Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Biden’s Climate Czarina Wants Big Tech Censorship of Climate-Related Debate

Biden’s Climate Czarina Wants Big Tech Censorship of Climate-Related Debate

Gina McCarthy earns another round of flaming criticism for her approach, which is not based on science but green justice activism.

The last time we checked on Biden’s climate-activism advisor Gina McCarthy she was chortling over 100 new rules the administration plans to impose on appliances.

Now she is demanding Big Tech silence all dissent on the progressive-approved climate crisis orthodoxy.

During an Axios event on Thursday, Gina McCarthy, the White House’s climate adviser, said tech companies need to crack down on the spread of false and misleading information about the climate crisis. While flat-out climate denial has waned, McCarthy said misinformation on major social media platforms persists in a different but “equally dangerous” form.

“The dark money is still there,” she said. “The fossil fuel companies are still basically trying their best to make sure that people don’t understand the challenge of climate.”

Specifically, she said a small but vocal group of users are repeatedly using tech and social media platforms to sow doubt about the feasibility of the energy transition.

Her argument is banal and based on the crisis approach to government that started in the Obama era and has gained steam in the wake of covid.

“We need the tech companies to really jump in,” she said, because highlighting the costs of green energy is “equally dangerous to denial because we have to move fast.” Got that, Mark Zuckerberg ?

Merely pointing out technical limitations of lithium-ion batteries could be “disinformation.” Asked whether climate disinformation posed a threat to public health, Ms. McCarthy replied “absolutely” while adding hilariously that “President Biden doesn’t focus on, and neither do I on, bashing the fossil-fuel companies.” The Axios interviewer smiled and nodded along.

Her approach has received enough hot criticism to raise global temperatures.

“Gina McCarthy is urging a frightening end-run around constitutional free speech protections, and Big Tech happily colludes with government for this illegal purpose. It’s time for the American people to denounce and protest this assault on our democracy,” said James Taylor, president of the Heartland Institute.

Gregory Wrightstone, geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition, said, “Climate czarina Gina McCarthy is advocating further censorship of any and all criticism of planetary doom linked to a false climate crisis. They don’t want the public to know that our ecosystems are thriving and that humanity is prospering precisely owing to modestly increasing temperature and more carbon dioxide.”

And Frank Lasee, former Wisconsin state senator and former member of Gov. Scott Walker’s administration, said, “It is un-American to censor those that question the Democratic Party or government narrative. That is something that dictatorships and communist China do to opponents of the regime. It shouldn’t ever be done here in America.”

As a reminder, McCarthy was Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency head when EPA bureaucrats fumbled the Animas River environmental disaster, which resulted in the release of millions of gallons of heavy-metal-containing wastewater into a scenic Colorado River.  No censorship will erase the fact that she and her team have done more damage to the environment than any other entity that she would now accuse.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Alternate Headline:

“Gina the Czarina wants to shove her shit down your throat without lubricant.”

E Howard Hunt | June 15, 2022 at 11:16 am

Unfortunately the only people who actually fight back against this progressive nonsense are boozy young men who shave their heads and sport nazi tattoos. The rest of us cry in our beer and do nothing because it’s safe.

The Gentle Grizzly | June 15, 2022 at 11:21 am

Another nanny-no-no. Hired for her indoor plumbing; she has no actual qualifications.

How’s that “incredible transition” away from fossil fuels that your boss asserts working out, Gina?

Brown outs much this summer? Have you spoken with Gov. Newsom lately about nuclear?

I thought real science welcomed dissent? By the way, CO2 is plant food. I thought we were experiencing a bit of a food shortage these days.

    4fun in reply to jb4. | June 15, 2022 at 10:25 pm

    Gov just said we should set our thermostats no lower than 78 this summer. So I just turned mine to 68.

EXACTLY as predicted.

Once you accept that government is allowed to restrict your rights in the name of ‘safety’, then all they have to do is change the definition of what ‘safety’ is to arbitrarily take away your rights whenever they want.

    henrybowman in reply to Olinser. | June 15, 2022 at 1:29 pm

    “Gun safety.”
    We told you so.

