Be careful about circulating scientific data that debunks the assumptions standing behind costly climate change policies. Otherwise, technology companies reserve the right to muzzle those dissenting views.
That appears to be message LinkedIn has been sending to scientists and researchers who question the premise of regulations aimed at curtailing carbon dioxide emissions.
Earlier this summer, the Microsoft-owned, California-based online platform shut down the account of Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist who serves as director of the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit outfit that seeks to highlight the economic and environmental benefits of CO2 (carbon dioxide).
Wrightstone had posted data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that showed current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to be at low historical levels when compared to Earth’s paleoclimatic record. The data also makes it clear that it’s difficult to establish any firm link between temperatures and CO2 emissions since they have previously moved in opposite directions. This historical record doesn’t exactly fit with the climate crisis narrative flowing from the Biden White House, its allies in the media, and the policy agenda of Big Tech. Microsoft, for instance, claims there is a scientific consensus linking human CO2 emissions with rising temperatures. The company has also pledged to be carbon negative by 2030.
In a June email message, LinkedIn informed Wrightstone that his account “has been permanently restricted.” Since that time, LinkedIn also banned the accounts of individual CO2 Coalition members, and its PR spokesman’s account was removed after posting a link to an article about Mr. Wrightstone’s censorship.
But the coup de grace came on July 30, 2022, when LinkedIn blocked the coalition’s entire page, which now has a notice up top that reads: “Only Page Admins can see this Page. It’s been removed because it goes against our Professional Community Policies.”
The coalition’s ongoing efforts to educate average citizens and policymakers about the benefits that accrue to animal and plant life from CO2 also cuts against the policy agenda of powerful players in Washington D.C. The reloaded version of President Biden’s “Build Back Better bill,” now slyly marketed as the Inflation Reduction Act, is predicated on the false idea that human CO2 emissions are responsible for fueling dangerous levels of global warming. In fact, natural influences are largely, if not entirely, responsible for recent warming trends. Moreover, the relatively modest levels of warming that have been experienced recently have been a boon to human civilization while cooling periods have had the opposite effect.
So, what about those increased levels of CO2 political figures frequently seize upon as a rationale for regulations that drive up energy costs?
In reality, CO2 is a naturally occurring substance that is essential to life on Earth; a critical point coalition members constantly drive home much to the consternation of Team Biden. Recently, Dr. Craig Idso, a coalition member, highlighted the attributes of rising atmospheric CO2 for Master Resource, a free-market energy blog.
“Composed of one carbon and two oxygen atoms, this simple molecule serves as the primary raw material out of which plants construct their tissues, which in turn provide the materials out of which animals construct theirs,” Idso explains. “Knowledge of the key life-giving and life-sustaining role played by carbon dioxide, or CO2, is so well established, in fact, that humans—and all the rest of the biosphere—are described in the most basic of terms as carbon-based lifeforms. We simply could not and would not exist without it.”
That’s the kind of information that can greatly unsettle the latest climate change boondoggle flowing out of the Biden White House. With the critical support of Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, Biden’s latest climate change spending scheme has moved within striking distance of passing Congress to the detriment of taxpayers.
An analysis of the taxpayer-funded climate provisions folded into the bill from the Institute for Energy Research demonstrates why it’s time for the American people to hold onto their wallets. The nonprofit group that advocates for free market policies in the energy sector identified several provisions in the bill that deserve more scrutiny including one that provides tax credits for non-carbon sources of electricity and energy storage in combination with about $30 billion in grants and loans for states and their electric utilities to transition away from carbon-based energy.
While proponents of the bill frequently tell the American people that the wind and solar energy sources are inexpensive, those same sources cannot operate 24/7 and they require backup from either natural gas or coal.
Then there’s the matter of battery storage for intermittent energy sources, which gets very pricey. The Energy Information Administration breaks down “the levelized costs of battery storage” per megawatt hour for wind and solar, which are eye-popping.
Then there’s the matter of electric vehicles. The bill also includes a $4,000 consumer tax credit, but as IER explains, this credit only helps the wealthy since electric vehicles are much more costly than gasoline or diesel vehicles even when fuel savings are taken into account. Moreover, the average price for an electric vehicle in the U.S. is roughly $66,000 versus $46,000 for all new cars.
Clearly, politically favored green energy is a winner in the bill, but is there anything in the updated legislation that will provide Americans with relief at the gas pump or with their utility bills?
Go in search of such measures, and that search will be in vain.
That’s why it’s important to have a vigorous debate about what the science actually says with regard to CO2, the environment, and Earth’s temperatures. That’s also why it’s important to push back against efforts at censorship.
Wrightstone has released a statement about LinkedIn’s actions that is worth reviewing now that Biden is in position to further exacerbate an already challenging energy picture all while demonizing CO2.
“Since we have only ever published factual, publicly sourced data, we must assume that LinkedIn has an aversion to an open airing of facts in search of the truth,” Wrightstone says. “This is contrary to long and rich traditions of the Western civilization that established the scientific method and the cherished freedoms of our society.”
This article originally appeared at Real Clear Energy