Institute for Strategic Dialogue Wants only a Climate Monologue
August 16th 2022
Article by FOSADMIN, published July 20, 2022, by Friends of Science.
Open Letter:
July 20, 2022
Institute for Strategic Dialogue
PO Box 75769
London
SW1P 9ER
United Kingdom
info@isdglobal.org
+44 (0) 20 7493 9333
ATTN: Sarah Kennedy, Chief Operating Officer
Dear Madame,
Re: Request for Retraction of “Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond” and a formal apology to those you have maligned (pdf below)
On or about June 9, 2022, your organization, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, issued the above named report which publicly maligns and spreads false information about our organization, Friends of Science Society, and which contravenes the several fundamentals of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its preamble.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, (bold emphasis added)
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Your ironically named “Institute for Strategic Dialogue” appears to be unaware of the definition of the word “dialogue”. The Oxford dictionary defines it as: a formal discussion between two groups or countries, especially when they are trying to solve a problem, end a disagreement, etc.
As you may be aware, the world is now on the brink of famine due to the energy crisis. This crisis was predominantly caused by influential forces like the UNPRI, Mark Carney, and activist climate groups pushing divestment from oil and gas and coal in favor of renewables and the climate agenda. There has been significant divestment in the past few years and investors and corporations have been threatened with bankruptcy by UN Climate czar, Mr. Carney, if they do not comply with the climate change agenda.
Now with the skyrocketing price of fertilizer due to energy shortages, exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and loss of their ~30% food and fertilizer supply to the world, many millions of people will suffer, and thousands will die. This is due to a decades-long media monologue on a falsely claimed ‘climate consensus’ and a highly contrived ‘climate emergency.’ This is thanks to a LACK of constructive, open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis. You are advocating for further stifling of open, civil debate; we advocate for open, civil debate. This is the principal issue that we advocate for. Consider your role in these crimes against humanity, as outlined by Amartyr Sen, some 23 years ago:
Your organization’s ‘solution’ to climate commentary you dislike, or dispute is to create a formal system of climate monologue – as Oxford defines this: a long speech by one person during a conversation that stops other people from speaking or expressing an opinion. (Bold emphasis added)
To this end, your organization, together with others, has created an absurd definition of ‘climate misinformation and disinformation’ which you and others have proposed and intend to formalize as ‘algorithmic law’ in Big Tech and media via the COP27 Presidency and the UN itself, thus violating the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the long-standing British and Western heritage of freedom of speech, integral to the Magna Carta which dates back to 1215, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, born of the bloody French Revolution, and the fundamental freedoms inherent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s heritage of Freedom.
We ask that you:
a) Retract the report and issue formal apologies to those maligned
b) Rescind the climate censorship initiative
c) Engage and encourage open, civil debate on climate and related energy policies
d) Encourage your funders and partners to do the same
If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then at the very least, your organization should be stripped of its charitable status as there is nothing charitable about such activity. In fact, you are in contravention of your own stated “Charitable objects” of your Governing Document filed with the UK Charities Register, excerpt below (bold added).
Charitable objects
1) THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE IN RELATION TO GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS, POLITICS, LAW, ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES; 2) THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS) IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: A) RAISING AWARENESS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; B) EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS; C) COMMISSIONING AND/OR CARRYING OUT RESEARCH INTO HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; AND D) CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; 3) THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE WITH A VIEW TO MAINTAINING SOCIAL COHESION AND TRUST WITHIN AND BETWEEN COMMUNITIES DIVIDED BY ETHNICITY, RELIGION, POLITICS AND BACKGROUND BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: A) INVESTIGATING AND IDENTIFYING PROBABLE CAUSES OF CONFLICT WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING THE OCCURRENCE OF CONFLICT; B) COMMISSIONING AND/OR CARRYING OUT RESEARCH TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO ISSUES OF CONFLICT; C) MEDIATING WITH PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT AND OTHERS TOGETHER TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ENABLING THEM TO BUILD TRUST; AND D) RECOMMENDING TO THE PUBLIC AND PARTIES INVOLVED, MEASURES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE RESOLUTION OR PREVENTION OF A POTENTIAL OR MANIFEST CONFLICT; AND 4) SUCH OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME THINK FIT.
In your website section on ‘Ethics’ you claim that you only accept funding from organizations that protect fundamental human rights.
