Essay by Eric Worrall
Apparently free speech is OK, as long as the Australian Government thinks what you are saying is true.
Senate committee features climate disinformation, the Atlas Network, and Dr Karl’s clash with One Nation
By business reporter Gareth Hutchens
Disinformation and Misinformation
Thu 19 Feb…
The Senate’s select committee on information integrity on climate change and energy held two days of public hearings in Canberra this week.
…
The committee is investigating how online bots and trolls, disinformation campaigns and tactics like “astroturfing” (fake grassroots campaigns) are delaying global action on climate change and renewable energy.
…
But how does one definitively “prove” that someone is acting in bad faith? Who gets to be the judge?
…
Meta would know that some of today’s most powerful political leaders are relying on the viral nature of algorithms to spread deeply racist, harmful and untrue messages.
It would know about Brandolini’s law, which states that the time and energy needed to correct misinformation is far greater than that needed to produce and spread it.
But Meta did not see that type of censorship of politicians as its responsibility, unless the politician was inciting violence, its representatives said.
“This is the problem,” Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah told Meta’s representatives.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-02-19/climate-disinformation-senate-committee-dr-karl-atlas-network/106350002
Sorry Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah. You had your chance and you blew it.
Before President Trump, greens enjoyed years of near total victory. Sure, there were always some people who looked beyond the hype, but for most of the last two decades, climate alarmists were rock stars. Billions of dollars were committed to the glorious green energy revolution. A young woman who quit school was invited to speak to parliaments and united nations assemblies.
Yet despite all the money spent, despite all the claims that renewables are the cheapest source of energy, fossil fuels still dominate energy production.
The truth is, the main thing holding up “progress” on renewable energy is it doesn’t work.
Even Trump hating film producer Michael Moore gets it. Moore set out to expose the fossil fuel conspiracy which he believed was holding back the green energy revolution. But this isn’t what Moore found – Moore discovered the real hold up is Green energy isn’t living up to its promises, that proponents appear to wildly exaggerate the potential of renewables, while swilling on public subsidies. And to his credit, Moore decided to tell everyone what he discovered.
Given this overwhelming evidence the renewable revolution is a failure, why would anyone call for people who express negative sentiments about renewable energy to be censored?
I think President Obama provided the best answer to this question.
Obama concerned that Americans ‘almost occupy different realities’
BY LAUREN SFORZA – 05/16/23 2:45 PM ET
…
“Today what I’m most concerned about is the fact that, because of the splintering of the media we almost occupy different realities, right? If something happens that, you know, in the past everybody could say, ‘All right, we may disagree on how to solve it, but at least we all agree that, yeah, that’s an issue,’” he said.
“Now people will say, ‘Well, that didn’t happen,’ or, ‘I don’t believe that,’ or, ‘I don’t care about the science,’ or, ‘I’m not concerned about these experts, you know, ’cause they’re just all liberals’ or, you know, ‘That’s just conservative propaganda,’” he continued.
The former president noted that one of his goals of the Obama Foundation is to get people to agree on a “common set of facts.” He recounted that when he was growing up, there were only three TV channels where viewers can get a “similar sense of what is true and what isn’t, what was real and what was not.”
…
Read more: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/4006754-obama-concerned-that-americans-almost-occupy-different-realities/
Oh for the days when everyone got their news from a small number of government licensed broadcasters.
They seem utterly desperate for our validation. They crave our agreement. And they appear prepared to censor as many “bad faith” actors as necessary, which appears to mean pretty much anyone who disagrees with their interpretation of the facts, to preserve their vision of free speech.
The Biden Administration made an effort to actually implement Obama’s grand vision of reshaping the US information landscape. But thankfully when they launched this initiative to censor America’s access to internet content, the person they picked to head their project turned out to be a clown.
For all his misconceptions about solar power and batteries, Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter was a truly monumental move against online censorship. Then after the assassination attempt at Butler PA, Musk’s energetic endorsement and active support of Donald Trump for President was huge.
