensions, etc. But I guess we can just file such questions in the same bin with all the others re. how the state always seems to navigate around its Constitutional limits.
As an aside, I saw a story yesterday that the BBC is setting up a new ‘Reality Check’ department to debunk fake news. One might presume they mean other peoples fake news, as if it debunked their own, the BBC would have nothing to say at all.
Fantastic. Same with USA public media – yet I listen. It is true that the lib arts minded produce better oratory than my own engineery types. The voices of USA PBS sound buttery and luxurious and string together nonsense that sounds … beautiful.
Will they include Attenborough in their checks?
No. Attenborough is heavily protected by the BBC, no matter what. Much like they used to protect Jimmy Savile.
I interpret the news that the BBC is creating a “fact-checking” department as a tacit acknowledgement that the organization knows that it has lost public trust and credibility.
A case of Fishman going fishing…. and coming up empty handed
I’ve occasionally tried to see if NewsGuard has a rating for the partly public-funded U.S. PBS NewsHour news outlet, but I haven’t found it yet. That’s the outlet where I maintain my own running count of its number of IPCC- / NASA- / NOAA-associated scientist guests who toe the IPCC / Al Gore line about CAGW, versus the number of skeptic climate scientists who are permitted to detail the realist side of the issue at reasonable length. See: “NewsHour Global Warming Bias Tally, Updated 3/2/23: 112 to 0.” Whenever I update that post with a new appearance of some alarmist government-level scientist, I also update the overall count of major discussions / significant mentions of the CAGW issue, and while the count currently at my page shows 1,436 times dating back to 1996, the actual ongoing count as of last night is 1,465 times. If there is any reporter out there wishing to do an analysis of just how biased the Newshour is on the CAGW issue, I’d be more than glad to share my mega-notes pile with broadcast segment links / keywords from the broadcast discussions / significant mentions, in case there is any doubt about the numbers I have.
Folks on the other side – NewsGuard zealots likely included – say too much fair balance has been given to skeptic scientists in the news media that they don’t deserve, but the zealots couldn’t prove that assertion true if their reputations depended on it. I prove the opposite to be true.
I hope someone pays for your work.
These fact checkers are the enemies of free speech and liberty combined with cluck bait MSM journalist ( they are just plainly irresponsible inconsiderate practitioners of journalistic malpractice). The faint glimmers of hope here and there that “ people are catching on” are just that- faint. This is a titanic struggle in the making. And some of these people in government and journalism are crossing into the category of “ evil”
‘Fact checkers’ is a misnomer. They are censors who deal in lies and half truths.
Agreed. The Heartland Institute was fact checked over hurricanes and climate change. The fact check was “they are projected to increase.” As if models are better than data. I laughed and immediately stopped reading when I read that statement.
I heard a new idiocy today – someone’s announced that we (as a species) evolved in a temperate region, the upper level of human tolerance is 29C and that less than 1% of the human race live in areas where this was the norm, before climate change. Someone should’ve fact-checked it as (I believe) our species evolved in the tropics and our tolerance range goes far higher than 29C.
Maybe someone needs to remind them about how tolerant human beings would be in COLD climate conditions absent reliable electricity and on demand central heating, virtually all of which is provided by fossil fuels.
Then maybe parachute them into Antarctica for a demonstration of what human “tolerance” for cold climate is.
while the climate alarmists of the world deal in “scary scenarios,” such as the recent hype that the coming El Nino will push us past the “dangerous” 1.5°C tipping point,
They need to get on the same page with Google or Bing-
El Niño predictions differ between US and Australian forecast agencies. Who is right? (msn.com)
My logic checker says that in the past it was more than 1.5C higher than today, and yet here we are. Therefore, 1.5C is no tipping point.
At least where I live, the monthly temperature swings are in the 15-20 degree range–that is, for any given month of the year, the range is +/- 10 degrees from the average. Interestingly, the widest swings are in the coldest months, not the warmest. Somehow, 1.5 degrees doesn’t seem threatening.
Sciss, you know Mann erased the Roman Warm Period and it was just a local thing (well except for a study on Australian cave stalactites apparently). Its just been getting hotter and hotter since the glaciers left 10,000 years ago. Just accept it…
Not only is it no “tipping point,” when the “baseline” is The Little Ice Age,” the coldest period during modern human civilization and a period of MISERY AND SUFFERING for humanity BECAUSE OF how cold the climate was then, 1.5 degrees warmer is called GOOD NEWS.
It may not break past 1.5C or even 2016 in the UAH satellite. I fully expect it to break on the other sets though, because they’re corrupted by adjustments, UHI, homogenization, etc. We badly need a new surface station network independent of the government. I think that could actually endanger the whole CAGW all together, because if more people see the UAH and read Roy’s content. They’ll see how objective and unbiased Roy is, and start questioning the other sets. The El Niño may actually set the stage for the end of the CAGW era.
Nah, let them go ahead and cross the “threshold” they’ve been Chicken Littleing about for three decades.
Maybe when all can see that nothing noticeable happens, some light bulbs might finally come on and the wind will go out of the sails (pardon the pun) of the “climate Boogeyman” scare stories.
There they are again, showing everyone that they know that El Nino is the source of warming… NOT CO2.
Praying for an El Nino to break the zero trend.. 😉
I come to WUWT to get a feel for what is going on outside my area of specialization. I really appreciate the discussion of issues in the comments, particularly since I cannot evaluate most of the postings myself.
While I agree WUWT mostly reports factually and accurately, there are times when it doesn’t. For example when Steve Milloy’s bogus April 2023 is colder than April 1895 disproves global warming was posted, I was appalled. Perhaps, I missed something, but I learned that weather is just weather. There’s significant year to year, decade to decade, and century to century variability. Don’t post his content in the future. He makes all climate skeptics look bad.
