Image 01 Image 03

If You Liked Covid Censorship, You’ll Love The Latest “Climate Change” Censorship Push

If You Liked Covid Censorship, You’ll Love The Latest “Climate Change” Censorship Push

Advance Democracy activist group “investigates entities undermining the global consensus on climate change”

Big Tech spent two years censoring much-needed debate about covid-related measures like lockdowns and masking; anyone who didn’t parrot the “approved science” was banned, shut down, locked out.  Now that the CDC is saying the same thing the “disinformation spreaders” and wrongthinkers have been saying all along, it’s suddenly okay to question the efficacy of cloth masks, etc.

Climate alarmists apparently got thrills up their legs at the censorship potential for their pet cause and have been calling for information sharing and public debate to be censored just as aggressively as the truth was censored during the height of the pandemic fear porn onslaught.

The targets for this latest call for censorship are the usual suspects: Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter (Tik Tok is also included).

USA Today “reports” (archive link):

Climate change falsehoods, hoaxes and conspiracy theories are still prevalent on Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube despite pledges to crack down, a new report says.

Social media posts and videos denying climate change, disputing its causes, or underplaying its effects not only can still be found on these platforms, they are often missing warning labels or links to credible information, according to Advance Democracy, a research organization that studies misinformation.

Climate scientists say they’re frustrated by the lack of progress in stemming the tide of climate change misinformation. For years, they’ve urged social media companies to identify, flag and take down the misinformation and the accounts that spread it.

This Advance Democracy outfit doesn’t appear to have published this double-top secret report on its website, but it does pledge to investigate “entities undermining the global consensus on climate change through financial corruption, clandestine front-groups, social media influence operations, disinformation, vexatious litigation, lobbying, and front-facing public relations activity.”

“Undermining the global consensus” is bad, it must be stopped, the correctness of the (nonexistent) ‘global consensus‘ cannot be challenged. Why not? If it’s true, why can’t it stand up to debate, why can’t it be challenged or questioned? What is this new “science” that is all-knowing and has all the answers already, to the extent that it no longer needs to ask any questions or permit any to be asked?

These climate alarmists don’t really care about science, of course. They are not calling for more information, more studies, more access to data for the general public. They just want to scream “Shutup, shutup, shutup!” and have Big Tech do their bidding in censoring anything—up to and including opinions and research conducted by scientists in climate-related fields—that “undermines” their preferred narrative.

Media keeps using questionable “research,” and Big Tech may soon be using it to step up its censorship of yet another topic of discussion and debate.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Damn, I am in a mood to burn some tires, northeast of Boston, so that incoming flights can see the flames and smoke.

The planet needs a tire festival with a summer bonfire of tires, newspapers, some coal–but only enough to get it really hot and sustainable.

Next time I got to the beach… I am gonna pee in the water!

The jig is up on all this b.s. – only the most ignorant don’t get it:

Psaki lets it slip: “I love working for President Obama”:

We really are in Obama’s third term, and it’s no less of a horror than we would expect.

Climate science lacks adult peer review. Their stuff ought to have been reviewed by experts in the tools they use, e.g. statistics of random processes, fluid dynamics.

As it is, every technical mistake is grandfathered in as standard for the field (i.e. reviewed by climate scientists) and never corrected.

Among glaring basic mistakes

1. You can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations (which govern fluid dynamics) in 3 dimensions because everything cascades to shorter and shorter scales and is smaller than any numerical grid spacing that you try to solve it with. So you wind up with terms like “effective viscosity” which are not physics at all, and do not tell you what the fluid does even at large scales, which the mistakes feed back on.

Things go to shorter and shorter scales in 3D because vortices kink and break up.

Curiously, in 2D, vorticity is conserved (because vortices can’t kink) and the Navier Stokes equations are fairly easy to solve. That’s why weather forecasts work for two or three days, which is roughly the time it takes its large vortices to kink in the 3 dimensions it’s actually in.

