I know that many of you have experienced censorship of climate information at some level. Whether it is on Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, YouTube, Google search, or other platforms, there has been an almost a universal effort to reduce what our Mann-inspired Climate Information Overlords deem “misinfomation.” In some cases, such things are warranted, as there is some climate information that is held up by climate skeptics that is in fact, wrong. I think we do a pretty good job here at WUWT of weeding that out and we work hard to present information that is factually accurate – even though it is often disagreed with.
Unfortunately, there has sprung up a plethora of so called “fact-checkers” in the past couple of years who believe they are on a mission to “save” the planet. In almost all cases, they suffer from an inflated sense of self-importance bolstered by what is called “noble cause corruption.”
From that WUWT essay: Stephen Schneider recognized the dilemma for scientists and was quoted in Discover Magazine (October 1989 vol. 10 no. 10):
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.
On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
Essentially, while the climate alarmists of the world deal in “scary scenarios,” such as the recent hype that the coming El Nino will push us past the “dangerous” 1.5°C tipping point, we point out that we’ve already experienced 1.5°C of warming, and the world didn’t roast, and we are still here.
Climate alarmist claims are almost always driven by questionable climate model projections, such as the now overheated and discredited RCP8.5. Climate skeptics deal in the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts – but we are excoriated for doing so. A good example is my survey of NOAA stations last year, where I found that 96% of them don’t meet NOAA’s own published standards for station siting, leading to a warm bias in temperature. Standards are in place for a reason. Yet, despite that, I was told in no uncertain terms by Polifact that none of this matters, and that climate scientists are “handling it.” Newsflash: they aren’t. Of course just like Zack, neophyte climate “expert” Madison Czopek didn’t want to hear the facts we presented, deferring instead to opinions.
Despite our best efforts to inform the world of the the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts, we are labeled pejoratively as Exxon funded “climate deniers” when in fact we at WUWT don’t (and never have) received a dime from Exxon, Koch, Texaco, BP, etc. It’s just a convenient fantasy to apply a derogatory label so that low-information activists can slime us. We don’t deny the climate is changing – not at all, we simply don’t feel it is a crisis, and that the methods, science, and conclusions that are being used to totally rework global energy policy in chasing unobtainable goals such as “net zero” is an overwrought, overzealous, and overhyped viewpoint that does more harm than good.
Enter Climate Regime Censorship Enforcers Zach Fishman and NewsGuard.
NewsGuard assigned their new hire Zack Fishman, who was fresh out of “climate journalism finishing school” to perform an evaluation and rating.