Now we stay vigilant and we keep sharing sound material to counter the absurd claims.
About Meta, I have noticed on Facebook that the CO2 Coalition, Chris Martz, and now Lucy Biggers are often in my feed. Good!
On Jankowicz, I recall she was nicknamed Scary Poppins.
Are we sure Musk has any misconceptions about solar and batteries and is not just riding the wave, while making money?
And why shouldn’t he, after all that’s exactly what the likes of Gore etc are doing
A fair point. Perhaps it would have been better to say, “For all the misconceptions about solar and batteries he has been pushing….”
I think he’s now focusing more on AI than Tesla.
He has Starlink and Space X as well.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2026/02/21/europe-retreats-from-climate-change-during-international-energy-agency-global-meeting/
Some people have missed the train ….
😉
At that link:
““Renewable energy is not about tackling climate change, it’s about economic growth and affordable and low energy prices,” Austrian State Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Zehetner told POLITICO on the sidelines of the event.”
Wow, my opinion of the intelligence of Austrians just dropped a few notches.
Another one who is lucky that breathing does not rely on IQ.
Uneducated people making judgement comments like this woman Senator reinforces the likelihood of there being an organised, not so good motivation – or at least influence from dubious groups like WEF and UN. Why else would people ignore or silence the horrible economics and the environmental damage of renewables while demonizing nuclear? Geoff S
There are several organisations pushing this absurdity. President Obama made no secret this is one of the goals of the Obama Foundation. There are also foundations associated with big US universities, such as the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, which in 2023 invited former NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern to become a fellow after she made a bizarre speech linking climate skepticism to mass shooting violence.
The real question is who is putting up the money to fund all this nonsense. I’ve got my suspicions, but no proof as yet.
No doubt it will be you and me and billions of other taxpayers. It is all inspired by the UN. Their cozy position is threatened by Trump.
It is a virtuous circle of radical left globalism that support their own. Democracy is subservient to the UN dictates. Trump was first leader to challenge globalism head on and bring it out in the open.
The UN has been striving for decades to impose an international tax that they collect and distribute. Free speech is eroding the control that UN has progressively imposed. The Climate Change™ scam is primarily their creation. The useful idiots who supported it will retire wealthy.
Yes, all these ‘global agencies’ are the run-to place for cozy all-expenses-paid retirement sinecures for many of the left’s dud politicians.
The list of names is already long, and getting longer . . .
It wouldn’t surprise me if China and Russia were fomenting much of the green revolution. It makes the west weaker and them stronger.
At least China is faking it rather well- I doubt Russia even has any wind or solar energy. Good thing too, as it would be so easy to destroy by Ukraine. 🙂
China is only faking it because the West is buying all their junk.
I think it’s one reason China has installed quite a bit of it- to help build up those industries in order to sell it as cheap as possible to the West. Remember, they have a plan to dominate the world by 2050.
Read “The Hundred-Year Marathon” subtitled “China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower” by Michael Pillsbury, available on Amazon. I’ve seen Pillsbury on some YouTube channels too.
JA:
Yes! Also, allows the CCP to bankrupt any foreign company that tries to compete with them.
So lets see:
1-keep China citizens employed & passive
2-sell lots of not very useful stuff to your greatest rivals
3-monopolize the wind/solar stuff that your greatest competitors have
stupidly purchased
4-watch as the “stuff” makes your greatest competitor’s economies fragile
I suspect that both China & Russia are funding the environmental NGOs to kneecap the fossil fuel industry of the West. The recent letter [posted here on WUWT] to the DOJ from multiple State AGs attests to that.
The KGB was heavily into funding so called environmental groups prior to the fall of the Soviet Union. Putin was the head of the KGB at that time.
Could it be that climate skeptics have noticed one phenomenon that the alarmists conveniently and regularly overlook: any weather /climate changes appear to be no more than the typical annual variations that have become so familiar. In addition, whatever is occurring can be adapted to thanks to the creativity and adaptability of most people on the planet. So let’s not lose sleep over an issue that we deal with and survive from on a daily basis.
