The big-tech censors are at it again: the CO2 Coalition’s Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone has been permanently banned from LinkedIn. What did Wrightstone do to earn the banishment? His “crime” consisted of posting charts from peer reviewed research supported by official sources demonstrating that current global average CO2 levels are well within the natural range of concentrations throughout the Earth’s history.
LinkedIn’s moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous and/or so severe that they couldn’t allow him to continue to use the platform. A screenshot of the email and ban inducing charts have been provided by Wrightstone and are shown below.
Not only that, but according to Wrightstone’s Twitter account, the censors at Facebook also rejected a Facebook ad linking to the CO2 Coalition’s statement on Wrightstone’s LinkedIn ban. This suggests Facebook is acting in coordination with the “professional networking” social media site LinkedIn to silence Wrightstone and the CO2 Coalition.
This isn’t the first time Wrightstone has been banned from LinkedIn. When Climate Realismreached out for comment, he said that around August of 2021, he noticed that his posts were being repeatedly removed by LinkedIn staff. Then in October, he received his first banafter years of posting climate information on the site. Wrightstone reports that he regularly got tens of thousands of views on his LinkedIn posts discussing climate science prior to the ban. The site’s reasoning for kicking him out was that his information is “false and misleading,” and that “this type of content is not allowed.” He only recently had his account reinstated before it was banned again.
Wrightstone told Climate Realism:
The material I posted to Linked In was based on data that is widely accepted by the climate science community, including the U.S. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I was quickly growing a very large following by posting information showing the many flaws in the notion that increasing CO2 was leading to a looming climate crisis. Many of my posts showcased the many benefits of the combination of modest warming and increasing CO2 leading to huge benefits to the Earth’s ecosystems and humanity.
I was opening eyes and creating converts to climate realism. For that reason, I needed to be silenced.
What is especially interesting is that Wrightstone is what climate alarmists would call an expert climate scientist—as a 35-year veteran researcher with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in geology. He has served as an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC itself.
Worse, the data in the charts come straight from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). The data has been referenced in IPCC reports. The charts generated using that data show the CO2 context of each major geologic period, allowing the average non-scientist to see that current CO2 levels are actually at some of the lowest concentrations in Earth’s history. This is not controversial stuff, or honestly debatable, it is the best available science.
So, it appears that a dataset approved and used by world governments in the discussion of climate change is off-limits if a researcher uses it to undermine the notion carbon dioxide emissions are historically high, and climate change may not be catastrophic. Historical records of CO2 in the atmosphere are important in the climate change debate as they refute any claim that current CO2 concentrations are “unprecedented,” and are therefore demonstrably dangerous to life on Earth. This truth is evidently the “type of content” that is “not allowed” by the non-scientist account reviewers at social media sites like LinkedIn and Facebook. It is the reviewers, not Wrightstone, who are rejecting the science. But they have the power as government protected social media censors.
9 comments:
A crystal clear case of climate denial - by the climate establishment, NOT the sceptics.
The whole man-made global warming theory, driven by CO2, has so many holes in it it makes swiss cheese look solid.
The only data they ever quote to support it are appallingly over-hyped outputs from UNIPCC computer models which have never been correct, always higher, when compared to the actual temperature data over the past 30 years.
In the not so distant past - when I was at university - this theory would have been rejected long ago.
But it's politics, NOT Science!
There is no way these big tech outfits are going to let a few true facts get in the way of a lucrative source of corruption.
When someone starts giving out information contrary to the narative of the fearmongers, cancel them.
Linking New Zealand's situation into the fantasy of "climate change emergency" :-
Let's just stay with FACTS.
New Zealand's CO2 emissions are only 0.17% (= 1/6th of a %) of total world human CO2 emissions. The other 99.83% is China, India, U.S. etc. So NOTHING we do will have any effect on any thing is this regard. We are basically a Zero CO2 producer.
Also - world human CO2 emissions altogether are only 3% of total global (human plus natural) emissions. 97% of ALL CO2 global emissions are natural. Only 3% are from human activity.
And - combing those figures (remember - these are official numbers from the IPCC) New Zealand's CO2 emissions each year are 0.17% x 3%, which equals 0.0051% of total global CO2 emissions. The other 99.9949% is NOT us. NZ emissions are 1/20,000 of total. The other 19,999 are NOT us. Our emissions simply do not matter at all.
