The “Climate Power 2020” organization published a July 1 open letter signed by former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, former presidential candidate Tom Steyer, and 13 leaders of groups working to ban fossil fuels urging Facebook to shut down the page of the CO2 Coalition, a non-profit professional organization of distinguished climate scientists and energy economists that present opposing “denial” facts and views.
Addressed to Facebook Oversight co-chair/former Denmark Prime Minister Ms. Helle Thorning-Schmidt, the letter chastises Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for refusing to “acknowledge that climate denial on his platform is as dangerous a threat to future generations as any.”
As one of the earliest CO2 Coalition members, I can offer firm assurance that none in the organization have ever denied the reality of climate change, a natural phenomenon that has been occurring for complex reasons over many millions of years.
Nor is there any dispute that the climate has been warming in fits and starts since the last ice age thawed about 12,000 years ago or so, and most recently since the Little ice age ended in the mid-1800s (before the Industrial Revolution introduced smokestacks and SUVs).
CO2 Coalition members include highly distinguished atmospheric physicists, climatologists and statisticians who indeed know a great deal about how climate and energy systems actually work. They are also very familiar with ways that computerized models that are widely used to project future global temperatures don’t work.
Established in 2015 as a 501(c)(3), the CO2 Coalition publishes open source studies and articles. Some of these investigations have demonstrated that when tested after a few years against actual temperatures, model projections used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have proved to run three times too hot.
CO2 Coalition Chair Patrick Moore and Executive Director Caleb Rossiter have also responded to the “denialist” charges with basic undeniable facts.
For example: “The UN IPCC and U.S. government scientific agencies agree that their data show no statistically significant increases in rates of sea-level rise, hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other dangerous or damaging weather in the 70 years since carbon dioxide emissions became a factor in global temperature.”
In reality, the models are based upon thousands of guesses about mathematical values to be put on many poorly understood variables and interactions over decades-long cycles. Or as Oxford physicist Fred Taylor says in his textbook, “Elementary Climate Physics,” the models are “opaque” and “in their infancy.”
The CO2 Coalition argues that demonstrably failed modeled projections are by their nature far too unlikely and uncertain to use as a basis for alarmist justifications to ban the source of 80 percent of U.S. and world energy in exchange for unreliable and costly “renewable” wind and solar energy. They point out that mining, shipping, refining, construction, transmission, and disposal of these intermittent sources of power are almost entirely fossil-fueled, thus hardly renewable.
In addition, wind and solar are also four times more expensive than natural gas-fired electricity and gasoline transportation.
The CO2 Coalition has invited the Climate Power 2020’s letter signatories along with any others to “identify a single denial of a scientific or economic fact in our publications or public statements.” They add, “Surely some of the answers will involve climate models, and even though model projections are more opinion than fact, more mathematical art than science, we look forward to such a debate.”
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is recently exploring a list of reform laws aimed at curbing biased censorship of information by Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Google, Twitter and YouTube.
Most particularly, DOJ is reexamining the infamous Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which provides immunity to online platforms from civil liability based on third-party content and for the removal of content in certain circumstances.
Congress originally enacted the statute to nurture a nascent industry while also incentivizing online platforms to remove content harmful to children. Expansive interpretation that courts have given Section 230, however, has left online platforms both immune for a wide array of illicit activity on their services and free to moderate content with little transparency or accountability.
Unfortunately, any such reforms may not be enough to keep Big Tech from moderating political content on so-called “misinformation” grounds using bogus “fact checking” by crony political cohorts.
This practice is famously pervasive in attacking climate alarm skeptics and publications.
In June, President Trump weighed in on this problem by issuing an Executive Order targeting viewpoint discrimination by Big Tech companies including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and Google.
As the president explained in a press conference, “One egregious example is when they try to silence views they disagree with by selectively applying a ‘fact check.’ What they choose to fact check and what they choose to ignore or even promote is nothing more than a political activism group or political activism. And it’s inappropriate. If you look at what’s happened, you look at where they’re going, where they’re coming from, I think you all see it yourselves.”
Labeling articles or videos that express “climate change” skepticism as “fact checked false” are perfect examples.
Hope springs eternal.
This article originally appeared at NewsMax