Second, you can’t distinguish a trend from a cycle with data that’s short compared to the cycle you want to eliminate, say it’s aeons long. A cycle wouldn’t be man-caused. The reason you can’t distinguish is that the eigenvalues of the linear system you have to solve to distinguish them explode, with the result that any little noise in the measurement gets multiplied by ten to the thirtieth power or so and swamps the universe. So climate scientists don’t know what they claim to know.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rhhardin. | January 23, 2022 at 2:25 pm

    Let’s cut to the chase. The UN’s IPCC reports say that computer simulations are not meant to forecast climate conditions. It doesn’t matter if the equations could be solved, the fact is that climate scientists make simulations that reflect their biases, so their forecasts naturally predict exactly that they expected them to predict.

    Also note that every team of climate researchers creates its own climate model, demonstrating that no group of climate researchers has any faith in the accuracy of the climate models being used by every other research group.

What possible connection could a group called “Advance Democracy” have with a “climate science” disagreement?
Don’t tell me it’s not about science at all, but about politics?

Truth fears no question.

When people want to censor instead of debate, ask yourself what they are so afraid of.

    Dimsdale in reply to drednicolson. | January 23, 2022 at 10:09 am

    That is it exactly; true science, and the scientific method, demands scrutiny and skepticism.

    Anything less is government sponsored orthodoxy.

    Shades of Galileo!

These socialists can play all the games they want but if you follow the money, you will find that it doesn’t feed the main narrative.

Fossil fuels are NOT going away. Not by far. The ESG push has probably run its course already as government employee pension funds have largely sold out of these valuable investments. I’ve observed that many companies talk ESG but walk otherwise. That is called “green washing”. Even the politicians trading on advanced inside information are hypocrites about global warming investing.

We are winning. We just need to clear the communists out.

    henrybowman in reply to Pasadena Phil. | January 22, 2022 at 9:30 pm

    Investing in such a fund is risky — not because the underlying business model is at risk from fundamentals, which it isn’t, but because it can be essentially “bumpstocked” into contraband with the stroke of an idiot’s pen.

      I never of this guy and we probably can’t invest with him anyway since it’s a hedge fund. I’m not making investment recommendations. I got burned royally when CA decided to just drive Breitburn Pipeline out of business. I never understood how that was legal and they got away with. So yes, it is very risky to invest in that sector but they are not going out of business and if you do your homework, you can make a lot of money buying into it. Just think what will happen when the Trump Train prevails this year and as we head into the 2024 elections with the Uniparty crippled.

      No one cares about the global warming. And fewer and fewer people are believing the Covid fear porn hoax. Throw in the CRT crap and the rest of the globalist commie conspiracies now exposed, “scaremongerer!” will soon become the mantra replacing “conspiracy theorist!” as the killer argument to knock off these corrupt globalists. It’s all unraveling.

      However, the GOPe is also panicking with the Dems as this unravels.

      The masks are once again dropping as Trump reappears on the scene. Be careful who your heroes are, you need to be ready to drop them as the masks drop.

I assumed many months ago climate change ‘denial’ censorship was only a matter of time.

Once they’re done banning, censoring, and silencing everyone they can for Covid ‘misinformation’ and LGBTQABCXYZ ‘hate’ they’ll start using ‘climate change denial’ as an excuse to censor and silence their political enemies.

And ultimately anyone who disagrees with the neo-Marxist Fascist Democrat party line.

They’ll ramp up public shaming, too. And accusations of being ‘selfish’.

The Hollywood-Tinseltown-Netflix anti-conservative anti-whitey propaganda campaign is in its infancy.

Big Tech, woke Big Business, and the Dems are just getting started with their mass political censorship campaign.

No doubt they’ll try a few other other useful mass coercion techniques they might find in old Soviet and fascist playbooks. With the help of the CIA and their color revolution game plan.

They’ll try anything they think they can get away with.

Blatantly activist neo-Marxist judges will become bolder in ignoring the law and the Constitution. What is being done to the Jan 6 ‘insurrectionist’ political prisoners, with the silent assent of most of the GOP ‘leadership’, is a test case.

