By Paul Homewood
I got here throughout this work by a local weather activist from 2021:
As you possibly can see, he’s getting very labored up about “local weather disinformation” in social media. His examine goes on to analyse the place all of this supposed disinformation is coming from.
However I’ve a easy query for Mr Pogson – what do you classify as “disinformation”?
Might or not it’s this, for example?
This was posted on Fb in 2019 by the skilled group, Mates of Science. The publish involved an article by the Volunteer Firefighters Affiliation in New South Wales, which reported on all the forest mismanagement and the function this had performed within the wildfires there that 12 months.
Following a “factcheck”, all you get now once you click on on the hyperlink is that this:
https://www.fb.com/FoSClimateEd/posts/2627494517329381
There was nothing unfactual within the article, by no means thoughts false, and it was written by consultants. It was taken down for the straightforward purpose that it didn’t help the claims of local weather alarmists.
Or possibly, Mr Pogson, it is perhaps this kind of Fb publish which is all too frequent these days:
https://fb.watch/iC5wfF5FiF/
It’s completely unfaithful that climate emergencies are on the rise, whether or not local weather associated or not. But we see junk like this posted on a regular basis on social media.
For some purpose it’s by no means “factchecked”.
Pogson’s conclusions give the sport away. It was by no means about “information” or “fact”, it’s about “politics”, and censoring inconvenient truths:
