Connect with us

Censorship Industrial Complex

Google Doesn’t Want You To Know The Truth About Heat Waves And ‘Climate Change’

Published

2 days ago

3 minute read

From Heartland Daily News

By Issues & Insights Editorial Board

Last week, we published an editorial arguing that government data didn’t support various claims about climate change. And we predicted Google would demonetize it. We were right. (See: Heat Wave Sets Off New Round Of ‘Climate Crisis’ Lies.)

Shortly after that article was published, Google’s AdSense informed us that it had “disabled ad serving” on that page because the article contained “unreliable and harmful claims.” (We have one spot on our pages for AdSense ads, mostly to track Google’s efforts to demonetize content. See the list of related editorials below.)

So what was “unreliable” or “harmful” about that editorial? Google doesn’t say. It just says we have to “fix” it if we want their ads to run on that page.

What we can say is that Google has effectively labeled official government data as “unreliable and harmful,” since all the evidence we provided was from official sources.

The editorial pointed out that claims about more frequent heat waves, tornadoes, hurricanes, and wildfires – claims that get repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream press and by climate activists – are not supported by the official data.

We included charts and cited the sources of the data – sources such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Interagency Fire Center, the government-run GlobalChange.gov, etc.

Here’s how Google defines “unreliable and harmful.”

It’s the last line that Google uses to censor any content that doesn’t toe the climate “crisis” line.

Anything that “contradicts authoritative scientific consensus” just means whatever the climate change fanatics say it means, since there is in truth no “consensus” about many of the claims made about global warming.

In truth, the very notion of an “authoritative scientific consensus” violates the basic principle of science.

“Doubt in science is a feature, not a bug,” notes an article in Scientific American. “Indeed, the paradox is that science, when properly functioning, questions accepted facts and yields both new knowledge and new questions — not certainty,”

Imagine if Google had been around when Einstein contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” about Newtonian physics.

Or when Copernicus contradicted the “authoritative scientific consensus” that the Sun revolved around Earth.

Or when, in 1543, Andreas Vesalius challenged the “authoritative scientific consensus” about human anatomy that had been in place for 1,300 years.

What Google is doing here (supposedly on behalf of advertisers who use its ad network) isn’t protecting the public against false information – it is attacking true information that undermines climate change dogma.

It is, in other words, just a thinly veiled attempt to enforce a pseudo-religious orthodoxy. Google is nothing more than a 21st-century version of the Spanish Inquisition.

The Issues and Insights Editorial Board has decades of experience in journalism, commentary and public policy.

Originally published by Issues & Insights. Republished with permission.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 31 mins ago

Bill O’Reilly predicts Biden will drop out of presidential race ‘sometime soon’

Economy / 19 hours ago

European Voters Are Taking Sledgehammer To Continent’s Radical Open Borders And Climate Agenda

Frontier Centre for Public Policy / 20 hours ago

It seems we are far too Canadian; Yet not Canadian enough

CBDC Central Bank Digital Currency

Klaus Schwab pushes ‘fourth industrial revolution’ at WEF’s ‘Summer Davos’ opening

Published on July 1, 2024

By

Chinese Premier Li Qiang (R) shakes hands with founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

At the WEF’s 2024 ‘Meeting of the New Champions’ in Dalian, China, Klaus Schwab praised China’s economic policies and urged ‘all stakeholders’ to ‘use technologies of the fourth industrial revolution in a wise manner.’

World Economic Forum (WEF) founder Klaus Schwab kicks off the Annual Meeting of the New Champions, aka “Summer Davos,” in Dalian, China, saying that economic growth and a more peaceful future will come from embracing innovation and forcing collaboration.

Speaking at the opening plenary alongside the president of Poland, Andrzej Duda, the prime minister of Vietnam, Pham Minh Chinh, and People’s Republic of China Premier Li Qiang, Schwab regurgitated parts of his speech from last year’s meeting, praising China for its economic policies while congratulating everyone participating in the event for representing “the most outstanding talents from business, government, academia, and civil society.”

In his very brief opening statement, the unelected globalist founder of the WEF said that the participants must “force collaboration” in order to drive economic growth and create a more resilient future.