I asked Google AI –
what prompted The Enlightenment?
It answered thus –
The Enlightenment, or the “Age of Reason,” didn’t happen in a vacuum.
It was the result of a “perfect storm” of intellectual frustration, scientific breakthroughs, and social shifts that occurred in Europe during the late 17th and 18th centuries.
Think of it as a collective “aha!” moment where people began to prioritize reason and evidence over tradition and religious dogma.
I’d like to think we’re on the cusp of another “Enlightenment” dawning.
I hope so, but a second enlightenment is like rolling double sixes twice in a row.
Ye of little faith, Eric.
I can source some “special” dice that can be tweaked to turn up any number of dots the roller wants.
Pennies for two-up too.
ha – if only life was that simple
Yeah it’s letting oneself get captured by ideology that makes life complicated.
Because rationality / reality (common sense?) and ideology cannot function in the same mind space at the same time.
If ideology dominates, one finds oneself grappling with why their lyin’ eyes are showing them realities that their ideology holds aren’t how things are supposed to be.
That way lies madness . . .
Well it certainly seems as though we’ve slipped back into Religious Dogma WRT the Religion of Climate Change.
Ask your friend what prompted the witch trials of the early modern period.
Then re-write substituting Carbon Dioxide for witches. It seems to me the
thinking, results, and fade-out are eerily similar.
Yes John, I just tried it; & as you say, eerily similar.
It’s not a ‘climate crisis’; it’s a ‘cognitive crisis’.
The enlightenment happened when enough people realized that praying alone did not prevent the great plague from spreading or river boats from hitting the rocks at the Lorelei. Looking to science, physics and functional rudders handled by a competent pilot did much more good in the short term.
According to the linked ABC report the committee is concerned principally, that ‘fossil fuel companies have funded certain think tanks globally for decades to push climate denial’ and to ‘delay action on climate change’.
There seems to be an obsession with coal.
Fossil fuels in 2025 accounted for almost 50% of Australia’s total export revenue: coal and coke 15%, liquified natural gas (LNG) 15%, crude oil and gas 17% (Trading Economics).
The only other export of note was iron ore 29%.
Have the ALP and Green members of this committee taken leave of there senses?
When Australia tries to claim its carbon footprint is getting smaller, does it count all the ff it exports?
CH:
I suspect there has been minimal donations to the climate crisis skeptical world by the oil/gas industry since Al Gore’s SciFi movie “An Inconveniet Truth” of 2006.
Compare this to the $2-3 billion per year that the US government hands out every year for climate research — but only to alarmists.
Up until Trump, the climate alarmists have done a masterful job managing the funding, the MSM narrative, and the peer reviewed literature on climate & energy. With Twitter becoming X and the 2024 US election, people are just srtarting to see the climate crisis emperor is rather scantily dressed. Better late than never!
You can see truncated versions of this exchange but the version on Facebook has been deleted.
The Senator is a new Australian, born to Sri Lankan parents in the UK. She had to renounce her UK citizenship to enter Federal Politics. I wonder where her desire to limit free speech stems from!
Winston Churchill.
I appear to be the only person I know who supports unfettered free speech. I also support the right of listeners to feel as offended, insulted, or annoyed as they wish. I decline to accept responsibility for the uncontrolled emotions of others.
Likewise, blog owners have the unfettered right to censor whatever they want. For example, Anthony says –
Of course, the laws dreamed up by politicians may insist that “service” must be provided in some cases, whether the provider wishes to or not! Funny, that.
Governments, in general, want a docile and submissive population, for obvious reasons.
As far as things like weather, climate, the “Greenhouse Effect”, gravity, and similar things go, as Feynman said “Nature can’t be fooled”. Governments, politicians, “scientists” and all the rest are free to suppress dissent as best they can – it’s their right. Occasionally, reality wins out over the strident howls of those who believe that reality is just an inconvenience that can be overcome by a consensus of fools.
