Image 01 Image 03

Push for “Right Think” Marches On: YouTube Now Fact Checking Global Warming Videos

Push for “Right Think” Marches On: YouTube Now Fact Checking Global Warming Videos

The internet’s largest outlets for speech are slowly curtailing the kind of speech they allow, and never in a way that’s advantageous or encouraging to facts, discourse, or non-progressive thought.

Big Intenet is an increasingly hostile place for non-progressive thought and even science.

YouTube, who has a long, well-documented history of shutting down conservative and non-progressive channels is now using Wikipedia to fact check videos on global warming.

From The Daily Caller:

The company began adding small blurbs to “global warming” videos on July 9, according to the report. Text on the videos state: “multiple lines of scientific evidence show that the climate system is warming.” YouTube claims the policy, which is not implemented outside the U.S., is designed to add context to content dealing with climate change.

YouTube is using an algorithm rather than people to decide which videos get the blurbs and which do not, a spokesperson for the company told BuzzFeed. The feature comes off the heels of the company’s announcement in March that it would fact check topics that regularly promote conspiracy theories suggesting the government faked the moon landing or was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Environmentalists are cheering the move, while climate skeptics are crying foul. “I’d guess that it will have some influence, at least on those people who don’t know much about the subject,” Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told reporters. “Might be confusing to some people, but that’s probably better than just accepting the denier video at face value.”

One free market think tank that typically discusses climate change from a skeptical position noticed the changes early on. The Heartland Institute, a free market group based in Washington, D.C., told BuzzFeed that the labels began appearing on its videos about two weeks ago. Another conservative group claimed YouTube’s newfound practice demonstrates the company’s liberal bias.

“Despite claiming to be a public forum and a platform open to all, YouTube is clearly a left-wing organization,” Craig Strazzeri, a marketing analyst for conservative Internet outlet PragerU, told reporters. “This is just another mistake in a long line of giant missteps that erodes America’s trust in Big Tech, much like what has already happened with the mainstream news media.”

Earlier this year, YouTube instated new rules on videos linking to or promiting the sale of guns and fun accessories.

YouTube shut down our channel briefly, restricted several PragerU videos that weren’t remotely controversial (PragerU sued Google and YouTube), and banned Jordan Peterson before reinstating his channel (Google also kicked him out of his Google accounts at the same time). And this is just a small sampling.

Though not doing so outright, the internet’s largest outlets for speech are slowly curtailing the kind of speech they allow, and never in a way that’s advantageous or encouraging to facts, discourse, or non-progressive thought.

Tuesday, Professor Jacobson blogged about the Big Tech storm that mounted a coordinated deplatforming of Alex Jones. As Professor Jacobson rightly pointed out, it has nothing to do with Jones. Jones was a test. No one credible or respectable would or has defended Jones for good reason. But if Google, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify can do it to Alex Jones, they can do it anyone.

Even Slate is concerned about unelected entities regulating speech. “Whatever they do with conspiracy theorists, placing the distribution of information in the hands of a few tech companies will remain a very big problem,” writes Isaac Chotiner.

We’re effectively dealing with a free speech crisis wherein the enemy is not (amazingly) the government, but tech behemoths who’ve created the realm where the majority of speech, discussion, and thought is placed and now get to make the rules concerning what thought is allowed and what is too offensive for the public arena. There is no recourse, no appeal process, no justice system, just the court of public opinion.

It’s downright terrifying.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



“…is now using Wikipedia to fact check…”
Wikipedia, which we know doesn’t have an accurate page on Sarah Jeong, and won’t allow one.

“We’re effectively dealing with a free speech crisis wherein the enemy is not (amazingly) the government…”

I don’t think you know this for a fact. Who’s to say that this isn’t being coordinated by the DNC or Soros? There were an awful lot of companies that suddenly decided to de-platform Jones for it not to be coordinated.

Now, maybe not the legitimate, ELECTED government…

The deaf malignant narcissists leading the blind malignant narcissists.

I wonder if they are going to ban this one. Get it now before it is too late:

Gotta love George!

Questions warmists don’t like.

What are the photon absorption bands of CO2?
What are the photon absorption bands of water vapor?
What is the overlap?
What does it mean?

Wikipedia, huh?