      Paddy M in reply to henrybowman. | June 15, 2022 at 2:12 pm

      The Biden regime is so far underwater that, naturally, the GOPe have to give him a lifeline on guns. Who needs due process anyway? Mitch and the rest of the RINO need a pat on the head from their palz across the aisle.

Climate science lacks an adult peer review. They’re reviewed by other climate scientists instead of experts on the tools they’re using, which makes their mistakes part of their toolkit.

For instance (1) you can’t distinguish a trend from a long cycle with data that’s short compared with the cycle you want to distinguish. That’s just math. The mechanism is that the eigenvalues of the distinguishing matrix explode, say ten to the thirtieth power, which means noise always vastly swamps signal on the question. A long cycle of course can’t be man-caused, to they need a trend instead. Aeons of climate swings would have been natural.

(2) You can’t solve the Navier Stokes equations in 3D, the mechanism being that fluid flows go to shorter and shorter scales and defeat any grid spacing. Unfortunately the large scale flows depend on the shorter scale flows, so you wind up with no solution. They resort to solving instead something that is not physics at all. Look for a term “effective viscosity.”

So there’s nothing from the past and nothing from the future supporting the whole things. Just money.

    kelly_3406 in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2022 at 12:53 pm

    I disagree with you about your second point. The Navier-Stokes equations are successfully used by numerical weather prediction models to forecast weather for up to 7-10 days. After about 10 days, small-scale disturbances dominate the solution and most skill is lost.

    For climate modeling, the same basic equations are used, but the objective is evaluate the statistics of the simulated atmosphere rather than to predict a specific outcome, as in weather prediction. The success of this approach is of course debatable.

    But I would not agree that the Navier-Stokes equations cannot be solved. They are solved every day to generate statistically skilled forecasts.

      rhhardin in reply to kelly_3406. | June 15, 2022 at 2:35 pm

      The Navier Stokes equations are easy to solve in 2D because a quantity called vorticity is conserved. In fact it gives a way to solve the equations numerically by the transport of point vortices in the flow that they imply.

      In 3D that’s true as well except that vortices kink and break up, which is where the cascade to smaller scales happens.

      In weather forecasting the large flows are 2D vortices. It takes a few days before they seriously kink, and then the simulation is no good.

      You can solve the Navier Stokes equations in 3D but you’re ultimately defeated by grid spacing. Smaller scale motions serve as an ersatz viscosity (transport of x momentum in the y direction etc., so it’s probably a tensor not a scalar) that affect the large scale flows, so you have to get it right and can’t without solving it, say at shear flows and so forth.

      Kolmogorov suggested that energy dissipation in turbulence is independent of viscosity, owing to the cascade to shorter and shorter scales. It simply goes to whatever scale the real viscosity kicks in at and turns to heat there, giving rise to a Kolmogorov spectrum for turbulence.

      Aviation etc. solve the Navier Stokes equations but they do it inside the envelope. They know what approximations work by testing them, and then use the approximations.

        kelly_3406 in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2022 at 7:19 pm

        You are not wrong about inaccuracies due to the energy cascade, but the treatment of atmospheric physics is an even bigger issue in my opinion. For example, it was recently discovered that the Thwaites glacier in the Antarctic is melting rapidly due to geothermal heating. Climate models typically do not include geothermal heating, so the melting was previously explained as global warming.

    DaveGinOly in reply to rhhardin. | June 16, 2022 at 1:57 pm

    I think the problem is simpler than that, and can reduced to a single truth: The “science” is based on models created almost entirely by researchers who have a financial stake in supporting the political climate change narrative, and so are naturally inclined to create models that produce pre-ordained, desired results.

Anything important that needs to be discussed for public consideration is now banned. “Kneel before Zod!!!”

“We can’t win a debate since facts, logic and reality are not on our side, so shut down any dissent.”

What a country!

If we do not place strong and robust laws protecting our freedom of speech and assembly in the public square (which today is the big tech platforms) by among other things recognizing that they are more like phone companies than publishers (and your phone company would be in violation of American law if it tried to censor you) and that they are the public square (remember Marsh v Alabama) the Democrats will have a robust censorship regime of public and private cooperation along the lines Democrats like this Czarina says.

Government absolutely has a role in the public square and we need to recognize that and start using it for our side within it.