“To drive future economic growth we must embrace innovation and force the collaboration across sectors, regions, nations, and cultures to create a more peaceful, inclusive, sustainable, and resilient future,” said Schwab.

“At this critical juncture the active participation of all stakeholders is essential to ensure a sustainable development path,” he added.

Schwab also mentioned that technologies coming out of the so-called fourth industrial revolution would make the world a better place.

“We are witnessing rapid technological advances with many opportunities, and with artificial intelligence, rapidly transforming our production and our lives,” he said, adding, “Breakthroughs from the fourth industrial revolution provide new opportunities for global prosperity and growth.”

The WEF Annual Meeting of the New Champions runs from June 25-27 under the theme “Next Frontiers for Growth.”

At the end of the plenary and after the president, the premier, and the prime minister had all praised their countries’ achievements and ambitions, Schwab returned to the topic of the fourth industrial revolution while revisiting this year’s theme, saying that were “limits to growth.”

“Limits to growth” is a nod to the Club of Rome book of the same name published in 1972, and Schwab says that these limits can be overcome by using technologies of the fourth industrial revolution wisely, by taking care of nature, by seeing the green economy as a “great opportunity for humankind,” by exploiting the capabilities of the attendees, and by formulating collaborations between governments and businesses.

The WEF strives to be the “leading global institution for public-private collaboration,” which is the fusion of corporation and state, or corporatism.

At the opening of last year’s Annual Meeting of the New Champions, Schwab praised Premier Li for “opening-up China’s capital market, attracting foreign investment, and innovation, and creating new urban areas to address land scarcity.”

He also thanked China for its “over 40 years of friendly and extensive partnership” with the WEF.

During another session last year, Cornell University professor Eswar Prasad said that “we are at the cusp of physical currency essentially disappearing,” and that programmable Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) could take us to either a better or much darker place where governments could program CBDCs with expiry dates and to restrict undesirable purchases.

 

Last month the WEF announced that Schwab will be transitioning from his role as the executive chairman of the forum to become chairman of the board of trustees, which consists of some of the most powerful people on the planet.

Starting next year, the forum’s executive responsibilities will be run by a president and managing board.

The current WEF president is former Norwegian MP Børge Brende. He is also the chair of the managing board.

If Brende keeps his position as president, then he may be the new face and voice of the organization, which has been pivoting “from a convening platform to the leading global institution for public-private collaboration” for almost a decade.

However, executive decisions will not be placed on a single individual but will include a managing board as well.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Censorship Industrial Complex

New WEF report suggests leveraging ESG scoring to enforce globalist ideas on online platforms

Published on June 23, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Tim Hinchliffe

Unelected globalists like those at the World Economic Forum are attempting to associate ‘disinformation’ and ‘hate speech’ with human rights abuses to empower themselves and silence dissent online.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) says that environmental, social, and governance metrics (ESG) can prove valuable for evaluating platforms on their handling of disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, in a new report.

Published on June 6, 2024, the WEF white paper, “Making a Difference: How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online,” says that, “In an increasingly interconnected world, it is essential to measure digital safety in order to understand risks, allocate resources and demonstrate compliance with regulations.”

If measuring digital safety is considered to be essential, what then are the actual online harms that would necessitate measuring digital safety?

The latest white paper only gives three examples: disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material – as if they were all equal under the banner of online harm.

“ESG metrics present another valuable perspective for evaluating online safety” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

One method for evaluating online safety described in the latest WEF white paper is to leverage ESG scoring, which is basically a social credit for companies to make them fall in line with unelected globalist ideologies, even when these ESG policies are detrimental to their bottom line.

“Within ESG investing, companies are assessed based on their environmental impact, social responsibility and corporate governance practices,” the report reads.

Similarly, online platforms could be evaluated based on their efforts to promote a safe and inclusive online environment, and the transparency of content moderation policies.

Online platforms can also be evaluated based on their processes, tools and rules designed to promote the ‘safe use’ of their services in a manner that mitigates harm to vulnerable non-user groups.

And who will be evaluating online platforms in this Orwellian dystopia? Why, the unelected globalists themselves, of course!