“The funder demonstrates respect for and adherence to universal human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law, and does not support or condone extremism or terrorism”
Yet listed as funders are
Facebook
Google
Google.org
YouTube
Facebook regularly censors our freedom of speech. Here are some examples:
Facebook Censors Free Speech
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was recently reported to be changing some of Facebook's policies 'in the face of what he deems as excessive censorship,' according to a CNN article of Jan 31, 2020. However, Friends of Science Society is calling out the Facebook CEO and asking for his help because Facebook is censoring their ad for a Freedom of Speech event. The event is entitled "Freedom of Speech! No Climate Emergency!" and features investigative journalist and free speech advocate, Donna Laframboise, and NASA award-winning scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, principal researcher with the University of Alabama Huntsville. It appears that the rejection of the ad arises because Facebook has previously accepted the Climate Feedback claim that 500 scientists, who state there is NO climate emergency, is a form of false news. Facebook has since been demoting the Friends of Science site for having published this news that mainstream media blocked out. Friends of Science say that even one of Climate Feedback's own scientists admitted on Norwegian television that there is no present climate emergency. Likewise, the CLINTEL group now has more than 800 scientists. Friends of Science have also written a detailed critique of Climate Feedback's assessments, showing where they go wrong. Friends of Science further note that Climate Feedback, a subset of Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) should encourage open, civil debate on climate and energy policies - not dogmatically shut it down. In a fund-raising letter, Poynter's president, Neil Brown, claims their organization is dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and democracy, but that's not what Climate Feedback or IFCN are supporting. Please share our video letter to Mark Zuckerberg.
In the above instance, Facebook was blocking our organization from publicizing a speaking event on …. Freedom of Speech.
Donna Laframboise, journalist and former Vice President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, gives a presentation about climate activism and joins Michelle Stirling for a question and answer session. There’s a climate problem, all right. A climate of intolerance, where dissent is not permitted. Climate activists insist their point-of view is the only one that is acceptable, the only one that is respectable, and the only one that deserves to be heard.
Australian Wildfire Facts Blocked by IFCN, Poynter and Facebook
The horrific Australian wildfires are the result of many causes, not just climate change - and much can be done to reduce wildfire risk through well-researched, well-known mitigation techniques. The public should know this. But Poytner Institute's 'fact check' network and Facebook are preventing the public from learning about wildfire mitigation techniques that were not properly implemented or arsonists who are known to start many wildfires. Poynter Institute claims to be a global leader in journalism and in support of a free press, and democracy. Poynter has partnered with Facebook on a journalism integrity project to supposedly prevent false news from distribution, but instead it is blocking important facts from getting to the public. Poytner set up the "International Fact Checking Network" (IFCN) which is a network of journalists and scientists of various disciplines who are supposed to provide non-partisan and objective review of news items to ensure that false news is not distributed. Based on IFCN pronouncements, Facebook will then demote page quality is a post is deemed to be 'false news' (i.e. does not promote climate change as the cause of wildfires). The problem is that Poytner, IFCN, its sub-networks of Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, and Facebook all seem to be stuck in climate dogma.
Facebook Fact Checkers Fail on Shellenberger Apology: Double Standards on Climate and Freedom of Speech
Facebook has relied upon Climate Feedback and Science Feedback to assess news posts and decide whether they are 'false news' or not. In the case of Michael Shellenberger's recent apology, as an environmentalist who spent years pushing and apocalyptic narrative on climate, the Climate/Science Feedback experts have passed judgement on his personal story and 1600 word summary of a 432-page book "Apocalypse Never". Thus Facebook is blocking the article or any rendition of it, and threatening to unpublish Friends of Science Society's page for posting it (and other items on the causes of the Australian wildfires and on the CLINTEL 500 scientists' statement that there in No Climate Emergency). This video reveals that Facebook has double standards on climate and freedom of speech, and that the so-called 'independent third party' fact checkers have posted conflicting statements about Shellenberger's book and the facts, and that some are not independent or non-partisan at all.
No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN
Current list of signees: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Links:
Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientis...
Press Briefing https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
Registered Letter https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
The foregoing video received some 700K views before Facebook began shadow banning it and demoting any party that posts it on their own website, even though Michelle Stirling, our Communications Manager, is simply reading the CLINTEL press release that mainstream media refused to publicize. CLINTEL now has over 1,113 signatory scientists and scholars who reject the climate emergency narrative and provide a reasoned document of their view on climate.