This was something that the 20th century Republican Party fully understood and a piece of wisdom we need to return to.

    CommoChief in reply to Danny. | June 15, 2022 at 2:05 pm

    Can you explain what you believe the ruling in Marsh v Alabama held? I ask because the common interpretation of Marsh is that the govt can’t outsource censorship or collaborate with private entities to achieve an unconstitutional purpose.

      Danny in reply to CommoChief. | June 15, 2022 at 8:56 pm

      Holding that a public space being private property doesn’t void constitutional protections in that area means it is the governments right and responsibility to enforce constitutional protections there (so yes we could make laws protecting freedom of speech despite “MUH PRIVATE COMANY”).

      Effectively this means that yes government does get to have a say demanding private companies uphold our constitutional rights when they are the public square (for context Company Town was claiming that the freedom of religion and speech didn’t apply due to it being private property).

      If Marsh v Alabama had been decided the other way we would have no leg to stand on demanding not to be censored.

      With legislation passed by Republicans Marsh v Alabama would be very relevant but we need to do the legislation part.

      From Hugo Black’s decision

      “[t]he more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it.””

      In other words Marsh v Alabama is as relevant as we would like it to be.

        CommoChief in reply to Danny. | June 16, 2022 at 8:59 am

        Danny,

        That’s correct. The CT held that a private entity who opens up their private property to the public loses their ability to regulate or prevent free speech.

        IOW the if they hold out the privately owned space as effectively a public space then those who enter the private space carry with them their Constitutionally protected free speech. We don’t need additional statutes for free speech. The Constitution protects the free speech of individuals in these spaces already.

        Now if we want to apply the ruling in Marsh to the ‘digital town square’ as opposed to a physical place we do need a statute. IMO the digital town square should have the same protections. At least on digital platforms where there is no fee to enter the digital town square. For fee based platforms then those would be akin to a private club which can regulate conduct, including speech, within their private club.

          Danny in reply to CommoChief. | June 16, 2022 at 12:28 pm

          I agree 100% 🙂

          DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | June 16, 2022 at 2:02 pm

          Also consider that when the government merely suggests to a private entity that the entity should do this or that, that entity becomes a government agent (in the eyes of the law) when it takes action that appears to be in accord with the suggestion.

Every time I see a photo of an unfamiliar-to-me Biden appointee, I play a little game: I study the photo intently before reading on, trying to guess correctly exactly in what fashion this person is damaged enough to have qualified for a powerful set-aside position in the Biden administration.

Steven Brizel | June 15, 2022 at 12:55 pm

This type of Marxist censorship is what happens when environmental extremists seek to impose their narrative which is contrary to the facts on the ground

If a company responds to a government request to censor speech, is that not LEGALLY a violation of the First Amendment?

    Danny in reply to kelly_3406. | June 15, 2022 at 1:04 pm

    There is nothing you could do about this in a court room unless this article left out an explicit demand (what is written in it is a suggestion not command).

    The government also has a right to have a say in what is or is not available in the public square. If you had tried to sell porn in the public square in 1800 you would have been arrested and your appeals would have failed.

    There will be government regulation in the public square the only question is if the government regulation is to keep us out as the Democrats want or to protect our right to participate in the public square. Government has never been excluded from having a say on what is or isn’t protected in the public square. If we don’t want to be censored we will have to actually make use of government regulations to protect us from it.

      CommoChief in reply to Danny. | June 15, 2022 at 1:59 pm

      The govt doesn’t get to censor speech. It can’t outsource censorship to private actors to do so either explicitly or implicitly.

      Skokie Illinois was forced to allow a bunch of neo Nazi a parade permit to march through the town. That’s definitely a case of ‘bad’ speech being allowed in the public square. We protect ‘bad’ speech and ‘good’ speech under our Constitution, both popular and unpopular.

      ‘Hug all cute puppies’ doesn’t usually need protection. ‘Pour acid onto all puppies’ does need protection. Both are Constitutionally protected statements.

        drednicolson in reply to CommoChief. | June 15, 2022 at 4:42 pm

        Free-if-agree speech is phoney free speech.

