Censoring Inconvenient Truths


By Paul Homewood

I came across this work by a climate activist from 2021:


As you can see, he is getting very worked up about “climate disinformation” in social media. His study goes on to analyse where all of this supposed disinformation is coming from.

But I have a simple question for Mr Pogson – what do you classify as “disinformation”?

Could it be this, for instance?

This was posted on Facebook in 2019 by the professional group, Friends of Science. The post concerned an article by the Volunteer Firefighters Association in New South Wales, which reported on all of the forest mismanagement and the role this had played in the wildfires there that year.

Following a “factcheck”, all you get now when you click on the link is this:


There was nothing unfactual in the article, never mind false, and it was 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, it might be this sort of Facebook post which is all too common nowadays:


It is totally untrue that weather emergencies are on the rise, whether climate related or not. Yet we see junk like this posted everyday on social media.

For some reason it is never “factchecked”.

Pogson’s conclusions give the game away. It was never about “facts” or “truth”, it is about “politics”, and censoring inconvenient truths:

via Watts Up With That?


February 11, 2023 at 04:55AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s