More recently, we have shown that Facebook is spreading climate science misinformation about Alberta in its climate science center.
Factchecking Facebook’s Climate Science Centre
Facebook has opened a 'Climate Science Centre', intending to stop 'misinformation' on climate change. This is a form of soft censorship. On most climate-related posts on Facebook, a small tag pops up advertising the Climate Science Centre and encouraging people to "see how the average temperature in your area is changing.' If you click on it, the link takes you to the Climate Science Centre which appears to be tailor-made to match a user's region. In this video, Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society, explores the likely rationale of Big Tech becoming the 'Climate Overlords' and delivers a big #Fail to Facebook on their efforts for Alberta.
Likewise, Google owns YouTube, which has recently engaged in the soft-censorship method of flagging our videos with a tab that clicks through to a UN climate hysteria page. We have shown this to be climate misinformation/disinformation by the UN and YouTube.
YouTube Goes Climate Crazy
As controversy swirls about freedom of speech with Elon Musk's bid for Twitter and US government efforts to control 'misinformation', it is interesting to find that YouTube is slapping "UN Climate Change" flags on all of our videos. It is interesting because the climate change information in the linked UN article is misleading and completely wrong on several points. And it turns out that YouTube is a pretty big eco-hypocrite. Michelle Stirling, our Communications Manager, deconstructed it all.
In April 2021, Greta Thunberg, who has terrified children and adults around the world with her statement “I want you to panic…” admitted in testimony to the US Congress that there is no science behind her statement, that it is ‘just a metaphor.’ We do not see that Greta has been censored or her posts taken down from social media – nor do you make mention of this egregious abuse of the naïve trust of children in your report.
Greta’s “Panic” Claims Not Backed by Science …says Greta
Greta terrified people around the world when the World Economic Forum gave her the stage in the fall of 2019 to tell us that 'Our house is on fire' and 'I want you to panic...I want you to feel the fear I feel everyday." At COP25, the UNFCCC even hosted a session with Greta called "Unite Behind the Science". The media and environmental groups repeated these phrases endlessly. In April of 2021, when testifying to the US Congress....suddenly Greta had a different story. "Let me clear that up....it's just a metaphor....no science made me come to that conclusion". Who should we hold responsible for the millions of children and many adults now suffering from climate anxiety and depression, believing they have no future and hating their parents and ancestors for propagating these terrifying claims that have no scientific backup?
Clearly you are not only maligning individuals and scientists and Professional Engineers, but people who employ their scientific skill and good conscience to make every attempt to engage in open, civil debate. You are encouraging censorship, contrary to your stated charitable mandate, to the detriment of humankind, even though your Charitable Registry claims:
Who the charity helps:
The General Public/mankind
Since there has been such focus on the contrived social proof of ‘climate consensus’ over the past decades of climate change mantras, the public is unaware that skeptical views are integral and entirely necessary for the advancement of science, as explained in “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research”, by the National Academies of Science.
Other than some broad agreement that humans contribute to climate change through their industrial activity, agriculture, and urbanization, there is a large diversity of views and research on climate change which your initiative will squelch. ‘Consensus’ is not the goal of science.
Since your report breaches several fundamentals of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that you engage with partner/funders who engage in censorship – contrary to your ethical policy, and that your proposed ‘monologue solution’ on climate discourse contravenes the very essence of the word ‘dialogue’ inherent in your name and stated charitable Governing Objects, we demand that you retract your report and issue apologies to those maligned.
Sincerely,
Ron Davison, P. Eng.
Friends of Science Society
About
Friends of Science Society is an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens that is celebrating its 20th year of offering climate science insights. The society is member-funded, does not represent any industry, does not accept government funding, and is run by volunteers. After a thorough review of a broad spectrum of literature on climate change, Friends of Science Society has concluded that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). We declare no conflicts of interest.
Full PDF can be found here.
Original article can be found here.
Open Letter:
July 20, 2022
Institute for Strategic Dialogue
PO Box 75769
London
SW1P 9ER
United Kingdom
info@isdglobal.org
+44 (0) 20 7493 9333
ATTN: Sarah Kennedy, Chief Operating Officer
Dear Madame,
Re: Request for Retraction of “Deny, Deceive, Delay: Documenting and Responding to Climate Disinformation at COP26 and Beyond” and a formal apology to those you have maligned (pdf below)
On or about June 9, 2022, your organization, Institute for Strategic Dialogue, issued the above named report which publicly maligns and spreads false information about our organization, Friends of Science Society, and which contravenes the several fundamentals of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its preamble.