        Danny in reply to CommoChief. | June 15, 2022 at 8:47 pm

        It is also speech for an attractive young woman to take off her all of her clothes in a public space; and I don’t think any state that lacks laws on the books (which are enforced) against that.

        We both have just used extreme examples your extreme example is Skokie, mine is a woman who wants to expose herself in public.

        Government can and does say “No you can’t show minors images of naked women” to the tech companies, and it tells individual women “you can’t take your clothes off in public”.

        Democrats are simply working to shift things so conservative opinion is as taboo and censored as porn, and if you rely on the constitution to say they can’t we will lose. Not only does government have a say in the public square the public square right now is run by people pushing the Democrat side very hard (see the recent action against an Evolutionary Biologist for denying Trans ideology by Etsy and Pay Pal, or the banning of Allie Beth Stuckey from Twitter for being against trans ideology). Government will either be pushing big tech in the direction Democrats want; or in the direction of letting us speak again it will not be neutral because it never is and never has been (again basic governance information the 20th century Republican Party understood that it forgot under the Bush Era).

        Now for our counter we could start using the power of government in the opposite way to say “No you have to admit both sides politically and you have to uphold freedom of speech”; but pretending those are the laws on the books right now simply won’t work.

        The Czarina also never commanded anything according to the article posted she just made a suggestion. She isn’t dumb enough to make a command. I read the quotes the article used and no court would interpret her statement as a command. Trump made suggestions to big tech all the time and they ignored him.

          CommoChief in reply to Danny. | June 16, 2022 at 9:12 am

          Danny,

          No speech is speech. Conduct is conduct. There is a distinction.

          Even basic speech that is specifically referenced in the Constitution ‘ right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances’ is subject to some regulation. Want to have a parade? Get a permit. Govt doesn’t get to refuse to issue a permit based on the content or message of the speech. They can refuse based on proposed location and time.

          Public nudity isn’t speech. It’s conduct. Conduct in public can be regulated. If that wasn’t so then someone could claim a free speech right in protesting Judicial decisions by execution of a Judge on the courthouse steps. Otherwise lawful conduct coupled with speech is fine. Unlawful conduct isn’t speech. The ‘peaceable assembly’ is required to be otherwise lawful.

          DaveGinOly in reply to Danny. | June 16, 2022 at 2:16 pm

          Replying to CommoChief:
          Speech is speech, but conduct can be a form of expression. Speech is obviously an expression, so when actions are conducted to express an opinion, they are protected as if they are speech.

          The statue atop the RI state house is called the “Independent Man.” How was this status indicated by the sculptor? He gave Independent Man a spear. The act of being armed conveys a political message of the actor’s status in society.

        Danny in reply to CommoChief. | June 16, 2022 at 12:26 pm

        All 50 states have a legal definition of fighting words (clearly speech) and a definition of obscenity (again clearly speech). Even the most right wing states have definitions of obscenity.

        The issue is do we make a decision to let Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, and other leftist billionaires define us as the definition of obscenity because they are private companies or use the power of government to protect our speech in the public square.

        However the idea that government has no role in the other direction is absurd, it has at all points in American history been involved in deciding on the limits of freedom of speech in the public square (i.e. every state government has a word on what “obscenity” speech is).

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obscenity

        “Currently, obscenity is evaluated by federal and state courts alike using a tripartite standard established by Miller v. California. The Miller test for obscenity includes the following criteria: (1) whether ‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find that the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ appeals to ‘prurient interest’ (2) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (3) whether the work, ‘taken as a whole,’ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”

      Owego in reply to Danny. | June 16, 2022 at 5:27 am

      Government regulations. Oh, please.. Governments ignore or enforce regulations and laws as they choose. The “public square” and sidewalks are as likely to be littered with discarded drug paraphernalia and run by thugs as it is adorned with benches for relaxing on and garden plots prepared and maintained by local gardeners.

      We diversify by discriminating. Certificates of merit and achievement are distributed by “diversity” formulas, not performance. Proclamations of laws being written or struck down are either presented with great public fanfare by the signing and the passing around of stacks of leather-bound “executive orders” written on parchment paper, or “crafted” into volumes of unreadable, mysterious gobbledygook by unknown ‘staffers’ and lobbyists in back rooms and enacted, unread, by legislators many of who wouldn’t know what they contained if they had read them. Governments today are as likely to behave like spoiled brats in a perpetual state of hissy-fit as they are sober minded, thoughtful adults. Life in this country today is a reflection of that, and it’s not pretty.

