Update. The controlling legal precedent seems to be the following quote from the Supreme Court Decision:
“To determine whether an actor’s conduct possesses “sufficient communicative elements to bring the First Amendment into play,” the Supreme Court has asked whether “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.””
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 410-11 (1974) (per curiam)).
When Google eliminates climate realist or conservative websites from its top search results, the “message” is certainly not understood by those who view it. Further, this is the main purpose of this conduct – to suppress speech without other people understanding that. Google also flatly denies that it conveys any message in its search results. It claims impartiality and attempts to provide “the most useful and relevant” search results. Thus, intentional distortion of the search results by Google does not even bring the First Amendment into play. It is really fraud, not speech.
Google Search is a commercial service that Google provides to its users. Google must provide this service in good faith and in accordance with other applicable laws. Google search is service, not “speech.” Continue reading Google Search Fraud→
I read the testimonies of Google, Facebook, and Twitter executives before the Senate Commerce Committee on Combating the Spread of Extremist Propaganda (January 17, 2018), and I would advise you not to trust them very much. Under the pretext of fighting “extremist propaganda” (a vague term, probably selected to conceal partisan differences on what constitutes extremist propaganda) Google and Twitter suppress speech dissenting from leftist orthodoxy. For example, Google has demonetized some PragerU videos on a range of topics and is being sued by them. I have been banned from Google AdWords and Twitter Ads for speech opposing climate alarmism.
The Oregon Petition against climate alarmism has been signed by 31,000+ scientists and experts in the natural sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD holders, and all signatures have been verified. Spicy allegations about petition distribution, signing, and the verification procedures spread by the enviros, leftists, Google, and the former mainstream media, are false. The following email from Dr. Art Robinson is published here with his permission.
Corrected on December 11, 2017. The initial version inaccurately identified a Democrat politician that accompanied Eric Schmidt to North Korea.
The fake-stream media is trying to resuscitate the conspiracy theory of the Trump-Russia collusion with headlines like “Google Identifies Russian Election Interference on Network” (1), only to admit that Google had identified only $4,700 in suspicious ad buys.
The Senate Intelligence Committee seems to be eager to swallow this nothing-burger. I would be more interested in substantial meddling by foreign powers (including NGOs), almost all of which benefited the Democrats.
“Does it make sense, for example, that someone researching “Republican platform” should be presented only the official text of the platform and seven left-leaning results highly critical of that platform, with zero results supporting it?”
“… we would expect top ranked search results to have more external links compared to lower ranked search results. Instead, pages demonstrating a left or far left political slant made it into the top results with significantly fewer external links compared to pages rated balanced. Pages with a right-leaning slant needed significantly more links to make it into the top results.”
“According to recent Google findings, online search is the resource that 87% of the population turns to first when a question arises. Online search plays a particularly prominent role in the democratic process during election season. During the 2012 election cycle, a survey of persuadable voters revealed that 49% get their news about campaigns and the election online, largely through search engines like Google, and that these voters generally trust the information they find online. Top search results are broadly perceived as being the most accurate and authoritative by members of the public with the first five search results accounting for an estimated 67% of all clicks and the first three results alone accounting for over 55% of all clicks. In their 2015 study, Robert Epstein and Ronald Robertson concluded that the order of search results can have a big impact on voter behavior — and in the event of a close election, this effect could even be profound enough to determine the outcome of the election.”
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years→
The main organization behind the malicious smear campaign that fraudulently uses the phrase “net neutrality” is Free Press, a revolutionary Marxist group. Robert W. McChesney, a founder of Free Press, sounds like Lenin. From his 2014 article Sharp Left Turn for the Media Reform Movement (emphasis is mine):
“In subsequent years the U.S. media reform movement blossomed, led primarily by a group I co-founded, Free Press. On a number of major issues … Free Press led the charge in Washington, DC. The thinking behind the group and the movement was to have one foot in the battles of the day as they were being fought in the capital, while having another foot doing organizing in the field, with the idea of expanding popular awareness and involvement in the movement. We realized that for most people the range of media policy outcomes then countenanced in Washington seemed abstract or inconsequential. We needed to capture their imagination with bold and radical proposals. The strategy was to create an army for structural media reform …” Continue reading You Won’t Believe Who’s Behind “Battle for the Net”→
“Americans love the free and open Internet. We relish our freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, both at home and abroad. So it is sad to witness the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control.