Best to leave these decisions and all the power to bureaucrats that have our best interests at heart for the greater, collectivist good.

“An increase in the speed of content removals may reflect proactive moderation efforts, but it could also hint at overzealous censorship that stifles free expression” — How to Measure Digital Safety Effectively to Reduce Risks Online, WEF, June 2024

The WEF considers disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material as all being online harms that need to be measured and rectified.

But why do they lump everything together under this vague, blanket term of digital safety?

It is so that unelected globalist NGOs like the WEF can have more power and influence over government regulators concerning what type of information people are allowed to access through their service providers.

According to the report:

Digital safety metrics reinforce accountability, empowering NGOs and regulators to oversee service providers effectively.

They also serve as benchmarks for compliance monitoring, enhancing user trust in platforms, provided they are balanced with privacy considerations and take into account differentiation among services.

For the unelected globalist bureaucrats, measuring digital safety is about empowering themselves and forcing people into compliance with unelected globalist ideologies (with the help of regulators), all while balancing privacy considerations that are antithetical to everything they’re trying to achieve with the great reset and the fourth industrial revolution.

WEF founder Klaus Schwab has stated on numerous occasions that the so-called fourth industrial revolution will lead to the fusion of our physical, biological, and digital identities.

Schwab openly talks about a future where we will decode people’s brain activity to know how they’re feeling and what they are thinking and that people’s digital avatars will live on after death and their brains will be replicated using artificial intelligence.

How’s that for balancing privacy considerations in the digital world?

“Digital safety decisions must be rooted in international human rights frameworks” — Typology of Online Harms, WEF, August 2023

While the latest WEF white paper only lists disinformation, hate speech, and abuse material, it builds upon an August 2023 insight report entitled “Toolkit for Digital Safety Design Interventions and Innovations: Typology of Online Harms,” which expands the scope of what constitutes online harm into various categories:

  • Threats to personal and community safety,
  • Harm to health and well-being,
  • Hate and discrimination,
  • Violation of dignity,
  • Invasion of privacy,
  • Deception and manipulation.

Many of the harms listed in last year’s report have to do with heinous acts against people of all ages and identities, but there too in that list of online harms, the WEF highlights misinformation and disinformation without giving a single, solitary example of either one.

With misinformation and disinformation, the typology report states that “[b]oth can be used to manipulate public opinion, interfere with democratic processes such as elections or cause harm to individuals, particularly when it involves misleading health information.”

In the same report, the unelected globalists admit that it’s almost impossible “to define or categorize common types of harm.”

The authors say that “there are regional differences in how specific harms are defined in different jurisdictions and that there is no international consensus on how to define or categorize common types of harm.

“Considering the contextual nature of online harm, the typology does not aim to offer precise definitions that are universally applicable in all contexts.”

By not offering precise definitions, they are deliberately making “online harm” a vague concept that can be left wide open to just about any interpretation, which makes quashing dissent and obfuscating the truth even easier because these “online harms,” in their eyes, must be seen as human rights abuses:

By framing online harms through a human rights lens, this typology emphasizes the impacts on individual users and aims to provide a broad categorization of harms to support global policy development

Once again, the authors are deliberately putting misinformation, disinformation, and so-called hate speech in the same category as abuse, harassment, doxing, and criminal acts of violence under this “broad categorization of harms.”

That way, they can treat anyone they deem as a threat for speaking truth to power in the same manner as they would for people who commit the most egregious crimes known to humanity.

The title of the latest white paper suggests that it’s all about measuring digital safety, but the title can be misleading.

It’s like what lawmakers do when they introduce bills like the Inflation Reduction Act, which had nothing to do with reducing inflation and everything to do with advancing the green agenda, decarbonization, and net-zero policies.

Similarly, the WEF’s latest white paper may have little or nothing to do with reducing risks online, as the title suggests.

But it does have a lot to do with making sure that misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech are associated with human rights abuses and other acts of real criminality.

In doing so, the ESG proponents can swoop in and consolidate more power for their public-private partnerships – the fusion of corporation and state.

Reprinted with permission from The Sociable.

Continue Reading

Trending

X