Marxists never quit. Never give up. They must be stripped of power and then henceforth ridiculed or ignored.

    henrybowman in reply to JHogan. | January 22, 2022 at 9:33 pm

    And selfish?
    To paraphrase Sowell, “Selfish” isn’t wanting to keep what you’ve earned, it’s demanding to take someone else’s.

      Dimsdale in reply to henrybowman. | January 23, 2022 at 10:10 am


      Isn’t it amazing how fast “speaking truth to power” and “dissent is patriotic” disappeared from the political stage?

I’m not sure the climate Karen want to jump on the Covid Karen sinking ship of expertise. The self righteous hectoring of mansion dwelling, jet setting elites who just happen to own ocean side estates was always suspect. If they had a consensus solution then surely they would immediately adopt and rigorously hold to these earth healing standards using their celebrity and stature to demonstrate the example in their own lives? I mean who could deny the seriousness of climate change if and when Nancy Pelosi downsizes to an energy efficient duplex? When that happens I’m willing to reevaluate my position.

Notice they keep tugging on Sundowner’s coat tails as he keeps mentioning Global Warming.

Just wait till they tell us that EBOLA is rampant!

There is no scientific consensus on “climate catastrophe,” as it’s now being called. The supposedly peer reviewed Cook Report of 2013 has been debunked many times as pure propaganda even by climate scientists who believe that anthropogenic climate change is taking place and is a serious threat. They realize that their position isn’t helped by crap reports.

In fact, when Cook’s emails were hacked the emails revealed that he started what he called The Consensus Project (TCP) in 2012, a year before he even did his report. As published by the New American in their article “Cooking the books”:

“In his “Introduction to TCP,” Cook acknowledges that probably only half of the 12,000 papers they’ve selected will either explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW alarmism. But over time, he expects online volunteers to “process” many of the 6,000 non-endorsement papers, “converting” them into endorsements! Here’s Cook:

‘I anticipate there will be around 6000 “neutral” papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like “hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes.’

Cook went on to sketch out an entire promotional campaign utilizing press releases, major media programs, booklets, Kindle/iBooks, blogs, etc. ‘We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus,’ Cook advised.

At least one of the members of his team seems to have recognized that Cook had the emphasis all backwards. Ari Jokimäki responded:

‘I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).'”

In case you think this is an unreliable source, Dr. Richard Tol, an economist studying the economic impact of climate change and formerly a contributor to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s periodic reports until he asked for his name to be removed from the masthead due to the shoddy nature of the work but no “denialist,” is one of many who have debunked the report.

A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook׳s validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key results cannot be reproduced or tested.”

In short, the idea that there is a 97% consensus is a lie. It’s was conceived as a lie a year before what passed for research was even conducted. And even more important, an argument for consensus is an anti-scientific argument. As many have pointed out, the heroes of science are those who bucked the consensus and broke new ground.

The truth isn’t afraid of being challenged. Only a lie needs to be protected by censorship.

nordic_prince | January 23, 2022 at 2:05 pm

It’s hardly surprising. Leftists tolerate free speech only as long as they are not in power; then once they gain ascendancy, they seek to regulate not only speech, but thoughts and actions, and indeed every facet of life.

Only those afraid of truth seek to suppress opposing ideas.

“…Cook acknowledges that probably only half of the 12,000 papers they’ve selected will either explicitly or implicitly endorse AGW alarmism…”.

I forgot to point this out. As Dr. Tol argued in his first takedown of Cook et al, the supposedly peer-reviewed paper that allegedly established the 97% consensus, Cook refused to share anything about his samples, sample size, or methodology so it was impossible to reproduce Cook et al’s results. When the emails and other documents were hacked, researchers learned several things about Cook’s work. First, 12,000 papers is nowhere near large enough to be representative. Many irrelevant documents were used. More importantly, Cook selected the papers to skew the results.