I’m still waiting for experimental results to support the contention that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter. Maybe a politician could propose a law to that effect?
There is US precedent of a sort. In 1897, the Indiana House of Representatives proposed a law to define the value of Pi as 3.2 – much more convenient than the real, irrational, number. The passage of the legislation was supported by a unanimous vote of 67 foolish politicians. No opposition. The bill was eventually defeated in the Senate, when reality (surprisingly) triumphed.
Why bother with truth, when fiction involves much less effort?
“I appear to be the only person I know who supports unfettered free speech.”
Really? Are you? Are you really that full of yourself?
Unless you can find one other person who supports unfettered free speech, yes. From your comment, I infer that you don’t.
Why do you ask?
Is it OK to yell “fire” in a theater?
depends if there’s a fire or not
It is not illegal to do so, but if the intent is to cause mayhem and injury, it could have legal consequences. The same is true of defamatory speech–it isn’t illegal to defame someone, but it could have consequences.
I think it might be illegal to defame someone- it depends. It’s more OK if it’s a public figure. Otherwise, it’s considered slander which may be illegal.
There is a difference between something being illegal and something triggering a civil liability. There are very few criminal limits on speech in the US, but if one is defamed, the remedy is in civil court.
You can. It’s not illegal to do so. But, if there are injuries or damage as a result, you’ll have to suffer the consequences. Consequences doesn’t mean speech is “fettered”.
Freedom of speech is not the same as freedom from responsibility of one’s speech.
You infer an awful lot that wasn’t said.
He apparently doesn’t know anybody. 🙂
Pi: See, I have a rhyme assisting my feeble brain, its tasks resisting!
Maybe you meant “See, I have a rhyme assisting my feeble brain, it’s tasks oft-times resisting.”?
Sorry about that.<g>
“its”, not “it’s”
You’re right, of course. I copied verbatim. Sloppy on my part – I apologise.
The implicit and un-grounded assumption here is that when “reality wins”, the howling “fools” lose. This just isn’t so.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. And definitely adaptive, seeing how persistent it is.
“You really believe in freedom of speech if you are willing to allow it to men whose opinions seem to you wrong and even dangerous.” — Lord Justice Scrutton (of the UK, in 1923)
.
Of the more than 8 billion people on Earth there are precisely zero who (seriously) advance that specific “contention”.
No “experimental results” are required to refute a “contention” that absolutely nobody is making.
How do you know?
Valid point, I initially responded from a memory of a few months ago looking for instances of the precise phrase “adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter” and only getting back either “No results found” or copies of your comments under WUWT articles.
In this hyper-connected and fast-moving world it is always worth updating to “recent data” … which I lazily neglected to do until now … and attached below are the results from two Internet search engines for that specific phrase (the use of quotation marks is important).
Notes
– Duck-Duck-Go (DDG), which previously came back with “No results found”, only came back with two results this time, both from your comments under WUWT articles
– Google’s web-crawlers are more “productive” (/ less respectful of a website’s “robots.txt” file contents ?) than DDG’s, and came up with a couple of posts from Judith Curry’s “Climate Etc.” website as well as one from Roy Spencer’s blog. The rest of the seven pages of results all appear to be (after a rapid “skim”) from WUWT.
– The (2) Judith Curry hits came from comments by “Michael Flynn” and “Michael,Flynn”.
– The Roy Spencer blog entry (direct link) hit came from one of the many comments made by “Swenson” under the main article.
The commenter “Willard” systematically started his responses to “Swenson’s” comments with : “Mike Flynn, …”
The commenter “Nate” once responded with : “Obviously Swenson, or Flynnson, or Mike Flynn, or whatever alias he goes by …”
.
I have shown how even after considerable effort I have found that the only person on the Internet using the very specific phrase “adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter” is the one with the user name “Michael Flynn”.
