By Angela Wheeler
The only way to combat censorship is to shine a light on it whenever we see it.
In censoring material that contradicts the popular – though increasingly feeble – fiction of a climate crisis, Facebook is quick to discount the credentials of one of the world’s leading scientists while honoring sources of dubious credibility.
Our latest encounter with Facebook came in a message from the platform’s corporate entity, Meta, on December 4, which read: “Your Page, CO2 Coalition, didn’t follow the rules, so it isn’t being suggested to other people right now.”
Sorting through CO2 Coalition’s vast content to find what post could have been so egregious to prompt this reprimand, we found it to be a quote from the renowned Dr. William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University and Chairman of the CO2 Coalition Board of Directors. Dr. Happer’s provocative quote?
“Nothing but good can come from more atmospheric CO2. The Earth has experimented with much higher CO2 concentrations than today many times over the Phanerozoic eon, the last 540 million years or so, where the fossil record of life is especially good. Life flourished at four times more CO2 than today. There is no geological evidence that more CO2 will be anything but good for life on Earth.”
Facebook’s “fact check” of Dr. Happer’s quote referenced a group called Climate Feedback that, based on an appearance on CNN, said Dr. Happer “misleads about the impact of rising carbon dioxide on plant life.”
We did a little fact-checking of our own. Having seen the group’s website and a list of financial backers, we believe there is ample reason to be doubtful of Climate Feedback’s adherence to science and veracity.
According to InfluenceWatch.org, Climate Feedback has the same parent company as “the left-leaning fact-checker Politifact.” Both appear to be part of a loose amalgamation of postmodern censors, whose hallmark is to spread misinformation in the form of half-truths and outright falsehoods by accusing others of doing the same.
Perhaps in this case, Facebook’s greatest sin is its willingness to discount – or utterly ignore – Dr. Happer’s record of accomplishment.
In addition to a distinguished career at a prestigious university, Dr. Happer has received numerous awards for service in government and private enterprise. He invented a laser-based technology that made possible President Reagan’s “Star Wars” defense initiative and has published more than 200 peer-reviewed papers.
In a recent paper, “The Role of Greenhouse Gases in Energy Transfer in the Earth’s Atmosphere,” Dr. Happer and his coauthor say that whatever greenhouse warmth may be in store for the planet that “basic physics and the geological record indicate that the warming will be small and probably good for life on Earth.”
This and other statements by Dr. Happer are supported by evidence accumulated over many decades – even centuries – by myriad researchers drawing on various disciplines that include physics, geology, biology and history.
Putting up Climate Feedback’s lame challenge against such a legacy of scientific exploration would be laughable if it weren’t for its furtherance of a “green” movement that has cost the world trillions of dollars in wealth that could have been used for something useful. Billions of people suffer for lack of energy resources made more expensive and less available by a fearmongering climate agenda of the ignorant and ignominious.
Facebook also noted on the CO2 Coalition account that they “covered” the offending post “so people can choose whether they want to see it.”
We believe it behooves seekers of truth to examine posts that Facebook chooses to obscure.
Angela Wheeler is Vice President, Marketing and Multimedia, for the CO2 Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia.
This post was originally posted by the CO2 Coalition here.
Other examples of arbitrary censorship:
Facebook and Climate Feedback censorship: here.
Linkedin censorship here.
In peer-reviewed scientific articles: here.
Another Climate Feedback example: here.
Politifact gets it wrong here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Salute!
I am confused about the point Angela is trying to make.
Is it the Doc is not accurate?
Is it a so-called watch dog “truth detector” group has a beef?
Is it what
I am confused.
Gums wonders…
I think she’s on the side of free speech and against censorship and is calling Facebook out.
Exactly! She is pointing out that there is a difference between “facts” and “opinions.” This distinction is completely missed by Facebook and Climate Feedback.
Her ending statement is clear:
“We believe it behooves seekers of truth to examine posts that Facebook chooses to obscure.”
Don’t forget that Facebook’s legal defense when sued by John Stossel for defamation (fact checks saying the opposite of the truth, and limiting his for-profit enterprises’ reach as a result) was that a fact check is a matter of opinion, and therefore fact-checks (as opinion pieces) are protected speech.
A fact is a fact. A truth if you will. There is no in-between. It simply is or is not and this may be a matter of opinion but options can be wrong or plain rubbish unlike facts which never change.
