Censoring Inconvenient Truths
By Paul Homewood
I came across this work by a climate activist from 2021:
As you can see, he is getting very worked up about “climate disinformation” in social media. His study goes on to analyse where all of this supposed disinformation is coming from.
But I have a simple question for Mr Pogson – what do you classify as “disinformation”?
Could it be this, for instance?
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/01/11/who-checks-the-factcheckers/
This was posted on Facebook in 2019 by the professional group, Friends of Science. The post concerned an article by the Volunteer Firefighters Association in New South Wales, which reported on all of the forest mismanagement and the role this had played in the wildfires there that year.
Following a “factcheck”, all you get now when you click on the link is this:
https://www.facebook.com/FoSClimateEd/posts/2627494517329381
There was nothing unfactual in the article, never mind false, and it was written by experts. It was taken down for the simple reason that it did not support the claims of climate alarmists.
Or maybe, Mr Pogson, it might be this sort of Facebook post which is all too common nowadays:
It is totally untrue that weather emergencies are on the rise, whether climate related or not. Yet we see junk like this posted everyday on social media.
For some reason it is never “factchecked”.
Pogson’s conclusions give the game away. It was never about “facts” or “truth”, it is about “politics”, and censoring inconvenient truths:
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Interesting that academic completion shows lower disinformation impressions, but IQ does not. My take is that academic completion actually shows level of indoctrination not as easily accomplished on people with greater intellectual ability.
Exactly right, I agree. Also, how bizarre that Mr Pogson talks about ‘returning climate science to being a bipartisan issue’. How is expressing disagreement with the supposed consensus not being bipartisan?
Nothing makes me feel more depressed about this situation than hearing from these fanatics. Nothing is going to convince them that they are wrong, except maybe a new ice age, and even that would still be due to CO2, and white supremacy.
From looking his twitter – he is dyed in the wool red who puts control over the population above facts
Is there an award for Climate Stupidity™, somewhat like a Darwin Award?
Mark P. qualifies. 🤣
“Disinformation” applies to what has proven wrong.
It’s not immediately clear what “climate disinformation” is. Is it questioning that climate change is actually happening and catastrophe awaits if we don’t mend our ways, or is it the climate change zeolots dismissing all sceptics as “climate change deniers”?
Given that this an academic study, I rather think it is the former, since in the climate zeolots’ view climate change must never be questioned.
Hey, it’s not even clear what ‘climate change’ means.
Actually, I thought the term “climate disinformation” was perfectly clear. It means anyone who questions, let alone dares disagree with the prevailing eco-socialist narrative.
He might also care to identify someone, anyone, anywhere, who can correctly be described as “anti-climate”.
What a nitwit.
I don’t know about Pogson’s concerns about ‘Climate disinformation’ but if he really considers himself any kind of academic he really needs to develop an open mind with ability to look at both sides of an argument. He also needs to know that concensus in science is not in itself proof.
It seems unavoidable that any disinformation or misinformation depends on the political ideology of those doing the “fact checking” and subsequent censoring. When words like “denier” or “troll” show up followed by ugly personal attacks… it’s a good indication.
How long will it be before blogs such as this one and Watts Up are shut down, or have a warning attached to them? It seems hard to believe, but we live in very strange times. If they target one then they must target all. But then there are other platforms that can host blogs, so would they dare?
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Scare mungering is all the green meanies can manage.
The foot soldiers also appear very masochistic, almost like berserkers who find it outrageous that not everyone wants to suffer with them.
All the while their high priests jet around the planet making billions, children are being brainwashed with total junk.
Science is the ultimate disinformation 🙂
Anyone else noticed that nearly all the climate breakdown hysteria these days is focused on ‘Extreme Weather Events’. Maybe that’s because all the other sacred cows of the fanatics (ice, sea-levels, barrier reef etc) are so easily and rapidly disproved.
Off topic – only slightly.
If you have access to today’s edition of The Times a short essay by Ross Clark will make you smile. It contains much of what Paul has raised with us with the possible exception of the payments for refusing outputs from wind farms and the congestion of the national electricity grid which makes transmission to the south and England problematic. It is based on his book Not Zero, I guess — I have yet to read it. Publ. Forum Press.
…and somewhere in his piece, Ross will cave into his Editors to acknowledge that CC is real. I guess that’s part of the price he pays to get his copy published. (I say this after reading a previous piece of his in the DM)
Think of Mark Anthony’s speech in Julius Caesar (Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears)
“For Brutus is an honourable man…”
Repeated several times so it becomes sarcasm.
WTF? Only correct statements can be seen? Being “wrong” is no basis for censoring statements! It is the heart of free speech! What people believe needs no protection; it is only the controversial that needs protection.
‘Countering disinformation is vital to avoid adverse effects on opinions and behaviour’
If government schools still taught critical thinking, there would be no reason to fear ‘adverse effects,’ what ever that is supposed to mean.
Climate science deniers are in all the universities so the rubbish is spread wide amongst students and bloggers. If Universities can get away with falsehoods what chance does the average person have of sharing the truth.
A very confused comment.
Universities are in the tank for climate alarmism, their falsehoods are all in service of promoting the scam.
I think you will have a hard time with the truth as you seem to have accepted the lies.
Look no further than “climate” and “green” fanatics for “disinformation” and “misinformation”.
‘Analysis of social, economic and political data in America reveals multiple important factors which may offer potential solutions to the problem’
Problem? The Athenians settled the debate on free speech in the 5th century BC. 2500 years of Western Civilization shows Pogson to be a dick.
“Anti-climate organisations … ”
What’s one of them then? An organisation that is against the climate?
“Down with the climate!”
“Stop the climate!”
“What do we want? No more climate!”
Defies belief.
There is quite some good viewing to be had as the Twitter crooks are being grilled – roasted alive really – at the Congressional hearing by some astute Republicans. Oh how they look when having lied about not having done something a big board is produced to show that they did. Their faces when required to answer ‘yes or no’ are a picture. Where are their FBI friends to protect them now?
Is this a Poe?
Pogson’s indignation may be comic, but Friends of Science is a one horse tar patch PR operation with about as much scientific street cred as an Ark Museum ad hosted by Tucker Carlson.
So says an indoctrinated and scientifically illiterate commentator.
Sad that you cannot tell science for poo!
Try learning the actual; facts and stop shilling for the huxters,
Other sites you could learn from , but that you will not be able to grasp; Wattsupwiththat, CO2 coalition, Heartlands climate website, Tony Heller’s real climate, CO2 is life, or any of the actual science sites that they have links to. Learning is harder than parroting!
#1 Projection is a libmob characteristic
#2 The same data appears in an earlier Guardian article without Pogson’s name
That suggests to me , he plagiarised the Guardian article.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/08/climate-denial-ads-on-facebook-seen-by-millions-report-finds
On Twitter there was much discussion .. main tweets
The main promoters were
#1 @DocRussJackson an account with 57K followers
Is he reliable ?
His bio says #ToryLiars #EnoughIsEnough
#2 @DrAndrewBoswell_CEPP@climatejustice.rocks @Andrew9Boswell Activist & Consultant,
Disinformation ??? The Guardian article contains a big correction
If an article got 8 million views,
what is more likely that 8 million people viewed, or that a magnitudes smaller number of people view many adverts each
The Guardian first got it the wrong way around
My typo : On Twitter there was NOT much discussion
After the 2020 Guardian article there was a tiny bit of amplification from Grist etc.
and then in Nov 2021 a claim by Reuters that “Big Oil” tried to disrupt Cop26 by funding Candace Owens adverts
.. I reckon that’s fakenews
links