        Danny in reply to Owego. | June 16, 2022 at 12:17 pm

        You mean like the phone company regulations?

        Give one example of Verizon censoring your phone call and declaring your unworthy of using a telephone and to build your own mega corporation telephone company.

        Problems with fair enforcement of laws and regulations are something we need to fix by fixing the personnel, not by refusing the only method we have for improving the situation.

        Government today is what the president makes of it. If you want to squander another presidency next time we have power go ahead keep ranting about how you want your king to be named Jeff Bezos, if not it is time to actually use the power we are given by voters when we have it.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | June 15, 2022 at 1:56 pm

What this chick(?) is proposing is criminal. Just the fact that she is proposing it is criminal. At some point, we are going to need to be, at the very least, throwing people like this out of the government and sanctioning them from ever taking part in it, in any way, again. Preferably, criminal prosecutions would be in order.

It is very serious that we have people in the government considering un-Constitutional and criminal abuses of power. Very, very serious. And this is something that America has been loathe to deal with. But things have changed and people like this MUST be dealt with most harshly.

healthguyfsu | June 15, 2022 at 3:27 pm

Wonder if they will push to censor the truth that Nuclear is far superior to Solar/Wind in every measurable manner, even from every eco-friendly angle.

The Steyer/Soros types don’t want this truth to come out.

Winters are long and extremely cold where I live, and heating oil isn’t a luxury, it’s a necessity. The cost per gallon has nearly tripled in less than a year.

People here are doing everything possible to prepare for this self induced shortage and the resulting unprecedented high prices.

And all this leftist whore can talk about is online censorship.

    rhhardin in reply to SField. | June 15, 2022 at 4:09 pm

    Wood stoves.

      SField in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2022 at 4:30 pm

      Yep. already there.

      My extended family and I are combining acreage and resources to harvest enough wood for the coming winter. The problem is, firewood and pellet stove fuel have more than doubled in price, so the savings over oil is now next to nothing. We’re lucky to have the bought and paid for acreage full of trees we have.

      All this because of a supposed “climate crisis” that doesn’t even exist.

      randian in reply to rhhardin. | June 15, 2022 at 6:51 pm

      Fossil fuels are why the US still has its forests. Easter Island and Great Britain both tore down their forests for fuel. At least Britain discovered coal, albeit long after it was too late to preserve their forests. The Easter Islanders just went extinct. A mass switch to wood would be an environmental disaster.

Fascist pieces of shit. And corrupt fascist pieces of shit, at that.

just another white bumblefk socialist fk mutt…..arrest her, try her, execute her for deliberately lying to the american public……she too is marked meat.

A few of the sites I visit have now gone to only VIP for comments.
I do NOT think this is a coincidence. Perhaps the government has “suggested” it might be in their best interest to not allow the common proles to comment, and have a free and fair exchange of ideas?

Debate rule 1, you only show how weak your argument is when you start shouting. In the case of climate warriors, that means censuring your opponent.

The czarina shows how un-American this administration is. Further, she again illustrates that the Administration feels entitled to run roughshod over the Constitution.

Always remember:
“Misinformation” is information they want you to miss. “Disinformation” is the truth they dismiss.

Anyone who tells the truth about almost anything — gender, food science, climate, free energy, geoengineering, etc. — is banished from having any influence in society.
So now, as a result of all this, we are ruled by the cognitively retarded who cannot process reality and have no ability to make decisions in meaningful ways that benefit society. We are thus being eaten alive by parasites that cannot be exposed or crippled.Th only solution is to annihilate them

    DaveGinOly in reply to panamapat. | June 16, 2022 at 2:30 pm

    “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.”
    George Orwell

    “No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated. Neither may a government determine the aesthetic value of artistic creations, nor limit the forms of literacy or artistic expression. Nor should it pronounce on the validity of economic, historic, religious, or philosophical doctrines. Instead it has a duty to its citizens to maintain the freedom, to let those citizens contribute to the further adventure and the development of the human race.”
    Richard P. Feynman