I always refer to Facebook as farcebook.
Narcissist book. Like all social media.
Your definition. Not Facebook’s. Not the legal meaning. I was just pointing out their farcical defense rests on “fact checks are whatever we say they are and you can’t nay-say us”. Which puts a slightly different spin on the purpose of their fact checks.
Phrased another way, they are reserving the right to be the Ministry of Truth.
Indeed.
Nobody remembers Jack Dorsey, who told the Dems to pound salt. Sad.
Thanks Phil and Andy….
I think we need a better way to enclose “quotes” from other sources than the main author.
I tried hard to separate the poster’s position from the various “other sources”.
And for what it’s worth, the good doctor has made many good points over the course of the climate change discussions in the media as well as political venues.
Gums sends…
The climate millions of years ago is not a fact. It is an educated opinion based on proxy evidence. Proxies are not real time measurements and could be far from reality.
I believe seekers of truth should more closely examine posts that Facebook chooses NOT to obscure or censor.
No one claims proxies are measurements. However, they do provide strong evidence that previous eras were warmer or cooler than today.
Depends on what you call climate. If you measure climate by temperature and temperature alone, you may be correct.
However, there are other ways to determine the “climate” as being amenable to vast growth of flora and fauna. Fossil records being one. The size of flora and fauna and the abundance of life certainly tends toward the climate being conducive to life. Whether it was 60F or 80F is immaterial when judging the ability of life to flourish. We do know that amphibians flourished so it is reasonable to assume the overall climate was warm.
And rarely do I see facts (even as defined by you) coming from you. You provide overwhelmingly what I would call opinion, and not worthy of being called “educated.” You have just attempted to dismiss geology, paleontology, archaeology, astronomy, astrophysics, and even human history as being little more than opinion because we can’t make direct measurements of phenomena as they are taking place. You leave no room for inductive reasoning to create an interpretation from diverse facts.
“Opinions”?
No, deliberate, wantum, pseudo-scientific obfuscation, that would receive a failing grade in a reputable college, or ouster from class
Sounds like an AI regurgitation leading to hallucination.
Sometimes called virtual vomit – does not physically stink, stain or smell.
She states her point in her opening sentence.
The only way to combat censorship is to shine a light on it whenever we see it.
Facebook “censors” censored their page based on questionable “censors.” She is pointing out that hypocrisy.
So Zuck lied when he said ideologues are no longer going to censor Meta content. Big surprise!
It would seem so. Do what you say you will do Zuck!
Maybe some of his employees are engaging in passive-aggressive resistance as some of our federal agencies are doing.
This was back at the beginning of December, was Zuck “on board” at that time?
Time will tell. The wheels of justice and truth turn slowly.
This past week, they seem to have speeded up.
Zuckerberg said he was going to do away with outside fact-checkers, and have the fact checking done internally by Facebook members.
He either lied, or has not implemented his new policy yet.
You have taken confusion to a new level
You would not be confused, if your “mind” we’re not so far in left field
So called “fact checking” is more like censorship. I can do my own ‘fact checking’ thank you very much.
I agree.
It is comical that Meta/Facebook would defer to the mental midgets at Climate Feedback for judgement of science giants like Prof. Will Happer. But those troughers have chosen careers that will soon be obsolete as the climate change scam is systematically dismantled and reality regains currency in what we can hope will be an era of truly free speech.
Fact checking is often fact choking
Here is the problem:
“Your Page, CO2 Coalition, didn’t follow the rules, so it isn’t being suggested to other people right now.”
Didn’t follow the rules is not good enough. What rule? They shouldn’t be allowed to use that excuse without listing the specific rule word for word and what part of Happer’s comment broke the rule.
The rules are clear. When you sign up to Facebook you agree to all of their terms and conditions. One of which is that they can do what they like and you are powerless. Facebook is a private company and is able to do what it likes as long as it doesn’t break any laws. And there is no law that says that they have to promote any particular page. They are free to do what they like and that includes selling all of your personal information to the highest bidder.
Unless they’re acting as an agent of the government. Then there certainly are rules.
If FB is free to censor whatever it wants, it is a publisher, not a platform.
As a publisher, they can’t hide behind the legal protections of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.
