JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Facebook finds truth by “Groupthink” — may the deepest pockets win the info war

In a flash of insight, or possibly rank capitulation, Facebook has announced last week that it will “fight misinformation” with censorship.  Seems Facebook thinks Facebook-users are too stupid to figure out the misinformation themselves. Besides, fighting misinformation with the truth is especially hard if the misinformation is true:

Facebook crackdown on groups spreading misinformation

Barbara Ortutay and Rachel Lerman, The Australian

Facebook says it is rolling out a wide range of updates aimed at combating the spread of false and harmful information on the social media site – stepping up the company’s fight against misinformation and hate speech as it faces growing outside pressure.

 And it’s not even transparent censorship but the the most weaselly hidden kind:

The updates will limit the visibility of links…

How does Facebook define misinformation?  Wait til you hear this: Groupthink = truth?

…limit the visibility of links found to be significantly more prominent on Facebook than across the web as a whole, suggesting they may be clickbait or misleading.

So that pretty much rules out Facebook spreading the word of whistleblowers, rebels, new theories, suppressed ideas, oppressed people and anything controversial, interesting or not completely predictable. Facebook seems to want to transform itself into a mumsie discussion board of old news and approved memes with all the thrill of an in-flight safety lecture.

Thus Facebook will become a mirror of the permitted, official, authorized web. Expect their ratings to adjust accordingly.

Facebook’s VP of integrity (?) points out that ‘striking a balance between protecting people’s privacy and public safety is “something societies have been grappling for centuries.”’ But that’s the point. It took centuries but we worked out the worst kind of lies are the ones told by the rulers, and the only antidote to those is free speech.

In an information war the deepest pockets are in the Treasury’s pants.

If authorities say evil people cause storms and kill children, and mobs start to bay for their blood the answer is not censorship but broadcasting the other point of view. And may the best man win…

Facebook’s solution is some kind of automated groupthink algorithm (like that won’t be gamed) and teams of tens of thousands of moderators with “at least 80 hours training” who are paid “above industry standard”.

The story was published on April 7 in The Australian.

h/t Bowman with more to come

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (62 votes cast)
Facebook finds truth by "Groupthink" -- may the deepest pockets win the info war, 9.5 out of 10 based on 62 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yysl5s2s

128 comments to Facebook finds truth by “Groupthink” — may the deepest pockets win the info war

  • #

    Seems Facebook thinks Facebook-users are too stupid to figure out the misinformation themselves.

    Meanwhile, Facebook, Google and others are are too politically biased to figure this out either.

    230

    • #
      sophocles

      Facebook, Google and others are are too politically biased to figure this out

      Maybe so. They’ve certainly got access to huge data sets and the statistics that data renders possible, to come to the conclusion that over half their users/viewers are “too stupid” to figure out the misinformation. Gotta deny that! Gotta turn all those deniers back to the orthodoxy.

      Where their real stupidity/bias leads them astray, is to think, like the UN et al, that what they have to do is to “communicate” their propaganda “better.” That includes all the twisting of searches we are seeing — must preserve the “orthodoxy,” must deny the “deniers” … deluded.

      Ergot is back … in French export wheat. Ergot outbreaks drove the LIA witchcraft trials back in the seventeenth century …
      Global wheat supply is starting to struggle … Food is already heading for catastrophe. Some areas are already in crisis …

      Just thought you needed to know …

      50

      • #
        sophocles

        … and Monsanto is producing seeds for crops which can’t self reproduce by producing viable seed. Wonderful.

        60

        • #

          Of course they do, and the inability to reproduce was engineered into the products they sell, but not into the strains they use to produce their products.

          How can you sell many millions of GM seeds for pennies a piece if the customer only needs 1? You would need to sell each seed for millions of dollars in order to recoup the development costs as quality control disappears.

          50

    • #

      Today, Facebook banned some far right groups in the UK for ‘spreading hate’. By that logic, they should ban climate alarmists who spread hate of skeptics and far left groups which spread hate of anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

      https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/tech/facebook-uk-far-right-ban/index.html

      70

  • #
    Yonniestone

    How much power is too much for some?
    It depends entirely on who acquires it.

    My better half signed up to Facebook a while back and with neither of us never used social media before not only did suggested contacts come up for her it did for me too.

    How was this information gathered? well where would you start but the big issue is if we don’t want it available on a public global platform what can we do about it?

    80

    • #

      Never used Facebook and never will. From what is often posted on tech sites, Facebook has been in somewhat of a decline anyway and used increasingly by ‘oldies’, which is driving away the young.

      What’s interesting about theses tech/social media companies is that their millionaire/billionaire owners/CEOs apparently won’t allow their children to use them. That says a lot.

      150

    • #
      MudCrab

      How was this information gathered?

      FaceBook data mines you with everything you do.

      All those little bits of data it asks you to complete as part of your profile? Yup. Data Mining.

      Some examples for you kids at home to muse over…

      Back in the day I started dating ‘X’. Another person, ‘Y’ who was a mutual friend basically went ‘OMG!!! When did this start? Your status still says ‘Single’. It’s not real until you update your status.’

      ‘Fine!’ says me, and changes my status to ‘In a relationship’.

      What happens then? I start getting adverts in my feed for weddings and honeymoon destinations.

      Right….

      Change it back and suddenly I am getting ads for Dating Sites.

      (cough… Data Mining!)

      Second example. Instragram (which I actually enjoy as I can post photos of weird stuff I find in my day to day. Each to their own)

      Anyway, most of the big name and high volume groups I follow are UK based. The friends I follow are mostly Australian, but the ‘groups’ are UK. Hence what ads am I getting? 30% off UK rail travel!!!

      It’s all data mining, and what is scary is that the same people are scream about privacy of information are the same people who willingly supply massive blocks of personal data each time they update their social media profile. Remember, when Big Brother comes it wont by resisted, it will be embraced.

      120

      • #
        Yonniestone

        She deleted her account after two weeks and was informed any data on her page will be kept by Facebook after the account is deleted and gave 30 days to finalise.

        50

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Don’t forget the mega data sales and hacks that have given a mind blowing amount of information to the highest bidders or lowest operations.

        50

      • #
        Delory

        Adding to the picture you have painted Mudcrab….

        The Creepy Geeky Internet Stalkers (CGIS) companies collect lots of data about millions of people – eg. age, geographical location, which websites they visit (interests/education), products they research/buy (socioeconomic status, affluence), discussion groups (political/religious/philosophical persuasion), etc… Using this data, they can build a statistical model of humanity – by ‘mining’ the data to find clustering, correlations, and relationships between all these variables.

        Once they have enough data about YOUR interests, friends, websites you have visited, etc… they can use the big statistical model to compare you with the rest of ‘humanity’, and take quite reasonable guesses about data that you have NOT provided. Just by knowing your seemingly benign parameters (eg. age, interests, browsing history, education, occupation, friends interests, etc..) they can guess with reasonably high probability eg. who you voted for in the last election (or if you voted at all). etc…

        The thing I find most insidious (and makes me cranky!) is when my ‘less-astute’ friends post a photograph and label me in the photo. With sufficient photos (eg. 10~20 photos) there is enough information for the CGIS to identify me with facial recognition. I don’t like the idea of someone on the street (or an ‘authorized person’ behind a security camera) pointing their camera me and discovering who I am, inferring what I think, and deciding that I might be a high-suspect ‘thought-criminal’. While the following parody (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATDKdubRq9U) seemed kind of funny ten years ago, our current technology is laying the foundation for a future Orwellian state that makes the Stazi look amature.

