Censoring harsh truths | Watts up with that?
By Paul Homewood
I watched this piece by a climate activist from 2021:
As you can see, he is very upset about “climate misinformation” on social media. His research goes on to analyze where all this alleged misinformation comes from.
But I have a simple question for Mr. Pogson – how do you classify “misinformation”?
Could it be this, for example?
This was posted on Facebook in 2019 by the professional group, Friends of Science. The post is related to an article by the Volunteer Firefighters Association of New South Wales, which reports on all the poor forest management and the role this played in the bushfires there that year.
After “fact checking” all you get now when clicking on a link is:
https://www.facebook.com/FoSClimateEd/posts/2627494517329381
There’s nothing untrue in the article, never be wrong, and it’s written by experts. It was taken down for the simple reason that it did not support the claims of climate alarmists.
Or maybe, Mr. Pogson, maybe this is the kind of Facebook post that is all too common these days:
It is completely untrue to assume that weather emergencies are on the rise, climate-related or not. However, we see trash like this posted every day on social media.
For some reason, it was never “fact-checked”.
Pogson’s conclusion takes the game away. It is never about “truth” or “truth”, but about “politics” and censorship of inconvenient truths: