Just for you Gunter!
From a legal standpoint, the Big Tech companies have the right to censor anyone whose opinion they disagree with. Unfortunately, they have become monopolies. As such, they control mankind
While I understand the reasoning behind removing much of the crazy stuff in this age where people are finding it tough to know what's authentic and what's bunk, the problem for me is that some of the most mainstream stuff is totally bunk!
CNN and the NYT's pushing the 200,000/day, 8 fold increase in new cases if we open up bs 2 weeks ago is a perfect example. What good is censoring some video's on youtube so that people get authentic information(based on somebody's view of authentic), when the supposedly reliable sources of information are major propaganda sources:
Deaths suddenly doubling in BS model
23 responses |
Started by metmike - May 5, 2020, 2:26 a.m.
This has actually led to a great deal of censoring of authentic climate science and the marginalizing of those that present it with data/observations and the use of propaganda and creative schemes to sell junk science that supports the fake climate crisis.
The MSM is all in with this. Greta is the high priestess for their climate religion..........main speaker at the United Nations and US House, Time person of the year, 2nd place Nobel Peace Prize, CNN expert panelist......etc.
But those with opposing views(supported by authentic climate science)?
Put a blanket ban on any public figure whom has previously or currently argues against the consensus around climate change.
RTE is the single most popular media source on this island. We even fund them via a licence fee mandatory for every household. They influence society as a whole & their lagging behind on climate change is beyond unacceptable, it's dangerous.
metmike: The strategy has been clear from the beginning. Use of the term climate denier is meant to connect us deniers in people's mind's with Holocaust Deniers. We are evil with ulterior motives trying to sabotage the efforts of those trying to save the planet(from the fake climate crisis). We should be marginalized and banned.
What's interesting about that is the biggest reason to ban us, is that their junk science can't hold up when we show the authentic science.........so the authentic science of deniers must be banned in order to brainwash the people with computer simulations of the atmosphere going out the next 100 years that have led to massively failed predictions the past 30 years.
For being a "climate denier", as I am made out to be, who supposedly denies data and science, I sure have a heck of a lot of authentic data and science. As an atmospheric scientist, I have more than anybody that I know. My absolute favorite posts here are those that question me or disagree with something about climate science. The response is to either prove the point indisputably with data or concede and adjust the position based on not being able to prove it.
If you didn't know me, I'll betcha anything that your image of a "climate denier" would be quite different...........the one the MSM wants you to have of me.
Climate Reality discussions
Started by metmike - April 15, 2019, 4:10 p.m.
For those that actually know me(I devote much of my time as volunteer chess coach at 5 schools and at other non profit places) and try to send positive messages and always represent truth..... see if their description of me, from the article below fits:
there is no doubt that denialism is dangerous. In some cases, we can point to concrete examples of denialism causing actual harm. In South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki, in office between 1999 and 2008, was influenced by Aids denialists such as Peter Duesberg, who deny the link between HIV and Aids (or even HIV’s existence) and cast doubt on the effectiveness of anti-retroviral drugs. Mbeki’s reluctance to implement national treatment programmes using anti-retrovirals has been estimated to have cost the lives of 330,000 people.
"Denialism can also create an environment of hate and suspicion. Forms of genocide denialism are not just attempts to overthrow irrefutable historical facts; they are an assault on those who survive genocide, and their descendants."
More commonly though, denialism’s effects are less direct but more insidious.
Denialism is a mix of corrosive doubt and corrosive credulity.
It’s perfectly understandable that denialism sparks anger and outrage, particularly in those who are directly challenged by it.
For the denialist, every day barrels of oil continue to be extracted and burned is a good day, every day a parent doesn’t vaccinate their child is a good day, every day a teenager Googling the Holocaust finds out that some people think it never happened is a good day. Of course, denialists can be stupid, ignorant liars, but so can any of us. But denialists are people in a desperate predicament.
Denialism is also a reaction to the inconvenience of the moral consensus that emerged in the post-enlightenment world. In the ancient world, you could erect a monument proudly proclaiming the genocide you committed to the world. In the modern world, mass killing, mass starvation, mass environmental catastrophe can no longer be publicly legitimated. Climate change denialism is predicated on a similarly hidden acknowledgment that, if anthropogenic climate change were actually occurring, we would have to do something about it.
It is hard to tell whether global warming denialists are secretly longing for the chaos and pain that global warming will bring, are simply indifferent to it, or would desperately like it not to be the case but are overwhelmed with the desire to keep things as they are. It is hard to tell whether Holocaust deniers are preparing the ground for another genocide, or want to keep a pristine image of the goodness of the Nazis and the evil of the Jews. It is hard to tell whether an Aids denialist who works to prevent Africans from having access to anti-retrovirals is getting a kick out of their power over life and death, or is on a mission to save them from the evils of the west.
If the new realm of unrestrained online discourse, and the example set by Trump, tempts more and more denialists to transition towards post-denialism and beyond, we will finally know where we stand. Instead of chasing shadows, we will be able to contemplate the stark moral choices we humans face.
metmike: My response would just be.............please just allow me the opportunity to show THE authentic science and data. You show your science and data(not just words, narratives and blatantly distorted MISinterpretations-while blocking out everything from my side). Then, let people see both and decide for themselves.