According to the Wiki summary, they can…
So is “otherwise objectionable” the reason to censor Dr. Happer statements on FB? I despise FB and these other platforms who think their form of censorship (arbitrary fact checkers who remain nameless and whom fail to provide reference for their determination) in some way is protecting me from misinformation or disinformation. Consider the vindication of the entire COVID 19 narrative whether it be the lab origin, face masks, social distancing, lockdowns and the injection. Free and open debate is essential in a free society. Persuasion is preferable to censorship.
But they are not censoring anyone. They have just stated that they are not suggesting this particular webpage to other users. Currently there are about 3 billion monthly users of facebook. Now unless you want to claim that unless facebook shows all pages to all users then it is censoring people then you have to accept that deciding which pages to suggest to people isn’t censorship.
Not only what they are doing BUT WHY!
Are the fact checkers 100% certain they are correct in judging the post incorrect? If not, they are making their judgement based on opinion. That is censorship.
Yes, but..one could make the argument that those fact checkers are themselves spreading ‘misinformation’. I am not aware of the legality issues connected..
Speaking of mis/dis information, that veritable font of mis/dis information Wikipedia has this to say about accomplished physicist Prof Happer –
“Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist”
Would anyone care to venture exactly what scientific disciplines any “formally trained” researcher who claims to be accredited / proficient in “climate science” needs to demonstrate?
Let’s start a list of what disciplines “formal training as a climate scientist” should encompass –
6.. Hydrology
7.. Fluid Mechanics
8.. Engineering
Will Happer’s “major” is the physics of radiation… atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.
Seem eminently suited to a subject which uses radiation as its mainstay.
(6) Ability to predict doom while sounding hysterical and waving arms, without laughing
Being able to scream ‘How Dare You’.
Being familiar with Mike’s Nature Trick.
Electromagnetic fields and waves
Thermodynamics
Paleo (fill in the blank)
Molecular physics
I would say that “climate science” would be a sub discipline of meteorology. A climate scientist is meteorologist who specialty is the study of climate.
The core problem is accepting that ‘climate science’ is a discipline. ‘climate scientist’ Mann was a failed physics PhD who invented a bogus statistical routine to pretend that tree rings are treemometers, thereby erasing the historic evidence of MWP and LIA. Failed physics, failed stats, failed biology. But “successful” ‘climate scientist’.
Anyone can self declare anything. Doesn’t make it so.
The present lead example is trans females, for example Rep. Sarah McBride of Delaware in Congress. ‘She’ is a biological male with long term severe gender dysphoria.
Another example is NCAA ‘winner’ Lia Thomas, who competed as a male at U Penn, never finishing above top 500 nationally, until switching to trans female ‘her’ senior year. How convenient.
Another example was Biden declaring himself mentally competent until the first presidential debate (ironically scheduled by him) exposed the reality of his until then mostly concealed cognitive impairment.
We need to simply stop the ‘another’ examples. 47’s first week executive order on sex/gender attempts to do that. Rubio followed thru at State first day by halting ‘X’ and gender switching passport applications. Overdue.
Credit where crefit is due. He may have failed a Physics PhD but he did produce a very clever bit of software that will produce a hockey stick from any rubbish you put into it.
Custom fitted.
Wladimir Koppen and Rudolf Geiger are pioneers of climate science. See Wikipedia article about them and their climate classification system.
BTW: The “o” of Koppen needs an umlaut.
BTW: Not in English it doesn’t. How do you spell the capitol of Japan? How about Italy?
It’s standard practice in English to add “e” to an umlaut “o”. So should be “Koeppen”.
We should return to the Koeppen-Geiger classification of Climate rather than using crappy, corrupted temperature measurements.
“We need to simply stop the ‘another’ examples. 47’s first week executive order on sex/gender attempts to do that.”
An interview I heard this morning struck me funny.
A reporter was interviewing a conservative candidate for Canadian Prime Minister (sorry, I didn’t catch his name, I was half asleep) and the reporter asked the conservative what he thought of Trump’s Executive Order declaring that there were two genders, male and female.
And the conservative said it sounded logical to him, and he asked the reporter if he knew of any other genders, and the reporter was actually stumped for a reply. He didn’t know what to say! Great question!
Canadians should vote for this guy! 🙂
It was the great Pierre Poilievre. YouTube has several videos of him putting clueless Canadian journalists in their place.