I have noted (internally) in the past your predilection for extrapolating from what other posters actually wrote to “So you believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter …”, and then denigrating them for being “ignorant and gullible”.
NB : As a “free speech absolutist” I believe you have the “right” to say that. It doesn’t mean I have to approve of that (extremely childish, IMNSHO) behaviour.
Also, please try entering the search term “strawman logical fallacy” into your favourite Internet search engine and seriously reading through the results.
Having responded to your “How do you know?” request please return the favour and provide … I don’t know, let’s say three links to people on the Internet other than yourself either :
a) using the precise phrase “adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter”, or
b) seriously advancing an argument that is strictly equivalent to that “contention”
Reality is merely a social construct.
Free speech:
My family ran me off FaceBook.
I deleted my LinkedIn account after the “fact checkers” suspended my account for three weeks. CDC was a questionable data source.
YouTube (Google) straight out told me they terminated my account for my Covid 19 and climate comments & my appeal was rejected.
I quit X and SubStack fed up with the unrestrained bots and trolls.
MSN’s algorithm blocks comments at random & without appeal.
Years ago USA Today & Disqus placed a permanent ban on my E-mail address.
I sense that AOL has labeled my Email as spam so anything I send goes straight into the recipient’s spam folder where they never see it.
I’m back to snail mail trusting that USPS does not intercept and trash it.
So much for problematic free speech.
Consider creating a new email account
Several.
It’s still me and my comments.
Their community guidelines would nail that instantly.
Nicholas,
I know how you feel. I believe I was the first scientist to have a permanent block placed on my account at “The Conversation.”
Silly thing is, I can demonstrate success of global benefit from my use of good science.
The Conversation cannot.
Geoff S
Wear that as a tribute Geoff.
“This is the problem ,””
No, luvie, this your problem
Remember this from 9/22/2022: “The announcement by the California Independent System Operator (Cal ISO) on Wednesday asking California residents not to charge their electric vehicles during peak hours to help conserve electricity “. Newsom mandated EVs for 2030, and then he told Californians to not charge EVs just two weeks later. It’s classic!
Obama, engaging in climate misinformation:
News flash Aussies, the US has this concept baked in to their constitution called the First Ammendment
Adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment guarantees five key freedoms—religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition—protecting citizens from government interference. It prohibits establishing a national religion, restricting free exercise of faith, or abridging expression and assembly. While broad, protections are not absolute, excluding speech like true threats, incitement to violence, and defamation.
Key Freedoms Guaranteed
Freedom of Religion: Comprises two parts: the Establishment Clause, preventing the government from creating an official state religion or favoring one over another, and the Free Exercise Clause, protecting individuals’ right to practice their faith as they choose.Freedom of Speech: Protects spoken, written, and symbolic speech, allowing citizens to express opinions without fear of government censorship.Freedom of the Press: Ensures the media can publish information, including criticisms of the government.Freedom of Assembly: Guarantees the right to gather in groups for protests, marches, or meetings.Right to Petition: Permits citizens to ask the government to address grievances or change policiesKey being Freedom of Speech allowing citizens to express opinions without fear of government censorship. Something that was being severely stepped on during the Biden Administration.
. . . protections are not absolute . . .” Of course. The Government wants to keep the population docile and submissive, and at the same time convince them that they are superior to others. “Aren’t you lucky! You have guaranteed free speech – unlike countries X, Y, and Z.”
You enjoy “free speech” as long as you don’t say anything the Government doesn’t like. Or anybody who claims they find your speech “annoying” or “offensive”. And so on.
All governments seem pretty similar in that regard. All their actions are only to protect you from yourself, because politicians are the smartest people in the world!
The left has invented an exception to the first amendment. They claim that free speech does not cover “hate speech”. And of course hate speech is defined as any speech that makes a liberal angry. Which in turn is anything that a liberal disagrees with.
