More YouTube Censorship

[Renegade]

I just checked, and it looks like Google has reversed the censorship now. Check the original video -- it now plays.

As for her paper, does anyone have a link? I wasn't able to find it anywhere.

But read or not - she still claims that climate change is akin to racism/slavery, i.e. she's saying that it's a MORAL issue, and not a scientific issue. That is just wonky.

[tomos]

But read or not - she still claims that climate change is akin to racism/slavery, i.e. she's saying that it's a MORAL issue, and not a scientific issue. That is just wonky.

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 06:23 AM)

I'm not for or against anyone here and I'm certainly not supporting her paper.
I [just] think the response was unhelpful, inappropriate, exaggerated, stupid, etc etc.

[Renegade]

I'm not for or against anyone here and I'm certainly not supporting her paper.
I [just] think the response was unhelpful, inappropriate, exaggerated, stupid, etc etc.

-tomos (April 12, 2012, 06:33 AM)

Pretty much. I think a lot of people focused on "treat" and went to town on it. But, whatever.

I didn't really mean to point out her out so much as censorship - which has been reversed, so that's a good thing.

And no matter how nutty anything she has to say is or isn't, I'm certainly glad that she CAN say it.

[tomos]

I didn't really mean to point out her out so much as censorship - which has been reversed, so that's a good thing.

And no matter how nutty anything she has to say is or isn't, I'm certainly glad that she CAN say it.

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 06:42 AM)

yes, very true

[IainB]

More facts and info. required.

Ref. the paper Kari Norgaard wrote: (about 76 pages long, dated 2009)

Norgaard, Kari Marie, Cognitive and Behavioral Challenges in Responding to Climate Change (May 1, 2009). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series, Vol. , pp. -, 2009.
Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1407958

Abstract of the paper:

Climate scientists have identified global warming as the most important environmental issue of our time, but it has taken over 20 years for the problem to penetrate the public discourse in even the most superficial manner. While some nations have done better than others, no nation has adequately reduced emissions and no nation has a base of public citizens that are sufficiently socially and politically engaged in response to climate change. This paper summarizes international and national differences in levels of knowledge and concern regarding climate change, and the existing explanations for the worldwide failure of public response to climate change, drawing from psychology, social psychology and sociology. On the whole, the widely presumed links between public access to information on climate change and levels of concern and action are not supported. The paper's key findings emphasize the presence of negative emotions in conjunction with global warming (fear, guilt, and helplessness), and the process of emotion management and cultural norms in the construction of a social reality in which climate change is held at arms length. Barriers in responding to climate change are placed into three broad categories: 1) psychological/conceptual, 2) social and cultural, and 3) structural (political economy). The author provides policy considerations and summarizes the policy implications of both psychological and conceptual barriers, and social and cultural barriers. An annotated bibliography is included.

Interesting interview/advert with her in Wired Science (2009), which refers to the above paper: The Psychology of Climate Change Denial

[Renegade]

Ref. the paper Kari Norgaard wrote: (about 76 pages long, dated 2009)

-IainB (April 12, 2012, 08:08 AM)

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4940

 

Sponsored by the World Bank? A policy paper? Ahem... I smell an agenda... Things just went from bad to worse.

[Renegade]

Page 46:

Develop limits on the ability of the fossil fuel industry to influence policy debate.

There's a phrase for that... It's called "silencing the opposition".

The woman is advocating censorship.

From page 43 she goes on about "policy", which is basically a blueprint for a propaganda/psyop campaign.

[Renegade]

Oh... @IainB - Thanks for finding that~! 

[IainB]

Oh... @IainB - Thanks for finding that~! 

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 08:38 AM)

Thanks. Just following the advice "Nullius in verba." Meaning, literally, "Take nobody's word for it; see for yourself".
That's the Motto of the Royal Society, London...Oh, but wait...

[tomos]

Oh... @IainB - Thanks for finding that~! 

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 08:38 AM)

+1

Develop limits on the ability of the fossil fuel industry to influence policy debate.

There's a phrase for that... It's called "silencing the opposition".

The woman is advocating censorship.

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 08:38 AM)

maybe.
She's referring to PR campaigns by the fossil fuel industry to influence public perception of global warming and related science (she gives a link in the Wired Science link from Iain above - [PDF link: "How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"]

(Again, I dont subscribe to censorship, but I dont subscribe to Exxon's tactics either - but I think the best "solution" is simply to publicise it.)

[Renegade]

maybe.
She's referring to PR campaigns by the fossil fuel industry to influence public perception of global warming and related science (she gives a link in the Wired Science link from Iain above - [PDF link: "How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science"]

(Again, I dont subscribe to censorship, but I dont subscribe to Exxon's tactics either - but I think the best "solution" is simply to publicise it.)