It appears that Wikipedia has recently removed the information about Mann’s academic disciplines for which he received degrees. It is my recollection that one of his degrees is in geophysics, not physics. The others were in geology and mathematics. When I took geophysics classes, the emphasis was on resource exploration techniques utilizing the interaction of crustal rocks with the transmission of sound and electromagnetic radiation, and the distortion of gravity and magnetic fields, and changes in resistivity. From my experience there wasn’t much overlap with climatology. It was the foundational courses in physics that I also took that are most useful to me in understanding the claims made by climatologists.
Definition: Climate Scientist = anyone (scientist or other) doing climate research
There are no college or university degrees in “climate science”
Nope – There is nothing in climate science that resembles physics. Physics is one of the major areas of study that comes under the broad umbrella of science. Defined as::
Making computer models that are not supported by observation then using their output to make climate predictions is not science or physics.
The “science” of “climate science” is best described as the Humpty Dumpty science ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ It is an art of group think and consensus. The art of being a “climate scientist” is knowing the consensus and sticking to it; never daring to have an impure thought..
None of the testable claims of climate models have been verified. Many have already been discredited.
If the CMIP3 models were useful, why is there ongoing expenditure on “improving” climate models. They were wrong and newer versions are supposed to be right – for sure!!!
Well Rick, I’m comfortable with having “Perfidy” as the basic inherent discipline to qualify as a “formally trained climate scientist”.
Given the amount of fraudulent research from the universities, it should be a target rich environment for the Trump DOJ.
Yes – It runs deep in the government funded institutes in Australia like their ABC, their BoM and their CSIRO.
I was surprised when I started researching the issue. Many “climate scientists” seem to have degrees in “environmental science”. After checking several universities degree programs, none of these had mathematics beyond college algebra.
Many of the papers I read deal only with atmospheric phenomena using basic algebra only. Not one hint of gradients, just averages of averages than can be done by hand.
As far as temperature measurements, when was the last time you read a paper that discussed and determined the real probability function of the data set being analyzed? When did you see a study that included an uncertainty budget for the measurements being used? Everything is assumed to be Gaussian with random errors that cancel. Systematic errors can be canceled due to the number of stations. Give me a break.
These folks assume that because its always been done one way, it is ok to just follow the leader. That isn’t science.
I think that there is something to be said for the thesis that most PhDs in physics can’t hold a candle to the likes of Happer and Clauser and therefore, some choose to work in disciplines that are less challenging.
I would say an expert in atmospheric physics as Dr. Happer is, makes him about as close to an expert on climate science as anyone around.
And we can thank Dr. Happer, for, among other things, making our telescopes much better using Dr. Happer’s laser technology to allow the telescopes to take the best pictures of the universe they are capable of. An off-shoot of the Star Wars programs.
No formal training in enviro stuff is a plus for Happer, because it prevents bull manure from cluttering his brain
Remember, Einstein was a poor student in school, because he knew what they were teaching was bull manure, compared to physics of relativity, an idea he germinated while in school, and perfected while working at the patent office.
When he revealed it around 1905, he was reviled by just about everyone.
Turned out he was right, as proven by observations he predicted using his theory.
He has been laughing ever since.
Happer has shown CO2 ppm increases have exponentially decreasing warming effect, using radiation equations.
That has been called saturation, which is unfortunate, because that term applies to chemical reactions, and has nothing to do with radiation.
No formal training? He has a PhD from Princeton! At his age, I’m pretty sure that there were no universities awarding degrees in climatology. Many of the early workers came from Physical Geography and were more concerned with description of climate and the processes that produced geomorphic features associated with various climates. There was little concern about how climate might be changing at the time, with the emphasis on how climate affected the weathering processes.
My California Community College teaching credential authorizes me to teach Geology, Geophysics, or Physical Geography — but not meteorology or climatology. Somebody gave some thought to this a long time ago.
Clyde,
I may have written in an unclear manner.
The modern fad of Enviro education, and its associated GW misrepresentations, based on pseudo science, which professors are obligated to present to protect their careers, can clutter a student’s mind, including Happer’s. So it was a plus he avoided that.
He concentrated on Modern Physics, particularly radiation, almost all of which was developed in the late 1800’s and early 1900s.
Indeed but ( and i may be wrong) it seems to be based on the assumption that radiation is the main driver within the atmosphere which can be questioned (and is).