It is only the last million years or less which matters, and the rate of change in the last few hundred in particular. If hundreds of millions of cooked and drowned climate refugees force their way here, we will look back on life under Mahuta and Willie as paradise.
It seems to me the Right has the chance of a huge voting swing next election but whilst any NZ action will be insignificant climate change denial will lose far more potential voters than it gains.
The Left use the label "climate change denier/s" to describe any person who takes a true scientific, analytical approach to the topic. The label is used deliberately because of it's connotations of "Holocaust denier".
The fact is that climate DOES change - a simple glance at the planet's history shows that we have had hugely changing climate throughout. Currently the planet is going through a gentle warming phase as we recover from the Little Ice age of several hundred years ago.
I have never met, or heard of any person who "denies" that climate changes. In my experience, there are NO "deniers". It is just a derogatory label.
But the overall point is that New Zealand's CO2 emissions are basically Zero in the overall scheme. And it is certainly not worth spending up to $60,000,000,000 per year, EVERY year to achieve New Zealand "net Zero" by 2050.
(That costing is based upon the Climate Control Commissions' report, costed out)
Robert Arthur
Why does only the last 1 million years or less matter, Robert? What's so special about that?
And then in your opinion, only the rate of change in the last few hundred matters. OK, let's look at that.
The current warming started around 1850. Temperature rose very slowly as did CO2 levels - possible direct relationship there - looking good!
Temperatures increased at a higher rate during the 1920s and 30s but rate of CO2 increase stayed the same - oops. Not a perfect direct relationship. Maybe the data was wrong (standard climate alarmist response)
From 1940 to 1976 the temperature fell!!!!! But the rate of man-made CO2 levels kept increasing. That's an inverse relationship. The actual data must have been REALLY wrong!!
From 1976 to 1998 temperature increased again and so did the rate of CO2 levels. Whew! Back on track. The data must have come right.
from 1998 to about 2020 the temperature flatlined but rate of man-made CO2 increase has never been higher. Damn, that data again.
In summary, we've seen just over a 1C rise in temperature in the last 170 years. It's gone up AND DOWN erratically, often not matching the rate of CO2 increase.
Temperatures back in Medieval times were just as warm as today with pre-industrial CO2 levels.
Temperatures back in Roman times were about 1.5-2C WARMER than today with pre-industrial CO2 levels.
Current CO2 levels (410ppm or 0.041% of the atmosphere are 3-4 times lower than the average historical CO2 content on Earth and 10-15 times lower than it has been for hundreds of millions of years in the past.
Can you see a flaw in the man-made global warming theory? I'll leave you to decide.
Very well put Dee !!
You are absolutely right.
Quoting actual facts !!
BUT Careful !! Because you have quoted actual facts and not adhered to the fantasy apocalypse predictions, you will likely be labelled a "climate change denier"
The Wrightson graphs are misleading in that detail of the last hundred thousand or so years is not discernible. Gullible viewers could interpret current CO2 levels as insignificant. Local climates have varied in human times; both the humans and animals were able to move as suits. There is evidence that the ice sheets are collapsing. Have to go back a very long way before these smaller than present. The link with ocean levels is established. Because of its insignificance overall, whether or not NZ takes any counter measures is effectively a separate issue. It should be debated that way and not on the wishful assertion that all human action worldwide has no influence. The strong association between right wing politics and climate denial is very damaging to expansion of the right wing vote.
Robert
That doesn't make the graphs misleading...unless you have evidence to show that CO2 in the last 100k years or so was significantly different to the levels shown on the Wrightson graphs - have you?
As for the ice sheets "collapsing" I suspect going back to Medieval times (our previous warming) and certainly Roman times when the global temperature was at least the same and higher than today would have seen similar or even greater loss of ice, but neither you nor I were around then to observe so we'll have to make the obvious correlation.
Another fact for you Robert. Since the start of our current interglacial period - around 14,000 years ago, sea level has risen 130m due to the melting of ice...BUT has been 2m higher than today, indicating that before our current warming it was obviously even warmer resulting in more ice melt!
And finally, we are still almost certainly in an Ice Age, which began about 2.7 million years ago. We've had many relatively short, warmer interglacials lasting 10-20k years.
On average, we may be about to go back to ice age conditions. With global temperatures at least 6C colder than present! I predict coal will make a comeback when that happens.
Post a Comment