-tomos (April 12, 2012, 08:56 AM)

I have no love for big energy corps, and can't say much about Exxon tactics, but man... I just can't see this woman as being not dangerous. Whatever she's referring to really isn't relevant for me.

Mind you, I don't believe in censoring anyone - that includes people that I vehemently disagree with as well, e.g. the KKK, Stormfront, etc.

[J-Mac]

The difference between Alex Jones and pretty much any other site that reports on the same material, is that he'll say what he thinks or give some analysis, or simply call something for what it is, or point out the obvious implications that people don't want to hear.

The entire "conspiracy theory" stuff is just a tool to shut down debate on a topic. More often than not what people call "conspiracy theories" are really just plain old pieces of history that makes people uncomfortable. e.g. The US regularly uses false flag attacks, just like it did with the Gulf of Tonkin incident that it used to drag the American people into war in Viet Nam. Sure - lots of people will call it a "conspiracy theory". It's just history. There's nothing controversial in saying that the US government lies to its people on a regular basis in order to drag the country into wars. History proves it.

So, yeah... If knowing a bit of history makes someone a "conspiracy theorist", I guess Alex Jones is. I guess I am as well.

But isn't it strange that a lot of these inconvenient facts never seem to make it into most history books... Hmmm...

-Renegade (April 12, 2012, 05:07 AM)

Wow! so he's a true historian? Yes, the US government has dragged the American people into war, but... 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated by the US government? And the US government blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building? And Angelina Jolie is a war criminal? Oh boy! Tri-Lateral Commission stuff all over again? US will be a lot of FEMA-run concentration camps?  And all this crap belongs in our history books? Really?

Yep! Sounds like a real "historian" to me! The more I read on that site the funnier it gets. A sad kind of funny, I guess.

Methinks I'll bow out of this conversation before I bust a gut laughing!   

Jim

[Tinman57]

At first I thought this was someone's idea of a cruel joke and threw a wig on Stephen Hawking.

-MilesOhToole (April 11, 2012, 10:30 PM)

BWAHAHAHA!!!!  Your right!

[Renegade]

Wow! so he's a true historian? Yes, the US government has dragged the American people into war, but... 9/11 was a hoax perpetrated by the US government? And the US government blew up the Oklahoma City Federal Building? And Angelina Jolie is a war criminal? Oh boy! Tri-Lateral Commission stuff all over again? US will be a lot of FEMA-run concentration camps?  And all this crap belongs in our history books? Really?

-J-Mac (April 12, 2012, 11:24 AM)

This is all pretty off-topic, so, spoiler.

@J-Mac

Regarding 911 - 2 airplanes take down 3 buildings, which are the ONLY 3 in history to ever collapse due to fires. And they collapse at about free-fall speed... Nope. Nothing suspicious here. These are not the terrorists you're looking for. Move along...

If 911 wasn't an inside job, then it's the exception. Have a search for "us false flag" - history is full of them. The first WTC bombing in 1993 was setup by the FBI. Any surprises there?

Oh, here's something you actually might like:

FBI HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN 17 FALSE FLAG TERROR NON-EVENTS

(BTW - His show got canceled.)

Is it any surprise that Oklahoma was run by the FBI? If it wasn't, then it's an exception.

There's a very clear pattern of false flag behaviour by the US government. If there's some terrorist act, and you don't immediately suspect the US government, well, you're pretty much ignoring all the evidence.

But, it's scary stuff, so I can see why people would want to bury their heads in the sand. Who wants to believe that their government is run by a bunch of murderous thugs? (Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Mao China. Pol Pot Cambodia. Idi Amin Uganda. US in Viet Nam. US in Iraq. US in Afghanistan. etc. etc. etc. Democide in the 20th century killed 262 million people. Check the Wikipedia entry for "Democide".) Well, the first thing EVERYONE says is, "It can't happen here..." Or maybe that's the last thing they say~!

Is Alex Jones "out there"? Sure. But then again, so is the truth. (Couldn't resist the X-Files allusion there~! )

But seriously - Have a look around and you'll see that he's very, very far from being alone in saying the same things as a lot of other people. Is some stuff a bit wonky, like the Angelina stuff? Sure. But that doesn't lessen anything else.

Typically, most of the articles there are commentary on other articles from the MSM. One recent article went on about how some legislation in California mandated how many living units must be built on an acre of land, and the article pointed out the reasons for that and the implications.

Meh... Whatever.

[IainB]

I think it it would be true to say that, whether she realised it or not:
(a) writing that working paper for the World Bank, and
(b) having at least one published "interview" about it and which thus publicly advertised the paper and her views for climate activism, and
(c) publishing an open letter on her college's website, to president Obama, advocating her climate activism beliefs,
 - would arguably on their own be sufficient to place Kari Norgaard squarely into the gaze of the public eye and thus make of her a legitimate target for public comment/criticism.

She was apparently making public statements as though she was a qualified academic (professor?) on the subjects being discussed.
(Though I am unsure whether she is qualified to do so, or is a professor, or what she might be a professor of, as her university have apparently taken down their bio webpage on her.)

Therefore, removing the YouTube video - which was legitimately critical and poked fun/ridicule at her because of her documented and publicised views/statements - could seem to be "censorship". And it would probably not be incorrect to call it that.

So, yes, it apparently was YouTube censorship by Google (QED). But then, we should remember that AGW seems to be a potentially significant political football (Read "huge new taxation revenues"), and that Google is now apparently a major supplier to the US Government State Department - refer

Secretary Clinton Announces State Department Use of Chrome

-IainB (March 03, 2012, 01:41 AM)

As to whether she is right/wrong in her views, well, she clearly believes in the AGW that she speaks of, but sincerity of conviction is no proof.
And we know (e.g., from a relatively rational and separate discussion thread in the DC forum) that:

• AGW is the stated "Cause" for at least some of those "scientists" who are proponents of the absolutism of AGW (QED).
• AGW is an unsubstantiated theory, about which some of the "scientists" involved - by their own statements - have been irrationally fabricating untruths (e.g., stochastic fraud) intending to substantiate the AGW theory, and subsequently trying to hide their misdemeanours from discovery, and trying to gag/silence/censor/blacklist any argument or any person that may be against "The Cause" (QED).
• The fixing and corruption of otherwise valid climate data by these "scientists" continues (QED).
• At least of one of said "scientists" (Gleick) has admitted to fraud in obtaining material under false pretences and promulgating a false/faked document - which he may have faked himself - and committing this fraud as an effort to substantiate or strengthen AGW by the faked evidence hopefully throwing the AGW critics into disrepute (which effort was ironically failed by committing the fraud) (QED).

So, if you add to the above nonsense Kari Norgaard's proposition that non-believers in AGW are actually suffering from a form of psychological illness, and thus, by extension, those poor people need treatment my dear, then it rather makes a kind of wonky sense in that it is entirely consistent with that nonsense.
It seems to be right up there with faith healing; saving your soul; Islamic martyrs being given 72 virgins in Paradise; the Heaven's Gate believers suiciding en masse and thus climbing aboard the spaceship flying in the tail of the Hale-Bopp comet; Scientologists believing that you need to provide relief from the past problems caused us by the spirits of space aliens, so that you can realise Operating Thetan, etc.

Some people might say - not me, you understand - that anyone who actually fervently believed in or held great conviction of the truth of such an insubstantial theory as AGW - and under such circumstances as above - was arguably already themselves suffering from a form of psychological illness, though I couldn't possibly comment.    

[IainB]

I was watching this Fox news interview which is discussing Reason TV's review of the gross inefficiency of Government-run and maintained escalators in Washington DC:
Nick Gillespie & Kennedy Look at the Chaos of Government Run Escalators w/ Stossel

The Reason TV video and the discussion relate to the argument that Government should probably keep out of providing any service in general, because it has apparently repeatedly shown itself unable to provide service adequately or cost-effectively.

At the 4:31 point, the interviewer asks Kennedy (who is a Reason TV reporter and ex Music VJ) a question in the wider context of Government-run service capability/inefficiency, and in response she mentions that she was a Libertarian before she knew what the term meant and that she had listened to or had discussions with Frank Zappa about censorship (and she's talking about this in the context of government censorship of rude words in song lyrics).

So, we know that what Google did was initially censoring (QED) the video Professor Wants to Drug Climate Skeptics (and which Google have now allowed back online).
This would seem to be a good example of private censorship or "self-regulation", i.e., not Government censorship.
We know from discussion elsewhere on the DC forum that corporations are unable to be trusted to self-regulate with ethical integrity (QED), and that it is pointless expecting them to be able to do so unless the legal status of a Corporate Person is changed.
So what Google would seem to have just successfully and publicly demonstrated in this case is an inability to be trusted to censor with ethical integrity. Furthermore, they cannot be called to answer for criticism on this score.

Maybe, if Google had an unambiguous stated policy on deliberate Google censorship, and avoided arbitrary censorship, and stuck rigidly to the stated policy, then this form of private censorship just might work. Everyone - including YouTube channel suppliers/feeds and Google - would know exactly where they stood.
Otherwise, it looks as though private censorship by Google probably cannot be applied with ethical integrity.