Happer showed the logarithmic-decreasing influence of CO2 with increasing ppm, which has been known for decades, but only now is presented again 1) to counter IPPC idiocy, and 2) to undo decades of brainwashing.
There are other factors increasing/decreasing the world’s temperatures, as is well know by examining the temperature records of the past 600 million years, that have nothing to do with CO2 ppm.
Radiation from the sun varies very little
Radiation warms the earth each day and cools the earth each day.
Some heat is retained on a steady basis, which ensures flora and fauna, including us, are comfortable.
CO2 plays almost no role in the heat-retention/distribution process, compared with WV.
The main role of CO2 is to grow flora and fauna.
The more CO2 ppm, the better
“Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist”
The case can be made for Michael Mann even more strongly because his academic background is in geology, geophysics, and mathematics.
But he *identifies* as a “climate scientist.” QED /sarc
It appears that there are two flavors of “Science” these days – Physical and Social.
I suspect that Facebook is applying Social Science norms – not traditional physical science.
The notion that any ‘social science’ is ‘a science’ is itself laughable.
+10
+ ∞
Climatology is a liberal art, not a physical science.
I don’t remember who said it, but I like the quote that “If you have to append ‘science’ to the discipline then is isn’t really science.”
When I first started teaching in the ’70s, one of my mentors was a survivor of the Pacific Theater, with a PhD in paleontology from UC Berkeley. He referred to the social sciences as the “Silly Sciences.”
I have to disagree. Ive been reading articles from the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They are pretty good and factual as opposed to the Australian Institute of Marine Biology which is filled w alarmists.
Next time a newsline mentions something alarming about say, Corals you can bet that latter institution is involved. Actually, i was watching a BBC doc about that very issue yesterday. And yes indeed, they were..
Social Science divides and labels people.
As such it is neither science nor social
Unsurprising. The real lesson is, don’t use Facebook, period.
No way can Zuck, even if he wanted to, fix the biases of his ~72k META employees.
Yes, he can. Elon showed the way by eliminating most of the useless positions. Meta with 7.2k employees would probably run far better and create much less drama.
This isn’t censorship. This is what is the claim:
“Your Page, CO2 Coalition, didn’t follow the rules, so it isn’t being suggested to other people right now.”
Having a webpage not being suggested to other users is not censorship. Nobody has a constitutional right to be hear or read. They just have a right to publish. There are billions of webpages available on the internet and the fact that google or facebook or whoever doesn’t suggestions that I read most of them isn’t censorship it is just a simple fact of life.
Also censorship cuts both ways. In the US the supreme court has ruled that computer programs count as speech. As such people have a constitutional right to write and implement whatever programs they want. Telling facebook that their algorithms have to work a particular way is as much censorship as facebook blocking a particular site.
…a distinction without a difference.
Never picked you as an ultra libertarian Izzy.
I always had you pegged as a leftist ideologue.
Will wonders never cease.
There was a time when lefties opposed war. Now, along with neocons they love it.
They learned how to love the Cheneys. This always makes for great conversations when you put it out there in a group of left leaning people, especially those involved in protests during the Iraq war like many of my friends and relations. But then, they probably consider me part of a conspiracy theory group in which case they can dismiss anything i say by default. They have been trained to think that way or am i being conspiratorial here?😀
Then how about we just call it “punishment” for not toeing the line?
They are not held liable for content posted on the basis of being a carrier rather than a publisher. Except they are censoring one side, thereby acting like a publisher instead. What is at issue to some of us is whether this voids their exemption from defamation and libel.
Again they are not censoring one side they are not suggesting one particular page to other users. Which happens all the time. There are 3 billion users on facebook and almost none of them cares about what my Aunt May’s cats are up to, nor does Aunt May care about most of the other 3 billion users are doing. So facebook has to selectively decide which pages to suggest to which users and under the terms and conditions that everyone signs up to when they create an account they can do that in whatever way they like.
If you don’t like facebook’s algorithms then the response in a free society is to create your own social media network (e.g Truth Social). But insisting that facebook works the way you want it to do is to apply unacceptable controls over its right to free speech.
Separate comment. “Fact checking” is a euphemism for censoring the ‘mis and dis’ information the left asserts the right provides. This is simply a clear example of projection. Accuse the other side of doing what you do.
Recent climate related examples:
And yet, not one of THOSE assertions will *EVER* be “fact checked” by “meta.”