        100

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Read abstracts of papers printed in climate related journals, and …

    Wrong thread. Sorry.

    Read the web-sites of politicians. That’s what I wanted.
    Give the site 100 points for “No Misinformation.”
    Give the politician ’0′ if the page is filled with misleading and false statements. Is there apparent obfuscation? If so, deduct points.
    Apply the 0 to 100 scale as needed.
    Discuss the skewness of the distribution function.

    Write an algorithm to limit the visibility (hide) of any politician’s web site that fails this test.

    80

    • #
      David Wojick

      Does not work if the issue is controversial, as many will be, because of deep disagreement about what is false or misleading. No censorship method or algorithm works, nor can it.

      111

      • #
        John F. Hultquist

        David,
        The entire subject is so silly — that is, it is nonsense to
        think FaceBook can do something like is being proposed and
        not make an even bigger stink.
        Sorry, if I mis-led you to think I was serious.
        My first line is a reference to how the 97% consensus meme was derived.

        50

  • #
    Another Ian

    I wonder which side Facebook would take here?

    “Delingpole: Walrusgate – Attenborough Exposed in #FakeNews Netflix Eco Documentary Scandal”

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2019/04/17/walrusgate-the-netflix-attenborough-scandal-gets-worse/

    51

    • #
      David Wojick

      Probably Attenborough’s because his website is far more widely viewed or linked to (not clear which Facebook is using) than Crawford’s et al. Just as Jo says, the dominant will dominate.

      80

    • #
      Slithers

      OMG, what a foot in mouth for Sir David. I had felt for those Walruses’ before reading that article exposing the lies and Damn lies. I will be very careful when watching Planet Earth from now on.

      80

      • #
        StephenP

        Attenborough is producing a programme tonight on BBC1 called ‘Climate Change – The Facts’ .
        There will be interviews with ‘ top climate scientists ‘ who will explain the cause of the unprecedented weather and wildfires experienced this last year.
        I don’t know whether some of the Extinction Rebellion activists will be there, but this morning on BBC radio there was a series of interviews with Christina Figures and the like who were encouraged to add their pennyworth to ERs objectives.
        If we do go down their line then bye-bye petrol engines, all domestic gas use and our industries. (Although much of that has been sent offshore to China).
        Maybe the ER activists would have more effect on future CO2 emmisions if they went to China and India.

        60

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    Facistbook.

    No sir, I don’t like it.

    Meanwhile, Ryan Maue on twitter:

    “This hasn’t got much attention but it’s a huge issue for next UN IPCC Report.

    If this is robust, then there are dramatic & bad implications for global carbon budget.

    If not, then the model output is junk and IPCC AR6 has a problem.

    Read past the headline …

    Climate modeling groups are flummoxed about their brand new models running way too hot … ”

    New climate models predict a warming surge

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/04/new-climate-models-predict-warming-surge

    50

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      Here is the twitter link with extra comments, like:

      “Doubling of CO2 is observed in the past and modeled to increase global temperature by 2°C-4.5°C … some argue for lower equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) 1.5°-2°C

      These new CMIP6 models have ECS of 5°C.”

      and ..

      “These new results are in some cases outside the envelope of high ECS solitions from the previous batch of models CMIP5.”

      https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1118399286994247682

      Watch this space.

      50

    • #

      There can be no doubt that the models are junk. For doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels to cause 5C of warming starting from 286K, the surface emissions must increase from 379 W/m^2 up to 407 W/m^2 at 291K for an increase of 28 W/m^2. The IPCC claims 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing from doubling CO2 (this was increased slightly in the last AR) which means that each W/m^2 of equivalent forcing must result in about 7.6 W/m^2 of additional surface emissions. Given that each of the 240 W/m^2 of actual forcing from the Sun is responsible for only 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions and the Earth has no way to distinguish the next W/m^2 from any other, 7.6 W/m^2 from the next W/m^2 of solar input (forcing) is so obviously wrong anyone who can’t see this has no understanding of any of the laws of thermodynamics and has no business expressing an opinion about CO2 induced climate change.

      101

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Meanwhile ignoring the effect of the sun. It is a mainline star and these appear to vary by up to 4%. So assuming a 2% dimming that’s a drop of 27 W/m^2. Fortunately the IPCC “thinks” that this would have no effect on the Climate.

        I hear that the cold of the Younger Dryas was caused by an asteroid hit, or rather a series of hits after it broke up, but how do they explain the 8,200 year event, and the cooling around 4,700 years ago and the Dark Age cooling? Afterall the CO2 levels in the ice don’t change.

        90

        • #

          Yes, while we can kind of extrapolate what the orbit and axis were in the past, the further back we go, the more uncertainty there is since we can’t know for sure that we’ve accounted for everything. I wouldn’t be surprised if that many millions of years ago when the planet was apparently much hotter, the Sun was stronger, the Earth’s average orbit was a little closer or it was the result of a combination of both.

          The Younger-Dryas is also nearly coincident with perihelion aligning with the N hemisphere summer solstice as opposed to being close to the N hemisphere winter solstice as it is today. Rather than 20 W/m^2 of the average solar forcing difference between winter and summer being cancelled, the difference will increase by 20 W/m^2 increasing the difference between N hemi winters and summers; and by a whole lot if you accept the IPCC’s ECS.

          We don’t see as much of a difference in the S hemi owing to the much larger fraction of water which slows down the seasonal temperature change around average. When perihelion again aligns with the N hemi summer, the difference between winter and summer in the S hemi will be even smaller, even as it is already less than that of the N hemi.

          60

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      It means they are doubling down, as the Big Lie is close to being exposed widely….the powers that be up the ante to shock the punters into not thinking…

      141

    • #
      ColA

      I found this statement stunning;

      The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says.

      Yes, she actually says components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds

      Isn’t water vapor the most significant green house gas?
      Aren’t the error bars for effects of clouds larger than the total effect of CO2??

      160

      • #
        Serp

        Let’s face it, anybody posing as a climate scientist is at the outset too stupid to appreciate the preposterousness of the carbon dioxide warming hypothesis and in consequence of that prerequisite stupidity unable to develop a mathematical suite for testing it. Nice name though, Kate Marvel.

        100

        • #
          Slithers

          Slightly O/T
          Job hunter to prospective employer.
          I got a good degree in 2012. been in various jobs ever since building up knowledge about how things work.
          Interviewer, What sort of Jobs?
          Applicant stutters, blushes. I was a climate Scientist…..

          40

      • #
        MudCrab

        components that are too small to directly simulate

        I assume the irony of that statement when one is trying to discuss the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is also completely lost on Good Scientist Marvel.

        70

        • #
          Bobl

          It’s odd though that they can’t see the obvious, for each kg of biomass produced by photosynthesis plants absorb 16MJ of shortwave light energy. In 1990 the estimate of forest productivity was around 500 Tonnes per Ac or about 120kg per square meter absorbing 1920 MJ per square metre (1.9GJ).

          Converted to power that’s 60 Watts per square meter. The 15% increase in photosynthesis represents a loss due to increased CO2 of 9 Watts per square metre. So CO2 warming adds 0.6Watts but photosynthesis subtracts 9 watts for a Net Forest energy balance of -8.4 Watts per square metre.

          That’s significant but is it counted, um well, gee. NO

          Grassland is 15T per acre or a Net energy loss of 1.8Watts per square meter due to CO2 increase from 1990-2018.

          That is CO2 causes surface cooling from the increase in photosynthesis effect alone simply due to the fact that producing a mole of glucose by photosynthesis costs 117kcal!

          Math and chemistry isn’t the strong point of climate scientists.

          50

          • #
            Bobl

            Oops grassland is wrong Nett is +0.3 IE half of the global warming imbalance absorbed by photosynthesis alone over grassland. About 15 times imbalance over forest. Sorry I can’t do oceans because I don’t know the plant biomass production for oceans.

            Note also that as well as absorbing sunlight, plants also evaporate water and sink CO2 as they photosynthesise.

            These numbers approach or exceed the supposed back radiation effect yet climate science ignores them. Not science unless ALL losses are considered down to at least two orders of magnitude below the supposed warming energy.

            30

    • #
      RicDre

      Three interesting comments in the article:

      1) In relation to the CIMP6 being at least a year late, Fyfe says “It’s maddening, because it feels like writing a sci-fi story as the first-order draft.” Perhaps it feels like they are writing sci-fi because that is in fact what they are doing.

      2) “In assessing how fast climate may change, the next IPCC report probably won’t lean as heavily on models as past reports did, says Thorsten Mauritsen, a climate scientist at Stockholm University and an IPCC author. It will look to other evidence as well, in particular a large study in preparation that will use ancient climates and observations of recent climate change to constrain sensitivity.” This could get very interesting.

      3) “IPCC is also not likely to give projections from all the models equal weight, Fyfe adds, instead weighing results by each model’s credibility.” It will be interesting to see how they determine a model’s credibility.

      80

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        2) They don’t have ancient climate data, all they have is proxy and models that they pretend represent the ancient.

        3) Just like Mann’s tree ring. Weighting the model that’s credible, is just nonsense. More pretend.

        50

        • #
          RicDre

          Greg Cavanagh:

          Good points. It also occurred to me that weighting the models based on which models they think are credible makes their contention that averaging the model outputs together eliminates the “noise” and gives them a more accurate output is even more dubious than averaging together unweighted model outputs.

          80

          • #
            Bobl

            The models can’t be all correct since they all give different answers. At most ONE of them is right, but more likely they are all wrong. Averaging a bunch of wrong models with a right model does not bring you closer to the truth. This is a statistical lie.

            This is a confidence trick to convince the punters that this has legs, “oh we use the average of the consensus”. What if the consensus is wrong? Oh dear then all the model output will be biased to the consensus view…

            How convenient

            10

    • #
      EJW

      There was an American wildlife show (whose name I can not remember) sponsored by Mutual of Omaha Insurance years ago that went off the air for manipulating the wildlife to suit the narrative of the presenter. They were busted for this behaviour as so should Netflix. Sadly memes have a life of their own.

      20

  • #
  • #
    PeterS

    limit the visibility of links found to be significantly more prominent on Facebook than across the web as a whole,

    That surely means discussions on climate change and Trump by the alarmists and scoffers respectively will be blocked. Yeah right. I’ll believe it when I see it. Far more likely they will demonstrate their utter contempt of the truth and raise the level of their hypocrisy to an even higher level.

    60

  • #
    John in Oz

    Using Facebook’s own guidelines for detecting false information, anything to do with CAGW is going to be removed. I’m sure most readers of this blog will be able to suggest several examples for every one of Facebook’s ‘false news’ points

    1. Be skeptical of headlines. False news stories often have catchy headlines in all caps with exclamation points. If shocking claims in the headline sound unbelievable, they probably are.

    2. Look closely at the link. A phony or look-alike link may be a warning sign of false news. Many false news sites mimic authentic news sources by making small changes to the link. You can go to the site to compare the link to established sources.

    3. Investigate the source. Ensure that the story is written by a source that you trust with a reputation for accuracy. If the story comes from an unfamiliar organization, check their “About” section to learn more.

    4. Watch for unusual formatting. Many false news sites have misspellings or awkward layouts. Read carefully if you see these signs.

    5. Consider the photos. False news stories often contain manipulated images or videos. Sometimes the photo may be authentic, but taken out of context. You can search for the photo or image to verify where it came from.

    6. Inspect the dates. False news stories may contain timelines that make no sense, or event dates that have been altered.

    7. Check the evidence. Check the author’s sources to confirm that they are accurate. Lack of evidence or reliance on unnamed experts may indicate a false news story.

    8. Look at other reports. If no other news source is reporting the same story, it may indicate that the story is false. If the story is reported by multiple sources you trust, it’s more likely to be true.

    9. Is the story a joke? Sometimes false news stories can be hard to distinguish from humor or satire. Check whether the source is known for parody, and whether the story’s details and tone suggest it may be just for fun.

    10. Some stories are intentionally false. Think critically about the stories you read, and only share news that you know to be credible.

    50

    • #
      RicDre

      “Lack of evidence or reliance on unnamed experts may indicate a false news story.”

      Wow, that means that the majority of stories in the US from the New York Times and the Washington Post are probably false news stories. I’m shocked, shocked to hear that!

      110

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Interestingly Facebook has hired the NATO funded Atlantic Council to help them in this endeavour. Given the history of the Atlantic Council it is much more likely to depriotise left wing views than the opposite. You can see their work in the way Facebook operates in Israel.

    However, is there a limit? Should bots, as an example be censored? How about influencing elections? Censorship, and don’t fool yourselves, we have high censorship rates in Australia, is such a blunt tool, and in the global world, a stupid one. Look at the way the Australian Justice System is going after journalists reporting (or not) on George Pell., prior to the abandonment of his second trial, when he was already found guilty in the first one.

    67

    • #
      RicDre

      “Censorship … is such a blunt tool, and … a stupid one.”

      I agree with that. It’s also a very slippery slope; once you start down the censorship path, how and where do you stop? In the end, the justification for censorship usually comes down to the belief that the people are unable to determine the truth for themselves and must be shielded from falsehoods and only shown the truth. Of course the problem with that is who determines what is true and why are they more able to do so than some other person. Plato thought Philosopher Kings should sever that role, today it is the elite, or Facebook, or an AI program, but whenever censorship “for the people’s own good” has been tried in the past it has always ended in tears so I see no reason to think it will end better this time.

      70

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        Apart from those sites which are blocked by our government (for our own good), the global reach of the internet, the ease for translation (if required) enables anyone to check the veracity of anything. I’m not saying that traditional news outlets lie, but often will slant a story to suit their editorial style. This is another form of censorship which is even more insidious as it can be hard to even see the bias in a story.

        74

        • #
          AndyG55

          “enables anyone to check the veracity of anything”

          And yet, you are totally unable to check the scientific veracity of warming by atmospheric CO2.

          Now why would that be! ;-)

          100

        • #
          el gordo

          ‘I’m not saying that traditional news outlets lie, but often will slant a story to suit their editorial style.’

          There is also the sin of omission, leave stuff out and they’ll be none the wiser.

          Climate change is a festering sore and its broken out again, thanks to Bill who wanted to make it an election issue. Watch how the MSM handles this new climate war.

          Will the ABC interview Peter Ridd on the sensitive issue of coral bleaching? Or the BoM adjustment scandal, lowering the past to warm the future?

          80

  • #
    Ruairi

    For those who fear to free think,
    Just watch for the group thoughts to sync,
    As they all run for cover,
    To agree with each other,
    Then confirmed by a nod and a wink.

    90

  • #
    Bulldust

    Well we all know Facebook’s judgement is flawless. Just don’t mention Cambridge Analytica eh?

    50

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    Facebook is either a platform, or they are a library/news outlet. They can not have it both ways.

    If they go down this route, they’ll soon find themselves overtaken by another platform that does the same and more than FB ever did. They’ll make themselves obsolete by alienating the very market that keeps them going, and promoting by ban their customers, their competition.

    But I’m ok with it. FB have always been Orwellian in that they do data analysis of their users and sell that data. Now their trying to control the message and the use; they’ll soon wither and die.

    50

  • #
    pat

    Facebook usage is slowly dwindling — but Instagram is booming
    Business Insider-6 hours ago
    But Instagram, the Facebook-owned photo-sharing app, is growing healthily…

    17 Apr: GatewayPundit: Tech Tyranny: Instagram Bans Pro-Trump Cartoonist Ben Garrisson – He’s Too Offensive
    by Jim Hoft
    Pro-Trump Cartoonist Ben Garrison was banned on Instagram for offensive posts — He’s conservative.
    The Democrat Party and their supporters in the tech industries have no room for dissenting voices…READ ON
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/tech-tyranny-instagram-bans-pro-trump-cartoonist-ben-garrisson-hes-too-offensive/

    17 Apr: GatewayPundit: Boom! Trump Accuses Obama FBI of Making 11 Payments to Trump Hater Christopher Steele for Phony DNC Dossier
    by Jim Hoft
    TWEET: Donald J. Trump:
    Wow! FBI made 11 payments to Fake Dossier’s discredited author, Trump hater Christopher Steele. @OANN @JudicialWatch The Witch Hunt has been a total fraud on your President and the American people! It was brought to you by Dirty Cops, Crooked Hillary and the DNC

    Judicial Watch previously released evidence that Fusion GPS and founder Christopher Steele was paid 11 times for their work on the phony dossier…

    The Clinton campaign also paid Fusion GPS for the fraudulent dossier that made its way to the top levels of the Obama deep state and was the only “evidence” used to spy on the Trump Campaign in the 2016 election…READ ON
    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/04/boom-trump-accuses-obama-fbi-of-making-11-payments-to-fusion-gps-founder-and-trump-hater-christopher-steele-for-phony-dnc-dossier/

    20

  • #

    Remember the Parson’s Green bomb which could not even damage itself? And the escorting of the posh young lady with the bandage tied round her head to make bunny ears, just like in old cartoons when characters have toothaches? It was all shown and reported seriously in the world’s headlines, with nobody expressing a word of doubt. My suspicion is that it was a kind of a test, to show people something clearly and yet tell them they’re not seeing it, to make a deception as farcical as possible yet keep a straight face.

    That was my watershed moment. I realised that the media had become centralised and absurdified to the point where O’Brien didn’t need to torture Winston into doubting what he clearly saw. It just needed to be announced on all networks with enough frequency and conviction…and with the doubters dismissed as you-know-what. That’s all it takes.

    Please don’t ask me who is behind all this conjuring and trickery, and why they do it, and how they have so much control of media. If I understood I’d be ashamed of myself for understanding. I’m staying with the Living.

    60

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    From the top at Facebook you have an egomaniac who thinks that the world can’t get along without his baby, his crowning creation. He has visions of Facebook becoming the world’s news source. He lied to congress — just one of the sins of a far too powerful man. And this guy looks down on he whole of Facebook and I’ll bet that if you like your job and want to keep it you adopt the boss’ attitude. In fact I’ll bet that many at Facebook agree with the boss. Think of the power they have in their hands and what that does to people.

    Now tell me I should believe Facebook will clean up its act. Tell me I should want to see them continue to provide their “necessary” service. I don’t think so.

    61

  • #
    pat

    22 Mar: Daily Mail: Tech industry liberal bias ‘the greatest threat to liberty in history’ says Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell
    •Leaders from prominent conservative websites have been meeting to combat what they see as ‘left-wing bias’ among popular sites like Google and Facebook
    •Bozell accuses both Facebook and Twitter of attempting to silence messages that do not align with the company’s own agenda
    •Believes social media companies are able to perform a type of ‘speech control’
    •Earlier this week President Trump on Tuesday attacked Twitter, Facebook and Google, stating the companies are ‘on the side of the Radical Left Democrats’
    •The conservative media group are now looking to meet with politicians on Capitol Hill to try and pull together some sort of strategy
    By Dailymail.com Reporter
    Leaders from conservative websites including the Washington Times, The Federalist, The Daily Signal, LifeSite News, Breitbart, Regnery Publishing, Prager U, Sinclair Broadcasting, The Heritage Foundation and came together to discuss what they say is the a left-wing bias among billionaire tech titans who use their power to ‘push a political agenda.’

    ‘Conservatives are coming together, across a broad spectrum, of enterprises and joining forces to fight what some of us believe to be, potentially, the greatest threat to liberty in history,’ Media Research Centerfounder Brent Bozell said in an interview with Fox News. ‘I think we’re heading for an all-out war. As much as they like Kumbaya, this isn’t gonna be Kumbaya.’
    ‘Google is potentially the most dangerous because of the power it has with its search engine,’ Bozell said…

    He said Twitter users are forced to abide by ‘speech control,’ which gets to be ‘Orwellian after a while’ because a ruler is essentially telling you what rhetoric is acceptable.
    ‘That starts getting very eerie,’ Bozell added. ‘Especially when you’re looking at this being worldwide, not just this country, it’s worldwide.’…READ ON
    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6837727/Tech-industry-liberal-bias-greatest-threat-liberty-history.html

    20

  • #
    pat

    16 Apr: Newsbusters: Washington Post Columnist Declares ‘Fox News Has Been Right All Along’
    by Randy Hall
    But once a letter from Attorney General Bill Barr revealed that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation found no evidence of this criminal conspiracy, reporters, editors and others at liberal news outlets should be forced to state that they were wrong on this issue even though it’s safe to say many won’t give up the ghost.
    That was the thrust of an op-ed (LINK) from Washington Post contributing columnist and former Hillsboro, Ohio newspaper editor Gary Abernathy with the title “Admit It: Fox News Has been Right All Along.”

    Abernathy defended his neighbors who “don’t watch Fox News to know what to think” since “they already know what they think” and “avoid news channels that insult their intelligence and core beliefs.”…
    However, Abernathy continued, “Fox News was right, and the others were wrong. For at least two years, MSNBC and CNN devoted hour upon hour, day after day, to promoting the narrative that Trump colluded with the Russians, and that Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III was going to prove it.”
    “That turned out to be wrong,” he stated…

    “Along with defending Trump, Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham and, especially, Sean Hannity have been slammed for … clamoring for an investigation of the investigators, aligning themselves with the President’s claim of a politically motivated witch hunt,” the columnist added.
    Abernathy also stated: “Most of the media portrayed such accusations as preposterous, designed merely to divert attention from Trump’s alleged misdeeds.”…

    “It would behoove serious journalists to put aside their political biases and delve into a story that might actually be worthy of Watergate comparisons — even if it includes the painful admission that Fox News has been right all along,” he concluded.
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2019/04/16/washington-post-columnist-declares-fox-news-has-been-right-all-along

    40

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    One of the best means of deception is Distraction.

    No amount of censorship is going to deal with that.

    An example that would be relevant to the discussion on Climate Change is the focus on CO2 as the warming enabler which quickly moves over the actual mechanism by which “heating” occurs to the less vulnerable topic of climate models.

    The fact that human origin CO2 can have no effect on Earth’s temperature is neatly “sequestered” out of sight.

    One thing that has been overlooked is the place of CO2 in the biosphere and it’s yin_yang existence with oxygen in our bodys.

    One aspect that describes that balance is in the following:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/plants-suck-half-the-co2-out-of-the-air-around-them-before-lunchtime-each-day/#comment-1321691

    KK

    20

  • #
    Kinky Keith

    One of the best means of deception is Distraction.

    No amount of censorship is going to deal with that.

    An example that would be relevant to the discussion on Climate Change is the focus on CO2 as the warming enabler which quickly moves over the actual mechanism by which “heating” occurs to the less vulnerable topic of climate models.

    The fact that human origin CO2 can have no effect on Earth’s temperature is neatly “sequestered” out of sight.

    One thing that has been overlooked is the place of CO2 in the biosphere and it’s yin_yang existence with oxygen in our bodys.

    One aspect that describes that balance is in the following:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/plants-suck-half-the-co2-out-of-the-air-around-them-before-lunchtime-each-day/#comment-1321691

    KK

    50

    • #
      Kinky Keith

      How did this get doubled up?

      20

      • #
        Reed Coray

        CO2 did it–CO2 can do anything.

        90

        • #
          MudCrab

          CO2 is a wonder gas.

          If you put it into the atmosphere it will absorb heat constantly until it starts absorbing the heat it is putting out from its own absorption. Using this power it is capable of ‘Heating the Planet to Gosh!’

          However if you put the same gas into a controlled environment and use the runaway greenhouse effect to boil water for power production… it doesn’t work. Cause CO2 is a wonder gas.

          120

      • #
        Yonniestone

        Was that a distraction KK?

        Well done sir!

        50

    • #
      Peter Fitzroy

      There are 2 types of CO2? how is it possible that naturally occurring CO2 can have an effect, but not the man made variety? I see a Nobel prize in your future /sarc off

      39

      • #
        Kinky Keith

        Wonderful Cyndi. TCST.

        But.

        Far Koff.

        21

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Typical engagement – obviously you have no coherent answer.

          36

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            The darkness inside you
            Can make you feel so small

            TCST

            52

          • #
            AndyG55

            Fitz, it is YOU that has no coherent answer.

            In fact, no answer AT ALL.

            So, do you have any empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2, be it human or natural in origin, has ANY AFFECT on climate at all????.

            62

      • #
        AndyG55

        Because there is SO LITTLE human CO2 in the atmosphere, fitz.

        And NATURAL CO2 has no effect on the climate either.

        You have been repeatedly asked to provide empirical evidence that atmospheric CO2 affects the climate.

        You have repeatedly FAILED.

        72

      • #
        Bill in Oz

        CO 2 released via tectonic activity or volcanoes
        cannot be separated from the CO2 released by
        Burning fossil fuels.

        41

        • #
          Peter Fitzroy

          Yep – the problem is not the quantity, nor the source, it is the mechanics of action. I’m happy to accept the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept the manner in which it works. The problem is that if you deny that, you have to have a scientifically based explanation, I’ve not seen anything to counter the established fact that it is a greenhouse gas, nor the mechanics in how it operates.

          58

          • #
            Yonniestone

            You have been given scientific links and evidence on those very questions here for months Peter, at what point will you admit to not wanting to know or lack the comprehension?

            102

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Can’t

            Really

            Accept that

            Proposition.

            42

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” I’m happy to accept the CO2 is a greenhouse gas”

            Yes, it is a gas used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth

            In the atmosphere , it is a radiative gas, that absorbs in a tiny thin band then thermalises to the rest of the 99.96% of the atmosphere.

            And there is no evidence that it causes any atmospheric warming.

            72

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              But but but, Andy, it’s a ” Heat Trapping Gas”.

              And it holds on to that “trapped heat” for approximately 1.4 milliseconds prior to equilibration with the atmosphere that completely engulfs it.

              KK

              51

          • #
            AndyG55

            “you have to have a scientifically based explanation,”

            Why? You don’t have one!

            You have Fantasy explanation, which is scientifically unsupportable.

            You have yet to put forward any evidence that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

            82

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” counter the established fact that it is a greenhouse gas”

            Yes, we know it is a gas used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth.

            You are totally incapable of presenting any FACT that says it is anything but a radiative gas, that absorbs in a tiny thin band of weak energy then thermalises to the rest of the atmosphere to be dealt with by convection and other temperature/pressure based transfers of energy..

            You have yet to produce a single bit of actual science to back up the brain-babble that CO2 has any warming effect on the atmosphere.

            72

          • #
            AndyG55

            “the mechanics in how it operates”

            Yet you are totally incapable of even explaining, with empirical evidence, how this supposed “mechanism” works.

            Perhaps it is a fantasy mechanism. ;-)

            82

          • #
            AndyG55

            ” I’m happy to accept……. “

            A lack of basic science education will do that.

            It doesn’t matter what you are “happy to accept”

            Its what you can PROVE.

            And …….

            42

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              But, only if it is right that he should do so.

              Should He bother.

              I gave him a chance to get up before, and he squibbed it, thus shewing, True Colours.

              KK

              41

          • #
            AndyG55

            A greenhouse operates by stopping or slowing convection.

            There is only ONE gas that does that in the atmosphere…

            … and it is not CO2.

            If you start with a scientifically erroneous definition, you are going to be manifestly wrong with everything that stems from that error.

            62

          • #
            el gordo

            They can differentiate between human induced CO2 and the natural occurring background level.

            http://www.bitsofscience.org/natural-anthropogenic-co2-differentiation-monitoring-5732/

            Its quite clear the CO2 sinks have been unable to swallow up the excessive human induced kind. As you all know throughout the RWP and MWP the sinks worked perfectly, so it may just be a glitch in the system.

            20

            • #
              AndyG55

              Think about just how much died during the LIA. Too cold to decay.

              What happens to that as the planet warms up, elG. !

              All that dead carbon matter is gradually released as CO2.

              Not to mention the huge areas that start to become part of the natural carbon cycle as they warm up.

              Heck, its one of the big AGWer complaints that warming areas release extra CO2 and CH4 !!!

              About the only thing they have got correct.

              They say this, then say human CO2 is 100% responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2.. DOH !!

              Talk about muddle-headed cognitive dissonance. ;-)

              91

              • #
                el gordo

                I have cognitive dissonance real bad.

                If CO2 causes a little warming then it amounts to a terraforming experiment. Its the glorious uncertainty which makes it so exciting.

                40

              • #
                AndyG55

                elG,

                There is no evidence that CO2 causes warming.

                Where did this terraforming nonsense come from ???

                We are just returning accidentally sequestered carbon back into the carbon cycle.

                We are using what is there for us to use.

                51

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Where did this terraforming nonsense come from ???’

                As we are at the end of the Holocene it maybe necessary to reopen the Central American Seaway, with due scientific diligence of course.

                The excessive human induced CO2 is greening the planet, but the jury is still out on whether it causes a little warming. I don’t see any positive feedbacks to support the hypothesis.

                10

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Use draino

              20

          • #
            Bobl

            But you have!

            If CO2 doubles back radiation is supposed to increase by 3.7 watts per square meter heating the surface by 3.3 degrees (IPCC). But if the surface heats by 3.3 degrees then by S-B equation broadband IR surface emission will increase by about 15.5 Watts per square metre. This violates the law of conservation of energy, 3.3 watts in cannot cause 15.5 watts out!

            Do the sums yourself, use the SB equation to calculate emission at surface temp of 288k then at 291.3k subtract the former from the latter.

            Until that is explained to you you must conclude that CO2 back radiation can’t cause 3.3 degrees of surface temperature rise.

            Here is another…

            Let’s assume the 0.8 degrees change since CO2 was at 270PPM is ALL due to CO2. The relationship is deltaT=k x ln(C/Co) , 0.8 = k x ln(410/270)

            K = 0.8/ln(410/270)

            Take the value of k you got and use it to calculate deltaT for a doubling

            IE
            DeltaT = k x ln(2)

            Now the IPCC claim half of the warming since preindustrial is CO2 so halve your result to get an estimate of the warming effect of CO2.

            The IPCC model claims are 5 to 10 times what historical warming would suggest maximum climate sensitivity is.

            You will also see that if you work out the surface warming for 3.7 watts extra surface emission, it agrees with the estimate for historical CO2 warming at 50% of historical warming caused by CO2 at about 0.5 degrees per doubling (Indicating negative feedback dominates)

            This isn’t rocket science, it’s just arithmetic.

            30

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              Hi Bob, the SB equation has been abused and misused so much that I despair.

              The error made by climate change proponents is to insert values into the SB equation without even thinking about the specific conditions in play.

              Big demonstration of the complete thermodynamic incompetence of the IPCCCCC and hangers on.

              KK

              30

              • #
                Bobl

                I think the problem is that they think that energy needs to be conserved only at their specified boundary (top of atmosphere) then they let the models rip with their fudge factors for clouds etc and accept the result. In the real world though the law of conservation of energy need to be satisfied everywhere and at all times. Any violation under any condition at as my point on earth or in the atmosphere at any time and the model IS wrong.

                Surface warming is clearly wrong.

                In fact the assertion that outgoing energy must equal incoming solar energy is wrong because it’s an open system with many energy sources and sinks. Orbital energy for example is 200 billion times the annual influx of light from the sun. If just a fraction say 1 trillionth of that gets into the climate then all bets are off.

                PS it does (friction)

                50

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Good points Bob.

                21

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yep – the problem is not the quantity, nor the source, it is the mechanics of action. I’m happy to accept the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and accept the manner in which it works. The problem is that if you deny that, you have to have a scientifically based explanation, I’ve not seen anything to counter the established fact that it is a greenhouse gas, nor the mechanics in how it operates. — Peter Fitzroy

            Forgive me, first for repeating your whole argument so no one misses it and then second, for laughing at it. If you were even close to knowing what you’re talking about you wouldn’t make such an argument. No one here has denied that CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas, just that it does nothing harmful.

            30

            • #
              Kinky Keith

              It’s all very well to have “greenhouse” gases, but to have a greenhouse effect you need one important thing;

              A Greenhouse!!

              And Earth’s atmosphere is not a greenhouse.

              KK

              10

        • #
          Kinky Keith

          In what sense do you mean that?

          Even the Warmers accept that the ratio of Natural Origin CO2 to Human Origin CO2 is about 96:4.

          What was your point.

          51

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            And to make matters worse, the ratio of active atmospheric “greenhouse” gases in the CO2 bandwidth is about 95 water to 4 total CO2.

            Then there’s the actual bigger question relating to the mechanism at work which can be duplicated by other mechanisms known to real scientists via the gas laws.

            KK

            51

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Stop me if I’m wrong KK. But didn’t you just shoot down the whole global warming/climate change alarm in a few sentences, no mater where its support comes from, Peter Ftizroy or anyone else? If the manmade stuff is so small a proportion then the natural stuff is handling the load, even for Peter Fitzroy.

              Nice going !!! :-)

              70

            • #
              PeterFitzroy

              So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes?

              35

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Read the last paragraph and if you don’t understand what it means it proves my earlier points.

                http://joannenova.com.au/2019/04/facebook-finds-truth-by-groupthink-may-the-deepest-pockets-win-the-info-war/#comment-2129999

                KK

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                “So CO2 is a greenhouse gas”

                Yes it is used in greenhouses to enhance plant growth

                In the atmosphere, it is a radiative gas.

                It does not stop or slow convection, nor does it form a barrier of any sort to the movement of energy, (its action is, in fact, a part of the method for moving energy from the surface to the upper atmosphere)…

                … therefore there is NO rational or scientific reason to call atmospheric CO2 a greenhouse gas.

                The very name “greenhouse gas” is a misnomer. !

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                Lets look at a comparison of CERES and ERBS

                https://i.postimg.cc/hjSsR0jK/olr-erbsceres.png

                There’s no sign whatsoever in the ToA radiation flux data of any “GHE” strengthening over the last 34 years:

                If such hypothetical strengthening had in fact occurred and been the cause of observed warming over this time period (1985-2018), the orange OLR curve would be seen to trend significantly downwards relative to the black TLT curve, gradually and systematically all the way from the start. It clearly and obviously doesn’t. Rather it tracks it tightly.

                There is absolutely no sign of any increased OLR absorption over the last 34 years as atmospheric CO2 levels have climbed from 340ish to over 400ppm.

                There is no evidence that atmosphere CO2 acts in any way like a greenhouse, to cause warming of the atmosphere.

                41

              • #
                Bobl

                Depends.

                CO2 is a non-condensing radiative gas, it diffuses IR energy in a narrow band, reflecting some. So in a sense it’s like having flat white walls.

                But it is operating in an OPEN system, when the reflected IR heats the ground collides with other air molecules or heats water, it causes these other things to emit out at all frequencies (not just the narrow CO2 one) and almost all of that goes to space. The energy goes around the blanket.

                Think if a black wall were 0.04% painted white. The black wall quickly absorbs any of the white bits reflection.

                Models try to preserve the excess reflection but in a Lossy open system things like this get absorbed, not preserved.

                So yes CO2 is radiative, but it doesn’t matter because the system is so lossy

                30

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                So CO2 is a greenhouse gas, yes?

                OK, you can make that argument. Misnomer though that name may be I think we both understand what you mean.

                Now consider this, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and at any given time there is — well I really don’t know a number because it varies widely — so much more water in the atmosphere doing its global warming act that it dwarfs CO2 by so much as to be a joke to talk about CO2. Yet only CO2 gets blamed for anything.

                Peter, why is that? Could it be that the promulgators of global warming know they can’t do anything about H2O so they can’t try to force us to do mitigation? But there is good old carbon dioxide to take up the challenge. And they had a winner, never mind that carbon dioxide is completely irrelevant as a greenhouse gas just based on comparison of parts per million in the atmosphere alone.

                I’d like to hear your answer to that. Do you think CO2 is so much more capable than water? Do you miss the silly little fact that carbon dioxide’s effectiveness is inverse logarithmic and it’s ability to warm is already nearly saturated and it’s not doing anything but coming in last as a greenhouse gas?

                40

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                You might want to remember that Earth is 3/4 covered with exposed water surface. It puts more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere in a minute than human activity does in a whole day.

                30

              • #

                Andy,

                CO2 is not so much part of the method of moving surface energy into the upper atmosphere, but part of the method to capture and delay surface emissions, returning about half of the the delayed energy to the surface contributing to the surface’s radiant balance while the remaining half is emitted into space contributing towards the planet’s radiant balance.

                The concept of ‘thermalization’ is often misrepresented. The photons involved with the emission and absorption of energy by GHG molecules don’t interact with the O2 and N2 that comprises the bulk of the atmosphere. Any conversion into rotational states that can potentially be shared by collisions is bidirectional, hence the symmetric fine structure on either side of primary absorption/emission lines. The predominant mechanism of net ‘thermalization’ is when an energized H2O or CO2 molecule becomes part of or is dissolved into a drop of liquid or solid water in a cloud and the signature of this is present in the spectrum emitted at TOA.

                Cloud water serve the same role as GHG’s, each drop being a black body broad band absorber and emitter of energy rather than the narrow band effects of GHG’s, and since the planet is 2/3 covered by clouds, they contribute more to the total ‘greenhouse’ effect than all GHG gasses combined. Between the surface and clouds, GHG gases provide little incremental effect on the surface temperature beyond what the clouds are already having.

                20

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Good summary Roy.

                10

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Hi CO2,

                Interesting outline, very readable.

                The point about IR going back to heat the ground seems to contradict basic thermodynamics?

                UV heats the ground which then emits the degraded IR back towards deep space.

                How can that IR in the atmosphere turn around and heat a surface that is “hotter” than its current location?

                KK

                10

              • #

                KK,

                The idea that a cold body can’t heat a warm body is limited to matter in contact with other matter. The linkage between clouds, GHG’s and the surface is radiant (photons) in both directions, and not from direct contact from matter at two different temperatures. It’s not the kinetic temperature of atmospheric molecules in motion heating the surface, but the radiant emissions by the atmosphere. Molecules in motion don’t emit photons unless they’re not in the ground state, while the O2 and N2 in the atmosphere are always in the ground state.

                The temperature of space is far colder than Earth, yet the planet is much warmer than space. How is it that a cold space is heating the planet? The answer of course is that it’s not and the solar energy heating the surface arrives as photons. The only difference between the photons from the Sun and the photons returned from GHG’s is their wavelength.

                10

              • #
                Kinky Keith

                Hi CO2,

                … And their Virtue.

                10

          • #
            Kinky Keith

            Bill?

            31

      • #
        AndyG55

        “how is it possible that naturally occurring CO2 can have an effect”

        It doesn’t.

        62

  • #
    pat

    8 Apr: Newsbusters: U.K. Announces ‘Regulatory Regime’ That Could ‘Block Sites’
    By Corinne Weaver
    In a white paper (LINK) published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on April 8, new guidelines were proposed for regulating the internet…
    The paper used terms that were open to definition, such as “the spread of misinformation online,” to designate something that would be banned on the U.K.’s regulated internet. Such content was deemed “unacceptable.”…

    The paper cited the University of Oxford’s Computational Propaganda Project’s report on online manipulation as “evidence of organised social media manipulation campaigns.” The University of Oxford’s Computational Project also published a study (LINK) in 2018 which targeted Drudge Report, NewsBusters, CNSNews, MRCTV, Breitbart, the Daily Caller, Free Beacon, LifeNews, National Review, the Red State, and the Federalist as “junk news.”…

    If the U.K. and its new regulator decide to rely on this project for guidance in determining what sites to block, fine, and regulate, then conservative sites will be on the new hit list. This could be even more disturbing if the U.K. government is considering “blocking harmful sites,” which the BBC claims it is.
    The white paper also cited a Reuters study which claimed that 61% of people “want the government to separate what is real and what is fake on the internet.”…READ ON
    https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/techwatch/corinne-weaver/2019/04/08/uk-announces-regulatory-regime-could-block-sites

    20

  • #
    Bill in Oz

    Off topic…back to the Climate topic ”
    Chiefio has completed another analysis of the global temperature ‘anomalies’..for South America
    His conclusion :
    ” In general, I’ve noticed some places hardly change at all. Often very minor places like an island somewhere. Larger places look more “manicured” with loss of low going excursions in the data lately. Then there’s the general tendency to cool the past, and put “dips” in the “baseline” period used by GISStemp and Hadley (1950 to 1990). Is it really the case that all those places had just those same needs to cool the past, dip the baseline and juice up the recent highs while clipping recent lows? What physicality could possible account for that? What systematic failure of thermometer tech Globally can account for those “errors”?

    To me it looks like deliberately cooking the books.”

    And yes the Bureau of Misinformation in it it up to it’s neck.

    120

  • #
    pat

    ***you have to laugh!

    18 Apr: ABC Breakfast: ‘Still more to learn’: Redacted Mueller report to be released today
    ***Guest: Marshall Cohen, CNN reporter

    AUDIO: 8min15sec: 18 Apr: ABC Breakfast: ‘We never received any advice from Geoscience Australia or CSIRO’, Adani says
    Fresh controversy is engulfing Adani’s proposed Carmichael mine in central Queensland.
    Guest: Lucas Dow, CEO, Adani Australia
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/never-received-any-advice-from-geoscience-australia-or-csiro/11028004

    18 Apr: ABC: Adani did not ‘accept in full’ changes sought by scientists during approval stages, meeting notes show
    Exclusive by Michael Slezak and Stephen Long
    The ABC requested the meeting notes under freedom of information (FOI) laws, but Geoscience Australia took the unusual step of releasing the documents immediately instead…
    One set of notes was taken by Geoscience Australia chief Dr James Johnson, another by head of environmental geoscience Dr Stuart Minchin, and the third by senior executive Dr Richard Blewett.
    A handwritten note by Dr Blewett mentions concerns held by Jane Coram, the head of CSIRO’s land and water division…BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH

    (FROM FINAL LINES) In an official statement to the ABC, a spokesperson for Geoscience Australia said it stood by their earlier statement that Adani’s actions addressed the concerns raised in their technical advice…
    Geoscience Australia said it was not pressured to provide the Government assurance.
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-18/adani-geosciences-approval-meeting-documents/11025724

    17 Apr: National Post: Rex Murphy: Kenney’s resoluteness won Alberta. Trudeau’s hypocrisy helped Notley lose
    A big reason for Kenney’s success was his promise that ‘Alberta will no longer be passive’ in the face of calumnies such as the ones from ever-useless Bill Nye
    Anyone who’s surprised Jason Kenney won a majority government Tuesday night has either been asleep for a long while, or working in the Prime Minister’s Office. The indefatigable, persevering, and super-industrious Kenney is a miracle of political endurance. No ordinary politician could out-work Kenney even if supplied with a few spare clones. There are many reasons why he won but let us establish right at the top that the first reason, and the one that fired all the rest of them, is that he works like the sun never sets, and that sunrise is just something that happens only long after he gets up.

    Secondly, he knows what a job is. To be exactingly precise he knows what not having one means to normal everyday people. t is always annoying to listen to the bigheads who rabbit on about “transitioning to a non-carbon economy” of how glibly and disinterestedly they reference the tens and hundreds of thousands who will be displaced from their employment in oil, gas and coal industries. There’s always some fatuous nod to their plight that takes the form of a super-vague assurance that there will be heaps of “new green jobs” — as if jobs have colours, and as if going from present day real work to a fanciful job in some dreamed-up “green future” will float down from the sky at the twitch of a climate-change minister’s thumb.

    Such fantasies are an insult to people out of work and those threatened with being out of work. Kenney knows this in a way that a certain leader in Ottawa simply can’t fathom, and in a way that those who jet off to Paris and Copenhagen for the annual jawfest about saving the planet don’t even care to understand. His message was as clear as glass: jobs first, and only then whatever else has to be considered…
    https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-trudeau-damned-rachel-notley-and-gave-jason-kenney-generous-outside-help

    30

    • #
      Another Ian

      Pat

      Re “and as if going from present day real work to a fanciful job in some dreamed-up “green future” ”

      ” “A job is death without dignity” Dylan Thomas “as opposed to real work” via Brendan Behan’s “Ireland” “

      20

  • #
    pat

    not listening to either but, just scanning the two audios, it seems Fran interrupts Cormann far more than she interrupts Chalmers. plus, of course, it’s not about the “cost of Labor’s climate policy” – it’s only about the cost to business of buying international carbon credits. deceptive as always, ABC:

    AUDIO: 9min24sec: 18 Apr: ABC Breakfast: Cormann calls on Labor to reveal cost of climate policy
    ***The cost of Labor’s climate policy has now been put at more than $25 billion, while the release of the official pre-election fiscal update has kept the pressure on the Coalition over claims of $40 billion in spending cutbacks to pay for tax relief.
    Guest: Mathias Cormann, Finance Minister
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/cormann-calls-on-labor-to-reveal-cost-of-climate-policy/11027972

    AUDIO: 11min53sec: 18 Apr: ABC Breakfast: Labor to release climate change costing ahead of election
    Another pressure point is Labor’s climate change policy, ***which Finance Minister Mathias Cormann claims will cost Australian businesses more than $25 billion.
    Guest: Jim Chalmers, Shadow Finance Minister and Labor’s campaign spokesman
    https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/labor-to-release-climate-change-costing-ahead-of-election/11028082

    10

  • #
    Bulldust

    Looks like Shifty Shorten is going full on before the Easter truce:

    https://thewest.com.au/politics/federal-politics/shorten-prime-minister-scott-morrison-a-coal-wielding-climate-denying-cave-dweller-ng-b881173147z

    Nothing like a reasoned debate, eh? Never mind the light Godwinning that the D word implies.

    30

  • #
    yarpos

    I find the idea that people use Facebook as a news source, the idea that if you do that you care about the quality and veracity of your news and information, and the idea that Facebook cares about the quality and veracity of its news and information channels really quite laughable.

    70

  • #
    pat

    lol – Giles has no sense of humour:

    18 Apr: RenewEconomy: Adani objects to Gupta solar farm in Whyalla, worried about birds
    by Giles Parkinson
    The objection is revealed in planning documents filed to South Australia’s State Planning Commission, and refers to the 280MW Cultana solar farm, designed to provide power to the Whyalla Steelworks, and which just happens to be located right next to a 132MW solar project proposed by Adani Renewables.

    The planning documents show that Adani was the only party to raise concerns about the planning approval for the $350 million project, and its particular focus was on the impact on the threatened Western Grass Wren and the slender-billed Thornbill.
    It also expressed concern about the impact of dust, and the site entry, as well as the impact on Aboriginal cultural heritage. It asked whether the project should be referred to the federal minister for environment under the EPBC Act…

    The Cultana solar farm is key to Gupta’s plans to build 1GW of solar and storage facilities to power the Whyalla Steelworks, which he bought out of administration in late 2017, and also provide cheaper power to other big energy users.
    It will be paired with a 100MW/100MWh big battery to be located next to the now closed coal generators in Port Augusta, and which is also going through the planning approval process…

    The Cultana solar project will comprise 925,000 solar PV panels mounted on single axis tracking structures and will be split over two neighbouring sites, a 210MW “north” facility” and a 70MW “south” facility across the road. The north site is covered in Acacia woodlands and salt bush, while the southern site is a disused dairy farm…
    The project was to have its own battery, but will instead use the Playford facility planned to be sited next to the Davenport sub-station in Port Augusta.
    That facility has been rated at 100MW/100MWh. meaning that it will not, as once indicated, beat the so-called Tesla big battery located next to the Hornsdale wind farm, which remains – for the moment – the world’s biggest lithium ion battery at 100MW/129MWh.
    https://reneweconomy.com.au/adani-objects-to-gupta-solar-farm-in-whyalla-worried-about-birds-29646/

    20

  • #
    pat

    17 Apr: The Hill: Ten post-Mueller questions that could turn the tables on Russia collusion investigators
    by John Solomon
    2,479 comments at time of posting
    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439234-ten-post-mueller-questions-that-could-turn-the-tables-on-russia-collusion

    10

  • #
    Another Ian

    Facebook probably wouldn’t like this either

    “Hubris on steroids @jcu – Uni “digging in” on Peter Ridd decision”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/17/hubris-on-steroids-jcu-uni-digging-in-on-peter-ridd-decision/

    40

  • #
    pat

    from the Opportunities Zone conference at the White House today. can’t imagine theirABC giving it a mention:

    Youtube: 19min39sec: 17 Apr: WATCH: President Trump Remarks (and others) On Helping All Communities
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgAV-Dwscog

    comments are worth noting too.

    10

  • #

    There’s an episode in the first season of The Orville called “Majority Rule” portraying a society in which all decisions are made by poplar vote; including what is fact. Whatever is the most popular; is fact. Heretics who speak otherwise and remain recalcitrant; as adjudicated by popular vote; are eventually “corrected” surgically into compliance.

    It’s a satire on the facile populism employed within social media in the West, employed to addict users via constant stimulation.

    CLICK HERE TO LIKE

    20