It shouldn’t be this way. For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a ‘vibrant and competitive free market . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.’ And dating back to the Clinton Administration, every FCC Chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the internet grow free from utility-style regulation.”
“But today, the FCC abandons those policies. … It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct … . So why is the FCC changing course? Why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? … We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama told us to do so.”
“The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” Continue reading Net Neutrality Realism vs. Obamanet→
It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets have become fake news purveyors. Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence exists to prove their intent to deceive.
Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.
“Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday afternoon, I think this is more than coincidence.”
“Local news reports that UAH police have classified this as a ‘random shooting’. So, the seven Belgian 5.7 millimeter bullets which hit windows and bricks around John Christy’s office from 70 yards away were apparently deemed to be ‘random’ occurrence.”
Listed below are 15 lies in this NYT article . This is after the article was corrected on March 4, 2017, two days after it was originally published.
The article’s title is: “Top Trump Advisers Are Split on Paris Agreement on Climate Change”
Lie #1. Trump advisors are not split on the Paris agreement. The U.S. is not a part of the Paris agreement because this agreement has not been ratified by the Senate. All parties of the Paris agreement knew that Obama’s signature did not bind the U.S. Whether the Trump administration repudiates or just ignores that agreement is hairsplitting. Besides, having different opinions is normal. Only Obama’s administration was a single-opinion government. Next: Continue reading How many Lies can one New York Times Article Contain?→
This is a summary of When Silicon Valley Went Off the Cliff focusing on connections and parallels between the short lived “ban alarmism” and climate alarmism. From January 28 through February 8, a number of Silicon Valley and Washington state corporate executives participated in an attempt to topple President Trump, orchestrated by the Left after President Trump signed the original order, Executive Order No. 13769 Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States on January 27. WA Attorney General Bob Ferguson, one of the Attorneys General United for Clean Power, filed a stinky lawsuit against President Trump and succeeded to halt implementation of the Executive order. 129 corporations, who hold monopolies in internet search, “social media,” TV and movie streaming, as well as other markets for speech and press, filed an Amici Brief supporting the rogue attorney general against the president. Their reaction to the Executive order was so out of proportion that an analogy with climate alarmism immediately sprung to mind. Here, I do not recite the original Executive order because I expect that readers did not trust to the fake stream media reporting about it.
The so-called “climate science” is completely upside down. The anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide (CO2) is beneficial for humans and nature. Approximately 15% of the world’s agricultural production is due to the elevated amount of CO2 in the air (see reference ). The small and slow warming, which is expected from CO2 release, is also beneficial for humans and nature. (There was steep warming probably due to solar activity increase in the 80’s and 90’s but no warming in the last 19 years.) The claims that “climate change” is to blame for all the world’s disasters are nothing but myths. I cannot go into details in this short post, but the science matters were mostly settled in the 1983 Nierenberg Report with the most un-alarming conclusions. After that, the genuine scientific research and observations suggested that there’s even less concern to be had about potential harm and actually more benefits. For example, it was found that increase of CO2 concentration in the air not only enhances plant growth but decreases plant water demand . The politics of climate alarmism (conceived by the United Nations politicians) gave birth to the perverted “climate science,” not other way around. Continue reading “Climate Science” is Upside Down (recap)→
“In 1966, [Barbara] Ward gave a lecture, Space Ship Earth, in which she argued that mankind’s survival depended on developing a government of the world. The longevity of China’s government, Mao being the latest dynasty, demonstrated that world government was possible. If two thousand years of rule can work for twenty-five per cent of the world’s population, ‘we can hardly argue that the task of government becomes a priori impossible simply because the remaining three-quarters are added’, Ward argued.” (Kindle Locations 1744-1748)
Apparently, producers and editors of the leftstream TV channels lost ability to distinguish fiction from reality. Such TV genres as reality shows, environmentalist propaganda, and the liberal drivel in general blend reality and fiction in various ways. Combined with echoes of academic postmodern contructivist theories, this leads to the current post-truth reporting. Alternatively, the leftstream TV expresses contempt to its viewers. Whatever the cause, the fictional character “Bill Nye the Science Guy” has been presented as a real scientist on ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and CNN.
If you watch news on any of these channels, these might be fake news. New York Times has called this actor “the science guy” as well. Bill Nye receive BS in mechanical engineering in 1977 and worked as an engineer for some years after that. By 1993 his engineering gig was over. He has been an actor and a “TV personality” for the last 20 – 25 years. He can be called a former engineer, if it helps.
