Publishers like the BBC, Guardian, Popular Science, any journal associated with Michael Mann, the White House, etc. – have discovered that they can create consensus simply by censoring any alternate points of view. By declaring a particular point of view to be the official government definition of truth, all other opinions are those of crackpots or evil industry shills who want to give lung cancer to the children and then drown them.
This technique was mastered by the Vatican in the 16th century and has been adopted more recently by the Obama White House, who promised to depoliticize science.
Four years later he is dictating science from the White House
It might be fun to do a statistical test about censorship at, say, the Guardian. I’m thinking maybe 10 people to be on red and blue teams. One team supports the narrative but includes serious, “community standards” breaking abuse, the other team rejects the narrative with polite, cogent responses. Then test for differences. No comment of mine has been allowed since August. They have all been the second category.
You can censor that if you want…
Someone needs to remind the golfer in chief that flat Earthers were not skeptics. But then, anyone who thinks 17 trillion is half of 10 trillion, may be in need of a donor brain.
I propose that along with mandatory drug testing for all politicians, we also demand math tests.
Reblogged this on The Firewall.
The problem when you censure, or shout down alternative points of view is that it is a big turn-off. Yesterday on the lunch-time news the BBC was headlining the the report. On the website it headlined.
Checking at 4pm, the lead story on the website was previewing “Strictly Come Dancing” light entertainment show. Of the ten most popular stories, the IPCC report was 7th. By 4.05pm it was ninth. The announcement of the Christening of Prince George was No.1 and Steve Bullmer of Microsoft crying was at No.5
I remember reading biographies of soviet dissidents in the 1980s. When those in power shut out opinions, people lose trust. Soviet citizens would believe the opposite of what was told, or read between the lines. For instance students volunteering to help with the harvest meant crop failures. Pictures of striking workers in Britain caused envy at the houses they lived in, and the cars they drove. But a constant battery of statistics and forecasts made them cynical of the worth and the underlying message. They were right in their cynicism.
But Obamby is right , climate change skeptics are flat earthers. Every real climate scientist know climate always changes and sometimes much faster, up or down. Obamby is admitting he and his followers belong to the Flat-Earth Society.
Or they know this is a lie and just use it to gain more power. That would be even worse and could be considered a crime against humanity.
Hope and Change.
It would be and it is.
Isn’t the earth a disc in climate models, with 24 h sunshine of 1 quarter intensity?