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, (bold emphasis added)
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Your ironically named “Institute for Strategic Dialogue” appears to be unaware of the definition of the word “dialogue”. The Oxford dictionary defines it as: a formal discussion between two groups or countries, especially when they are trying to solve a problem, end a disagreement, etc.
As you may be aware, the world is now on the brink of famine due to the energy crisis. This crisis was predominantly caused by influential forces like the UNPRI, Mark Carney, and activist climate groups pushing divestment from oil and gas and coal in favor of renewables and the climate agenda. There has been significant divestment in the past few years and investors and corporations have been threatened with bankruptcy by UN Climate czar, Mr. Carney, if they do not comply with the climate change agenda.
Now with the skyrocketing price of fertilizer due to energy shortages, exacerbated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict and loss of their ~30% food and fertilizer supply to the world, many millions of people will suffer, and thousands will die. This is due to a decades-long media monologue on a falsely claimed ‘climate consensus’ and a highly contrived ‘climate emergency.’ This is thanks to a LACK of constructive, open, civil debate on climate and energy policies and full cost-benefit analysis. You are advocating for further stifling of open, civil debate; we advocate for open, civil debate. This is the principal issue that we advocate for. Consider your role in these crimes against humanity, as outlined by Amartyr Sen, some 23 years ago:
Your organization’s ‘solution’ to climate commentary you dislike, or dispute is to create a formal system of climate monologue – as Oxford defines this: a long speech by one person during a conversation that stops other people from speaking or expressing an opinion. (Bold emphasis added)
To this end, your organization, together with others, has created an absurd definition of ‘climate misinformation and disinformation’ which you and others have proposed and intend to formalize as ‘algorithmic law’ in Big Tech and media via the COP27 Presidency and the UN itself, thus violating the UN’s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the long-standing British and Western heritage of freedom of speech, integral to the Magna Carta which dates back to 1215, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, born of the bloody French Revolution, and the fundamental freedoms inherent in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Canada’s heritage of Freedom.
We ask that you:
a) Retract the report and issue formal apologies to those maligned
b) Rescind the climate censorship initiative
c) Engage and encourage open, civil debate on climate and related energy policies
d) Encourage your funders and partners to do the same
If you are unable or unwilling to do this, then at the very least, your organization should be stripped of its charitable status as there is nothing charitable about such activity. In fact, you are in contravention of your own stated “Charitable objects” of your Governing Document filed with the UK Charities Register, excerpt below (bold added).
Charitable objects
1) THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE IN RELATION TO GOVERNMENT, ECONOMICS, POLITICS, LAW, ADMINISTRATION AND SOCIAL SCIENCES; 2) THE PROMOTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS (AS SET OUT IN THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND SUBSEQUENT UNITED NATIONS CONVENTIONS AND DECLARATIONS) IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: A) RAISING AWARENESS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; B) EDUCATING THE PUBLIC ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS; C) COMMISSIONING AND/OR CARRYING OUT RESEARCH INTO HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES; AND D) CONTRIBUTING TO THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS LAW; 3) THE PROMOTION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RECONCILIATION FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND ELSEWHERE WITH A VIEW TO MAINTAINING SOCIAL COHESION AND TRUST WITHIN AND BETWEEN COMMUNITIES DIVIDED BY ETHNICITY, RELIGION, POLITICS AND BACKGROUND BY ALL OR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING MEANS: A) INVESTIGATING AND IDENTIFYING PROBABLE CAUSES OF CONFLICT WITH A VIEW TO PREVENTING THE OCCURRENCE OF CONFLICT; B) COMMISSIONING AND/OR CARRYING OUT RESEARCH TO IDENTIFY POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO ISSUES OF CONFLICT; C) MEDIATING WITH PARTIES TO THE CONFLICT AND OTHERS TOGETHER TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ENABLING THEM TO BUILD TRUST; AND D) RECOMMENDING TO THE PUBLIC AND PARTIES INVOLVED, MEASURES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO RESULT IN THE RESOLUTION OR PREVENTION OF A POTENTIAL OR MANIFEST CONFLICT; AND 4) SUCH OTHER CHARITABLE PURPOSES AS THE TRUSTEES SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME THINK FIT.
In your website section on ‘Ethics’ you claim that you only accept funding from organizations that protect fundamental human rights.