Actually in the US, the first amendment explicitly does permit “hate speech”, if for no other reason than people can’t agree on exactly what constitutes hate speech. People who have been fired for viewpoints unacceptable to an employer are either fired by a private employer (not the government) or been fired for some tangential reason. Otherwise they usually win their lawsuits. The only speech that can be banned by the government, that I am aware of, is obscenity.
Should read “Freedom of Peaceful Assembly”. Does not, and should not, protect “breeches of the peace” such as assault, violence (including property damage), or blocking public thoroughfares.
An individual’s rights to do something becomes limited when they are violating another’s rights.
(And there is no “right” not to be, or just pretend to be, offended.)
The 18th century inhabitants of the “colonies” were well aware of the fundamental importance of the “free speech” right, as the foundation stone on which all other “rights / freedoms” are built.
“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” — George Washington
“Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” — Thomas Jefferson
The following is by Benjamin Franklin, from which the highlighted phrase is often extracted as a stand-alone gem of wisdom.
Note also the constraint of “… as far as by it he does not hurt or control the right of another“, a qualifier often left off by people seeking to disparage “libertarians”.
And the 2nd amendment to protect the 1st amendment.
Their predictions fail, their messaging is that humans are evil, and they wonder why there’s not enough “climate action”.
The committee is to present a final report by 4 February 2026.
Where can one obtain this report? – I’d like a good laugh.
Yeah it’s a real problem shutting all the skeptics down-
Bureau of Meteorology says Warrnambool recorded its hottest day ever but locals aren’t convinced
They obviously require a knock on the door and arrest for impure thoughts like Starmerfuhrer and Co
Warrnambool Airport was only opened in 1998. 😉
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_090186_All.shtml
You are presenting it like Michael Moore just randomly spouts his opinions (and then naive people randomly give him awards to which his work is not qualified). He is a professional propaganda producer. The only thing to his credit in this most likely was actually paying attention to the customers.
“Oh for the days when everyone got their news from a small number of government licensed broadcasters.”
Along with all the moronic entertainment- cop and lawyer shows, family sitcoms, soap operas, and the like.
From the article: “Today what I’m most concerned about is the fact that, because of the splintering of the media we almost occupy different realities, right?”
The “splintering of the media”, Obama says.
What Obama means is that up until 1996, the Leftwing Media had a monopoly on presenting the news of the day, as there were only three television channels at the time, all run by radical leftists.
Then, in 1996, the Fox News Channel started broadcasting, much to my extreme pleasure, as the conservative view was Finally being aired. Barack Obama considers this to be “splintering” the media because Leftwing propaganda no longer had a monopoly on the news.
Of course, conservatives had Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and others on the radio, but no conservative tv channels. I sure do miss Rush. He always put the proper perspective on things. The Left hated him for telling the truth and making them look bad.
So when the Leftwing Media loses its stranglehold on television coverage, Obama says this is a bad thing. He doesn’t like losing his monopoly on the Truth.
The Truth is Obama is a no-good Traitor to his country and nobody should listen to a word he says. He is a liar and a continuing danger to this nation, as are all his radical leftist cronies and fellow travelers.
Obama should be in jail for treason. Don’t listen to this underminer of the United Stares. He’s bad news. Radical Leftists are bad news.
I bet Obama wishes he could shut people like me up. That’s what he is whining about. The Truth hurts Radical Democrats.
“But Meta did not see that type of censorship of politicians as its responsibility, unless the politician was inciting violence, its representatives said.”
Hmmm. So, Australia is bad enough to make Meta – the Facebook that censored me when I linked articles from here – look like the good guy.
Gotta love Aussie politicians. Australia has CO2 emissions of ~420 million metric tons that it’s working hard to reduce. On the other hand they export nearly 400 million tons of coal annually which when burned will emit 1.35 billion tons of CO2.
In the accounting of emissions, it’s OK to burn coal in a developing country but a sin in a developed country.
The more someone uses the expression “you know”, the less I trust them. (Yes, I’m that old…..)