Pretty feeble. Why not go whole hog and have the fact-checking done by the Southern Poverty Law Center?

This is the beginning of their collapse

The High-water Mark

Why does this remind me of the SNL skit about a version of Jeopardy where the answers to the questions were provided by High School Seniors, and the contestant who was a high school guidance counselor got them all right, even though they were actually all wrong. What happened in 1492? It is when the Civil War was fought. etc.

As a Ph.D. research chemist of 35 years with more than my share of publications, I find this entire story shocking. If there is a constant in the world it is how the MSM routinely cannot seem to get stories about science correct. Worse still is how the MSM and alternative news outlets have little to no clue concerning global warming or any of many other controversial subjects such as vaccines causing autism, AIDS, “chemtrails” (and other subjects that belong in The National Enquirer and nowhere else), etc.
For example, for global warming to operate as the MSM and the global warming crowd demands you must subscribe to there being a positive feedback mechanism between warming and water vapor concentrations in the atmosphere. I would venture to say that while many might have heard of the term “feedback mechanism” and while some may have a vague idea as to what this might be, none have the slightest clue as to why positive feedback mechanisms are rare to nonexistent in nature. (Increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere can only result is a tiny increase in actual temperatures so they hypothesize a positive feedback mechanism where this tiny increase in temperature results in more water vapor [a weaker greenhouse gas than CO2, but responsible for around 20x more greenhouse warming effects than CO2 due to its much greater concentration in the atmosphere] to enter the atmosphere. This increased water vapor absorbs more heat thereby raising the atmosphere’s temperature which then causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Positive feedback mechanisms are rare for they lead to run away reactions. In this case, what stops the the uncontrolled, runaway cycle of more water vapor causing more heat causing even more water vapor causing even heat etc., etc., etc.?)
Why this idea behind YouTube is so shocking is the simple question of who gets to decide what is real science and what is fake? If the peer review system used in scientific publishing has been co-opted by global warming zealots, then what makes YouTube think they are going to do a credible job? They will not for all they can do is to fall back and rely upon the popular vote from the public who are largely ignorant on these matters. This is not an insult on people for not knowing enough science, rather it is a simple statement of fact. For example, I know nothing about astrophysics, Chaucer, the Hundred Years war, etc., so asking me my thoughts about any of these subjects would be a fool’s errand for I am ignorant on them. YouTube’s arrogance in thinking that they can be the arbitrator between what is fake and what is real when it comes to issues such as global warming lies somewhere between farcical and terrifying.

    Water vapor amplification is absurd because the bands CO2 can absorb energy in (except for 15um – where there is not much energy) are saturated (optically) with water vapor.

    Adding CO2 (or even water vapor) changes very little.

“Guns and fun accessories” I presume that is meant to be gun the second time as well?

Robert Arvanitis | August 10, 2018 at 7:11 am

Government certainly IS involved in such arrogance and gives cover to leftists everywhere.
On seashell decorations, of all things, a proposition 65 warning: “This product contains a chemical known to the state of California to cause cancer or other reproductive harm.”
Let that sink in. “Known to the state of California.”
No one else need “know,” or have proof, because THEY know.

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, told reporters

Translated into English, “director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication” means “Minister of Propaganda”.

I’ll defend Alex Jones. Yes, his shows are so rhetoric filled that you need to “divide by six” to find bits of truth. But we have found some of those bits that he predicted to have been true.
Alex Jones is a result of the pendulum of opinion, swinging too far in the direction opposite of his “beliefs,” forced upon us by “our betters.” It’ much like oppressive managers and work conditions can cause the unionization of employees. He found that his opinion was shared by others and figured out how to make a profit in speaking those opinions in the public arena.
When an industry won’t self-regulate, the government steps in to do it for them. When you start limiting free speech, you are begging for the government to shut you down. This is the “flip side of the coin:” By over regulating, Social Media companies are BEGGING the Government to step in and regulate their output with a fairness doctrine

In the case of Social Media companies throttling opinion and free speech, I wonder if Jones hasn’t intentionally pushed the envelope to show how oppressive “our betters” are. If this is all “theater (I believe that it is),” Jones has put on one hell of a show to get his point across.

If that is the case, then once again, we’ll played sir!