“The funder demonstrates respect for and adherence to universal human rights, freedom of speech, democracy and the rule of law, and does not support or condone extremism or terrorism”
Yet listed as funders are
Google.org
YouTube
Facebook regularly censors our freedom of speech. Here are some examples:
Facebook Censors Free Speech
Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, was recently reported to be changing some of Facebook's policies 'in the face of what he deems as excessive censorship,' according to a CNN article of Jan 31, 2020. However, Friends of Science Society is calling out the Facebook CEO and asking for his help because Facebook is censoring their ad for a Freedom of Speech event. The event is entitled "Freedom of Speech! No Climate Emergency!" and features investigative journalist and free speech advocate, Donna Laframboise, and NASA award-winning scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, principal researcher with the University of Alabama Huntsville. It appears that the rejection of the ad arises because Facebook has previously accepted the Climate Feedback claim that 500 scientists, who state there is NO climate emergency, is a form of false news. Facebook has since been demoting the Friends of Science site for having published this news that mainstream media blocked out. Friends of Science say that even one of Climate Feedback's own scientists admitted on Norwegian television that there is no present climate emergency. Likewise, the CLINTEL group now has more than 800 scientists. Friends of Science have also written a detailed critique of Climate Feedback's assessments, showing where they go wrong. Friends of Science further note that Climate Feedback, a subset of Poynter Institute's International Fact Checking Network (IFCN) should encourage open, civil debate on climate and energy policies - not dogmatically shut it down. In a fund-raising letter, Poynter's president, Neil Brown, claims their organization is dedicated to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and democracy, but that's not what Climate Feedback or IFCN are supporting. Please share our video letter to Mark Zuckerberg.
In the above instance, Facebook was blocking our organization from publicizing a speaking event on …. Freedom of Speech.
Donna Laframboise, journalist and former Vice President of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, gives a presentation about climate activism and joins Michelle Stirling for a question and answer session. There’s a climate problem, all right. A climate of intolerance, where dissent is not permitted. Climate activists insist their point-of view is the only one that is acceptable, the only one that is respectable, and the only one that deserves to be heard.
Australian Wildfire Facts Blocked by IFCN, Poynter and Facebook
The horrific Australian wildfires are the result of many causes, not just climate change - and much can be done to reduce wildfire risk through well-researched, well-known mitigation techniques. The public should know this. But Poytner Institute's 'fact check' network and Facebook are preventing the public from learning about wildfire mitigation techniques that were not properly implemented or arsonists who are known to start many wildfires. Poynter Institute claims to be a global leader in journalism and in support of a free press, and democracy. Poynter has partnered with Facebook on a journalism integrity project to supposedly prevent false news from distribution, but instead it is blocking important facts from getting to the public. Poytner set up the "International Fact Checking Network" (IFCN) which is a network of journalists and scientists of various disciplines who are supposed to provide non-partisan and objective review of news items to ensure that false news is not distributed. Based on IFCN pronouncements, Facebook will then demote page quality is a post is deemed to be 'false news' (i.e. does not promote climate change as the cause of wildfires). The problem is that Poytner, IFCN, its sub-networks of Science Feedback and Climate Feedback, and Facebook all seem to be stuck in climate dogma.
Facebook Fact Checkers Fail on Shellenberger Apology: Double Standards on Climate and Freedom of Speech
Facebook has relied upon Climate Feedback and Science Feedback to assess news posts and decide whether they are 'false news' or not. In the case of Michael Shellenberger's recent apology, as an environmentalist who spent years pushing and apocalyptic narrative on climate, the Climate/Science Feedback experts have passed judgement on his personal story and 1600 word summary of a 432-page book "Apocalypse Never". Thus Facebook is blocking the article or any rendition of it, and threatening to unpublish Friends of Science Society's page for posting it (and other items on the causes of the Australian wildfires and on the CLINTEL 500 scientists' statement that there in No Climate Emergency). This video reveals that Facebook has double standards on climate and freedom of speech, and that the so-called 'independent third party' fact checkers have posted conflicting statements about Shellenberger's book and the facts, and that some are not independent or non-partisan at all.
No Climate Emergency say 500 Scientists to UN
Current list of signees: https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
On the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the UN about her fears of a climate emergency, 500 scientists sent a registered letter to the UN Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Links:
Prominent scientists warn UN Secretary-General Guterres https://clintel.nl/prominent-scientis...