Just as numerous “climate scientists” try to obscure or hide their data to prevent others from questioning their conclusions, most “fact checkers” do whatever they can to hide the facts and/or replace them with opinions where possible! This is right out of the neo-Marxist playbook of accusing others of what you are doing!
A REAL scientist welcomes attempts by others to discredit or disprove his theories! This is how one proves veracity; by knocking aside the slings and arrows of critics with better and more thoughtful ideas! A person who tries to claim greater knowledge based on authority or consensus is only showing their own ignorance and insecurity. If you’re standing with the truth, you don’t need a white coat or others standing with you to prove your point!
Can’t say just why, but your comment brought to mind that video clip of Biden telling giant falsehoods about his IQ and academic successes. Because some dude dissed him. The fact that he could do that in front of cameras tells you all you need to know about him.
Are you implying Joe Bribe’em did not drive a big rig, did not beat up Corn Pop and did not march side by side with Martin Luther King?
I have always wondered about the approach in climate studies (I refuse to use the phrase “climate science”.) If I were to publish a major paper on some subject, I would welcome someone finding the problem with it right away. I can’t imagine spending a lifetime immersed in some esoteric subject only to find in my dotage that it was all based on an error that should have been recognized 60 years ago. Imagine being on your death bed knowing your life was spent on a foolish chase of a chimera.
I have long said that one of the distinguishing characteristics of a liberal is someone who is out of touch with reality.
That comment is ‘triggering’ in a way they probably did not intend.
It’s another example of the Streisand effect: “an unintended consequence of attempts to hide, remove, or censor information, where the effort instead increases public awareness of the information” (Wiki).
When did Meta stop censoring Facebook posts in the US, changing to inviting comments?
(May not yet have in Canada, I now get a flood of posts promoting telephones and various other things including travel in Communist China and politics.
Don’t expect FubarBook to ever have quality. Its software is not stable, not surprising for something that grew out of frat boys rating females (view the documentary The Social Network to get some understanding of its owner).
I’m just a lurker on facebook to keep up with distant family activities.
As a web platform for communication / collaboration, it’s probably the clunkiest user experience I’ve ever encountered in a long career of software design / development.
No wonder it’s a free give-away, it would be unsaleable as a serious commercial CRM system.
facebook is free because you are the product. Meta makes money by selling your personal data to advertisers. It isn’t designed or optimised to do anything except that.
I’m in complete agreement with your observations Izaak.
(if it weren’t for the unsolicited / unexpected popups of scantily clad unmistakably genuine female photos, I’d probably exit from fb immediately.
That, beer and a nightly tipple of Bushmills is what suffices for “sinful pleasures” for me now.
Oh, and the laughs I get from leftists on WUWT of course 🙂 )
Climate is the statistics of weather observations. In countries like China or India, basic 10 year old student standard mathematics.
in the US, a PhD is required.
I can’t see any “science” involved. As Mark Twain reputedly said “Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it”.
Good thing nobody takes any notice of “climate scientists”, then. Maybe they should all resign, and show us all how important their pretend “science” really is! What a lark!
It has been known for at least five years that Facebook censors conservative views that do not agree with leftist / government view.
Yet conservatives continue using Facebook an whining about the censorship?
That is stupid behavior. Adding content and page views to a website that hates you.
I have never used Facebook and never will.
I think Zuckerberg is a leftist horse’s ass.
Long before the censorship problem was discovered, I did not want my opinions to be permanently owned by Facebook.
Can you imagine the censorship if I posted on Facebook that I celebrate CO2 emissions and global warming?
We have more leftist friends than conservative friends in our blue county. We have no desire to read what they write on Facebook.
Unfortunately, a conservative friend told us that a mutual leftist friend repeatedly trashed Trump with her Facebook posts. Even though she does not talk politics with us in person (we both voted for Trump). I no longer enjoy our leftist friend’s company knowing she “secretly” hates conservatives like us.
Facebook seems to encourage people to reveal more about themselves than they would have admitted in person before Facebook. For decades our leftist friend was just the long retired 6′ 1″ tall former top runway model in Detroit. Now I only think of her as a Trump is Hitler TDS hysterical leftist, now that we found out what she posts on Facebook.