Left leaning progressives can’t do that, because of their smug “I know better than you. I’m smarter than you” attitude filters through in every sentence. Conservatives would rather argue the point usually in a congenial manner, rather than ram their opinion down your throat. Rush Limbaugh is the master of this type of communication and the conservative bench is deep with talent, from Dennis Prager to Bill Whittle to Ben Shapiro.

But MAYBE the point of this over regulation of free speech is to have “the fairness doctrine” reimposed, not just on social media, but on all media, to give the Left leaning progressives a voice that they can’t sustain in the free market.

If you control the media and you control the message. But more importantly, use Saul Alinsky’s principe to make the enemy live by his own rules, enforced by the government to squash a bombast and his opinions. More likely than not, the government will lean left, especially in the long run.

    Big government is just the other half of crony capitalism. Swapping their various roles offers little correction to their common failures.

ABC, NBC, and CBS held a stranglehold on broadcast news dissemination from, essentially, the time of the Russian Revolution. Cable finally broke that stranglehold when the companies went after the municipal markets and started laying their cable everywhere. But it still took a good 20 years to break the ABC / NBC / CBS stranglehold.

There is similar story for the stranglehold of print media news dissemination by the major city dailies. It took the internet to finally break that stranglehold; again over a span of some 20 years, once internet access became ubiquitous.

We are currently facing a Facebook / Google-YouTube attempt at information control. Wonder what will come up to break their successes? I have no doubt that something will. Leftists never learn.

Switch to rather than wikipedia.

That the absorption bands of CO2 are totally saturated by water vapor is well known to anyone who has ever done infrared spectroscopy. Adding more CO2 would make about as much difference as putting on sunglasses in a pitch-black room.

Does anyone have any opinions on Big Tech like YouTube, FB, Insta, Twitter, preventing other material on their platform like images or videos featuring nudity or extreme violence? Are we open to a totally unfettered youtube? Not just speech and ideas, but images and videos (which are speech by a different process) with violence, nudity, pornography, etc.? Including terrorist videos that show beheadings and promote anti-American extremism?

If Google and Facebook take authority to censor content on their systems, can they then be held responsible (and sued) for the content that they DO allow to run? Libel, slander, consumer fraud, etc?

If they are censoring and editing content then this makes them liable for everything published on their platforms. At some point they aren’t just a public forum where everyone has equal access. They are a publisher and can be sued as such. If the right had the lawyers the left does then these companies would already be facing more lawsuits than they could count.

I have to think that day is coming. it might even be a leftwinger who makes the argument they are a publisher in some sort of blue on blue action. Any weapon at hand in a fight and all that. I have already dumped all of my Facebook stock and am looking at trimming holdings in the other tech behemoths because they can’t keep acting like this without there being serious consequences to their bottom line at some point. You can’t declare half the country to be unpersons and get away with it forever.

Speaking of “GW” –
why doesn’t anybody mention the effect of the thousands of tons of Carbon Dioxide (and Water Vapor) placed in the Troposphere every day by jet planes. The contrails seen show only the water vapor, not the carbon dioxide that the GWers complain about so ear-piercingly frequently (and incorrectly).

    MajorWood in reply to paracelsus. | August 10, 2018 at 6:29 pm

    The irony of the chemtrail followers is that well defined contrails are a perfect example of how much more efficient the turbo fans are than the turbojets which preceded them. Turbojets would expel hot gases which would disperse before they condensed into a thin layer, whereas the turbo fan system rapidly cools the exhaust by turning the heat into mechanical energy to power the large fan (a big ducted propeller) which then surrounds the exhaust with cooler gas that causes it to condense into a thick stable stream.

    A real scientist looks for alternative explanations which need to be disproved first to support their hypothesis. A climate scientist only looks for a politically viable explanatin while denouncing all others.

No recourse? Wrong! In the marketplace there are always alternatives or the opportunity to create them yourself.

Don’t like Twitter? Go to

Don’t like YouTube? Create your own!

You can’t say the Government is not that solution and then expect it to fix every problem!

#ClimateNAZI youtube says “No Denying For You!!!”

If they are going to police their content they should get no exceptions for the same. One standard or the other, not both protections.

Treat them like a publisher not Ma Bell, unless they act like Ma Bell.