Press Briefing https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
Registered Letter https://clintel.nl/wp-content/uploads...
The foregoing video received some 700K views before Facebook began shadow banning it and demoting any party that posts it on their own website, even though Michelle Stirling, our Communications Manager, is simply reading the CLINTEL press release that mainstream media refused to publicize. CLINTEL now has over 1,113 signatory scientists and scholars who reject the climate emergency narrative and provide a reasoned document of their view on climate.
More recently, we have shown that Facebook is spreading climate science misinformation about Alberta in its climate science center.
Factchecking Facebook’s Climate Science Centre
Facebook has opened a 'Climate Science Centre', intending to stop 'misinformation' on climate change. This is a form of soft censorship. On most climate-related posts on Facebook, a small tag pops up advertising the Climate Science Centre and encouraging people to "see how the average temperature in your area is changing.' If you click on it, the link takes you to the Climate Science Centre which appears to be tailor-made to match a user's region. In this video, Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society, explores the likely rationale of Big Tech becoming the 'Climate Overlords' and delivers a big #Fail to Facebook on their efforts for Alberta.
Likewise, Google owns YouTube, which has recently engaged in the soft-censorship method of flagging our videos with a tab that clicks through to a UN climate hysteria page. We have shown this to be climate misinformation/disinformation by the UN and YouTube.
YouTube Goes Climate Crazy
As controversy swirls about freedom of speech with Elon Musk's bid for Twitter and US government efforts to control 'misinformation', it is interesting to find that YouTube is slapping "UN Climate Change" flags on all of our videos. It is interesting because the climate change information in the linked UN article is misleading and completely wrong on several points. And it turns out that YouTube is a pretty big eco-hypocrite. Michelle Stirling, our Communications Manager, deconstructed it all.
In April 2021, Greta Thunberg, who has terrified children and adults around the world with her statement “I want you to panic…” admitted in testimony to the US Congress that there is no science behind her statement, that it is ‘just a metaphor.’ We do not see that Greta has been censored or her posts taken down from social media – nor do you make mention of this egregious abuse of the naïve trust of children in your report.
Greta’s “Panic” Claims Not Backed by Science …says Greta
Greta terrified people around the world when the World Economic Forum gave her the stage in the fall of 2019 to tell us that 'Our house is on fire' and 'I want you to panic...I want you to feel the fear I feel everyday." At COP25, the UNFCCC even hosted a session with Greta called "Unite Behind the Science". The media and environmental groups repeated these phrases endlessly. In April of 2021, when testifying to the US Congress....suddenly Greta had a different story. "Let me clear that up....it's just a metaphor....no science made me come to that conclusion". Who should we hold responsible for the millions of children and many adults now suffering from climate anxiety and depression, believing they have no future and hating their parents and ancestors for propagating these terrifying claims that have no scientific backup?
Clearly you are not only maligning individuals and scientists and Professional Engineers, but people who employ their scientific skill and good conscience to make every attempt to engage in open, civil debate. You are encouraging censorship, contrary to your stated charitable mandate, to the detriment of humankind, even though your Charitable Registry claims:
Who the charity helps:
The General Public/mankind
Since there has been such focus on the contrived social proof of ‘climate consensus’ over the past decades of climate change mantras, the public is unaware that skeptical views are integral and entirely necessary for the advancement of science, as explained in “On Being a Scientist: Responsible Conduct in Research”, by the National Academies of Science.
Other than some broad agreement that humans contribute to climate change through their industrial activity, agriculture, and urbanization, there is a large diversity of views and research on climate change which your initiative will squelch. ‘Consensus’ is not the goal of science.
Since your report breaches several fundamentals of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that you engage with partner/funders who engage in censorship – contrary to your ethical policy, and that your proposed ‘monologue solution’ on climate discourse contravenes the very essence of the word ‘dialogue’ inherent in your name and stated charitable Governing Objects, we demand that you retract your report and issue apologies to those maligned.
Sincerely,
Ron Davison, P. Eng.
Friends of Science Society
About
Friends of Science Society is an independent group of earth, atmospheric and solar scientists, engineers, and citizens that is celebrating its 20th year of offering climate science insights. The society is member-funded, does not represent any industry, does not accept government funding, and is run by volunteers. After a thorough review of a broad spectrum of literature on climate change, Friends of Science Society has concluded that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide (CO2). We declare no conflicts of interest.
Full PDF can be found here.
Original article can be found here.
Click to close