01/24/2017: Correction to the CAG at War with the USA essay: the first batch of the incriminating CRU emails was released in 2009. Climategate 2.0 was the release of the second batch in 2011. The enemies of America became emboldened after Obama re-election in 2012. The Climate Alarmism Governance started its undeclared war at some time in 2010-2013. End of Correction.
In many fields, governments have a monopoly on the support of scientific research….
…, the powers that be invent the narrative independently of the views of even cooperating scientists. It is, in this sense, that the science becomes irrelevant. This was certainly the case in the first half of the twentieth century, where we just have to look at Lysenkoism  in the former Soviet Union, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics throughout the western world , as well as, in the 1960s, the unfounded demonization of DDT . Each phenomenon led to millions of deaths. And, in each case, the scientific community was essentially paralyzed, if not actually complicit. …
“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”
“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.”Continue reading Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links→
Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement? Do you still believe it is based on science, or possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science? No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”). Read what they say and think again.
*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:
The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.
Democrats and their allies have started blaming their election loss on alleged “Russian hacking,” and bitching about foreign interference in the US elections. How hypocritical!
The Internet has opened American political processes for foreign interference. Most of the foreign interference benefited extreme Left . Starting with the Internet based organizations, such as MoveOn.org, foreign influence contributed to transformation of the old Democratic Party into its current radical shape. The 2016 elections has been marked by the heaviest foreign meddling in the US history. Almost all of it was in favor of the Democratic candidates. Some of the most significant meddlers were:
The UN organization and its many branches
The Guardian, a media outlet of the British Left, partially financed by the British government
Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, and the rest of the European green establishment
The Climate Action Network with its 1,000+ foreign member organizations
Yesterday I filed a Motion to Intervene in the lawsuit ExxonMobil v AG Healey (case 4:16-CV-469-K). This fight is not between AG Healey and Exxon . This fight is between AG Healey and the People. The Left has been using large corporations as proxies to deny Americans their rights for long time. The direct attacks failed, but attacks by proxies have been tremendously successful. Continue reading Intervention against AGs United for Money & Power→
In preparation of its texts, IPCC utilizes General Circulation Models (GCMs), analyzed using computers. Such models, and the way in which IPCC utilizes them, exhibit — among others — the following errors.
There is no mathematical apparatus (i.e., proven theorems) behind these models and “ensembles”. This fact makes the whole modeling exercise useless. This fact also makes rigorous evaluation or criticism of these models very difficult or even impossible to do. The following notes apply to the GCM models (including their more complex variations, such as AOGCM). Continue reading Mathematical Errors in IPCC Climate Models→
The General Circulation Models (GCM), alleged by IPCC to forecast climate, are computationally intensive computer programs that repetitively perform the same task: integrating specific sets of differential equations, such as the primitive equations of weather. In such situations, a normal practice is developing specialized hardware for performing that task. One example is video encoding hardware, evolved from big boxes, that make grainy and jumpy 640×480 moving pictures, to the tiny circuits inside of the CPUs of modern cell phone, producing smooth 1920×1080 full motion video. Continue reading Conspicuous Absence of Specialized Hardware for Climate Models→
Yesterday, Bill Nye, a third sort actor playing a “Science Guy” on TV, while talking on the air to CNN anchor Chris Cuomo, accused CNN meteorologist Chad Myers of being a “climate change denier”, and demanded action.
Nye: “And you know, here at CNN you have, essentially, a climate change denier meteorologist. Knock yourselves out, but this is a big problem and it’s not going to go away.” Cuomo: “A bigger conversation for another day.”
Climate Alarmism can be compared to the HIV virus. After entering a society, it attacks the main defense of the society against itself and similar threats – the scientific enterprise. After the scientific enterprise was weakened enough, the society becomes defenseless against any pathogenic agenda, alleging scientific justification. Climate Alarmism brings with it a number of such agendas, from shutting down the national energy infrastructure to banning free speech to submitting to the UN. America became infected in 1992 through Al Gore and Timothy Wirth.
A remarkable thing about the Climate Alarmism chorus is almost total absence of scientists in it. For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) could be better described as a Union of Con Scientists. At a closer look, it is even worse:
By that time, the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change already had many Al Gore minions. Nevertheless, it concluded that “the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.” Richard Lindzen was a member of the NAS panel and a Lead Author in WGI of IPCC for its Third Assessment Report (TAR). Following are excerpts from his commentary on the NAS report (WSJ, 2001).