Censoring climate realists is routine
Has the CBC ever featured a story about the complexities of climate? Have they ever allowed scientists or academics to query the climate alarmism narrative and discuss their research?
The answer is never. This turns them from a well-liked public service to state sponsored political propagandists.
Whenever there is a over-the-top article about climate change in the media the comments from the public are overwhelmingly dismissive.
In the case of the CBC you will not see the numerous comments that query the CBC’s position on climate change. These comments are censored even when they conform to their submission guidelines.
Wikipedia systematically misrepresents climate science
Wikipedia is an invaluable resource, and on most matters the information can be trusted. On the subject of climate science none of the entries are fair and balanced. Moreover they are factually incorrect.
For instance the entry under False Balance states, “…although the scientific community almost unanimously attributes global warming to the effects of the industrial revolution, there is a very small number, a few dozen scientists out of tens of thousands of scientists, who dispute the conclusion.”
It would be hard to find a single scientist who can present data that backs up this claim. If it were true it would mean that temperatures since 1770 would have been otherwise flat. In earlier epochs there is no evidence of 250 years of unchanging temperatures.
Hundreds of scientists are vocal opponents of climate alarmism and are listed here.
The Wikipedia entry for Naomi Seibt is broadly derogatory and starts with a lie, “Naomi Seibt (born 18 August 2000) is a German climate change denier.”
She has made her position clear in many interviews and Youtube videos and is adamant that she is not a “climate change denier”, a term that upsets her. “The climate has always been changing, and so it’s ridiculous to say we deny climate change,” Seibt says. “Man vastly overestimates his power if he thinks he can, with CO2 emissions, destroy the climate.”
She has received funding from the Heartland Institute but she has never been employed by them.
Nor is she “anti-Greta” maintaining that she believes that the teenager is a victim of climate alarmism rather than a knowing perpetrator.
Wikipedia purges world-leading scientists
The Wikipedia page of a “List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming” has been deleted by the editors.
The reason they give is that “there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”
This is worrying on several accounts.
First it shows that the editors’ conception of science is at a high school level, where it can be marked like a multiple choice exam. The reality is that science is not comprised of textbooks of theories that have been adopted by consensus, instead it is like a living, breathing ill-defined collection of organisms that is made up of millions of practitioners, hundreds of thousands of institutions, countless numbers of competing ideas and zettabytes of data as explained here. It advances through the curiosity of scientists who question established knowledge.
To treat the science of the Earth’s climate as an argument between “believers” and “non-believers” is itself quasi-religious, and reminiscent of the battle between creationists (religion) versus evolutionists (science). However in this case the logic is flipped. Those that believe that man-made climate change is catastrophic are refusing to acknowledge the ever-growing scientific evidence that the Earth’s climate is behaving in ways that are not statistically any different from the pre-industrial era.
In our schools, climate science is now being taught as an ideology which is dampening the curiosity of students, and depriving them of the awe the natural world should inspire.
The trend towards totalitarianism
The deletion of the names of scientists is astonishing and disturbing. It shows that it is becoming acceptable to marginalize those who have views that are outside the mainstream. This censorship is reminiscent of a totalitarian state. It is like Stalin, who would expunge party officials from photos as they fell out of his favour.
More worrying, is how public figures like Bill Nye appear to be supportive of jailing scientists who are skeptical of the alarmist orthodoxy.