Don’t believe everything the doomsters tell you cap’n-
Drone footage: Canadian freighter gets trapped in the ice of Lake Erie | Watch
Still 30C (86F) at 10pm in Adelaide for Australia Day 🙂
Happer’s claim and similar claims should be fact checked. Doing so would end the alleged coming climate crisis.
The so called crisis is not a fact. it is merely a prediction that started 50 years ago. Climate science has been ruined by wild guess 100% wrong climate predictions.
I do not recommend articles on my blog (over 12 on the reading list every day on climate and energy) that predict what Happer predicted, unless the rest of the article is very good.
Honest Climate Science and Energy
Comments here are missing the point. Happer made a long term climate prediction. Science require data. Predictions have no data. Happer had not even identified a regular climate cycle that he believes will repeat. Which would also not be a fact.
The future climate is unknown and unknowable. It will change. CO2 has an effect but at current levels a CO2 doubling will not have a big effect and will take 168 years at the current rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year.
Here is what Happer guessed and this is NOT a fact, it is his wild guess prediction:
“whatever greenhouse warmth may be in store for the planet that “basic physics and the geological record indicate that the warming will be small and probably good for life on Earth.” Happer
Stop all the climate predictions
End the hysterical predictions of global warming doom
Celebrate the global warming and greening of our planet in the past 50 years
The recent climate is reality with data and billions of witnesses. The future climate is imaginary with no witnesses or data.
Long term climate predictions are BS whether made by Happer or Michael Mann.
Predictions by Happer go in the crapper. Every other prediction too.
In a recent article here by Happer he claimed climate models were reflecting warming double or triple the actual warming rate. That statement was false. They do overpredict warming but the range is from 67% versus UAH to 20% versus NASA GISS.
In the past decade, UAH has increased +0.4 degrees C. while he IPCC long term prediction per decade was less than +0.2 degrees C.
My message is that Happer is human. He has made false statements contradicting data and he has made wild guess predictions. No one is perfect.
Michael Mann is close to perfect. Perfectly awful with his crackpot hurricane predictions and especially his Tree Ring Circus Hockey Stink Chart
“The future climate is unknown and unknowable. It will change. CO2 has an effect but at current levels a CO2 doubling will not have a big effect and will take 168 years at the current rise rate of +2.5 ppm a year.”
I’ll go a lot further, and agree with the IPCC, who said “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” Unfortunately, the IPCC then goes on to imply that future climate states can be predicted in terms of “probability distribution functions” or similar meaningless jargon.
Some eminently well qualified physicists refuse to believe that the future states of the atmosphere are unpredictable. They steadfastly reject the concept of chaos, and refuse to acknowledge quantum physics (the application of the uncertainty principle at the photon/electron interaction level), which as Richard Feynman pointed out, leads to the same level of unpredictability as chaos theory.
If “climate scientists” really want to demonstrate their indispensability, they should all resign in a fit of pique, and wait for people like us to come grovelling and snivelling to their feet, begging forgiveness.
Only joking. That’s about as likely as a pig voluntarily taking his snout out of the trough to save its owner money!
Climate science refuses to deal with uncertainty in measurements let alone uncertainty in predictions of a chaotic non-linear system.
I think of the designers of subatomic experiments and how to deal with measurement uncertainty and laugh at the ineptness of climate science. They couldn’t begin to pass an ISO certification. They’d get it back with a clown face on the front.
I would say it’s EXACTLY LIKE a pig voluntarily taking his snout out of the trough to save his owner money.
blob:https://wattsupwiththat.com/c18e673f-038e-48f6-a09e-1c1b66333352
About the Happer
long term
climate prediction
that got fact checked
Happer may be Dapper
And an old man Napper
But his climat predictions
belong in the Crapper
by RG, The Rapper
But I thought that Mark Zuckerberg was moving Facebook from the “fact-checker” model to Elon’s “Community Notes” model.
As ever: the truth is that ‘fact checkers’ do not seem to …mmm..check actual facts. They go to their ‘trusted sources’ and ask them and get their answers.You can bet that if that group has ‘climate’ in its name it usually supports the alarmist line. If that group is supported by state grants it is highly likely politically motivated.
If Zuck is serious these groups of fact checkers should be closed within their framework. My guess is he will continue as he probably sees the climate alarmist as factual instead of what it is: an opinion. You can always hide behind an ‘independent’ institution. No mea culpa needed..