‘Why most published research findings are false’. John Ioannidis. Most means at least 50%, but more likely 90-95%. From not reproducible to downright wrong.
You may find the odd mishap on this blog but by a long way not on a scale like that.
It wasn’t bogus, it just wasn’t as meaningful as he made it out to be.
Bingo. Why I had little problem with it.
When you consider the alarmist claims are based on the erroneous claim that CO2 “traps heat,” Mr. Milloy’s assertion can be seen as a refutation of that notion, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
They can’t trot out “natural variation” as their defense to all of their bogus predictions not coming to pass until they are ready to admit that said natural variation can account for everything that has occurred since “pre-industrial” times.
“nearly $750,000 award from the Department of Defense to NewsGuard, an organization the independent journalists characterized as a “government-funded” entity”
Hey! That’s my governments money! I can’t say it’s my money anymore because my taxes mostly pay interest on my government’s debt.
At least we should have a 1st amendment argument that they are government censors.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Sorry, there’s nothing scientific in that statement, which is little more than a Freedom of Liars doctrine, or at best Freedom to Exclude X percent of the evidence.
No “at best,” you had it right the first time. Freedom of Liars, indeed.
Remember Mr. Schneider was ALSO on the “global cooling” bandwagon, including the notion that climate cooling was ALSO because of industrialization and our use of fossil fuels, INCLUDING the prediction that the cooling climate would lead to…wait for it…MORE EXTREME WEATHER.
This is why what is laughingly touted as “climate science” has ZERO CREDIBILITY.
Next time you communicate with Zack try a Rubin on him but challenge him to respond.
Hi Zack. You know nothing, absolutely nothing of importance in understanding the climate. Don’t believe me? Then answer these two simple questions? 1) wat causes the ENSO cycle (not what is ENSO, but wat causes it). 2) Given that a CO2 content below 160ppm would be disastrous, and given that you claim that an increased CO2 content over what it currently is would be equally disastrous, then what is the right, the optimal, concentration of CO2 for the best possible state of the atmosphere and biosphere? I guarantee you that you don’t know the answers, perhaps are even clueless of why they matter. So, until you know the answers on these questions, perhaps you should be a little less judgemental of people who know much more than you.
The point being, of course, that there is no scientist of any description who knows the answer to either of the two questions.
Millennials are so much fun. They never admit that their mommies dropped them off and picked them up at school everyday to protect them from being kidnapped. The poor little dears never had to learn to protect themselves and now as adults they want to do the same to you.
I’ve yet to see a fact checker that didn’t take issues out of context and then “fact check” the straw man lie they just made up. Obscuring material facts appears to be their primary function.
I remember the days when DoD and other agencies funded disinformation and propaganda campiagns against America’s enemies, not Americans.
NZ’s equivalent to NewsGuard would be The Disinformation Project…
It’s not as easy to determine where they get their funding as doing a search on the web like what Rubin did, but I think it’s safe to say the government are funding them. They will not answer questions from anybody who might ask something awkward.
For an article on how schooling in Australia is being influenced, read this Quadrant article by Tony Thomas and weep.
After the weepeing, get involved in the corrections that are needed for your children to receive the education that you expect and they deserve.
The canadian contribution, canESM5 is the most wrong of them all.
It’s as though Justin himself built the model.
Isn’t that the one at U Victoria that was run by Andrew the now-Green Party politician? It used to be the second worst in the world with an ECS of 6.0 or something. RCP 8.5 was a ridiculous creation to drag the ICPP “central estimate” up to 4 or something. Even the crazies no longer accept the 8.5 scenario and the Canuk megawaste has dropped below 6.0. Maybe this constitutes “progress” amongst the progressives.
It never ceases to amaze me how in the modern era, well “educated” people, having read the story of Galileo fail to understand how political authority or authority of any kind is totally unrelated to truth in science. ”Climate Change” will be recorded in the history books along with Galileo, Plate tectonics, Piltdown man and all the other follies of human kind.
I’d say the so-called “scientists” feeding the “climate crisis” propaganda will be seen as the Lysenkos of the west.
As they should be, being purveyors of junk science being used to drive economically ruinous policies.
Do the tens of millions of students have a say in having their news censored, or is it just the parents?
And do all 1.7 million AFT members have to endorse this arrangement?
OMB Responsibilities Section 515 outlines quality control and assurance requirements for government agencies stating they shall adopt a basic standard of quality (including objectivity, utility, and integrity). In supporting data they state that journal peer review is an inadequate standard of quality for issues that have significant financial consequences. This would basically dismiss the IPCC reports as valid science. Yet I see little effort on the skeptical scientist community to challenge the bias in various US agencies publications and websites.
Alarmist science will hold up in court because government information reports and websites are biased and lacking in objectivity and judges will defer to them.
Effort should be directed at challenging government generated misinformation and attempting to force them to live up to the quality control and assurance mandates they are legally obligated to adhere too.
GREAT article! Absolutely spot-on!
The leftists who run Google / YouTube / Alphabet only pretend that their censorship is to combat misinformation. They don’t actually mind misinformation, per se. If they did, then the paid ads which they insert into other people’s YouTube videos wouldn’t be 50% scams.
They don’t mind that misinformation, because the scammers’ money is green.
They’re very willing to _____ their users for the right price. It reminds me of another, very similar, but older, profession.
I think the reason they censor people they disagree with (except the ones who pay them) is that…
Fishman’s falsehoods demean true dorks everywhere.