Fake Fact-Checkers Ridiculed Over Activist’s Climate Scare Apology
Facebook fact-checkers have tagged veteran environmentalist Michael Shellenberger’s Forbes article as “partly false.”
The widely shared article, ‘On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare’, first published on Forbes, rejected ‘climate alarmism’, and featured Shellenberger apologizing for how ‘badly environmentalists have misled the public’ about the relatively new field of climate science.
Facebook’s Climate Science fact-checking “Climate Feedback” evaluated Shellenberger’s article, arguing that he allegedly ‘mixed accurate and inaccurate claims in support of a misleading and overly simplistic argumentation about climate change.’
In the pseudo-peer review, Climate Feedback cited ‘six scientists who “analyzed” the article, estimating its overall scientific credibility to be ‘low’. Stating that [an ambiguous] majority of reviewers tagged the article as Cherry-picking, Misleading.’
The six scientists were Daniel Swain (UCLA, Climate Scientist), Gerardo Ceballos (Autonomous University of Mexico, Ecologist), Jennifer Francis, (Arctic Researcher, Woods Hole Research Center), Ryan Shriver (UOI, Associate Professor), Zeke Hausfather (Climate Scientist, Berkley U, & Director of Climate & Energy, Breakthrough Institute), and StefanDoerr (Wildlife Science and Geography researcher, Swansea U).
Hausfather and Swain formed the core “reviewers”, with Hausfather’s being the most outspoken. Credentials matter, but prima facie, this isn’t surprising.
Hausfather appears to benefit more from Apocalyptic Climate Change hysteria and therefore has more to lose from Shellenberger’s exposure to any potential climate change fraud than the rest.
The move to quickly slam the credibility door shut on Shellenberger infers that those who are more environmental activist than scientist are in damage control.
Apparent by the desperate move to counter any loss of ground (funding?), should backers begin to take Shellenberger’s apology for misleading the public on man-made catastrophic Climate Change seriously.
By marking Shellenberger’s article as “partly false”, surely Climate Feedback’s reviewers have inferred that the article is “partly true.” Curiously enough, though, Climate Feedback focused on the “partly false”, and ignored the “partly true.”
This kind of one-sided, selective fact checking raises its own questions about bias. Are fact-checkers sorting truth from falsehood, or buttressing ‘herd madness’ and it’s shared narrative?
Or as Ian Plimer has posited, are scientists who are in the employ of politicians, Big Tech and the leftist hegemony, ‘crushing opposition to ensure that science serves politics?’ The so-called “facts” simply just follow the money.
Who fact checks the fact-checkers? Why are most fact-checkers almost certain to be left-leaning activists?
In sum, is Climate Feedback to be trusted as a reliable source?
Author and investigative journalist, Donna Laframboise doesn’t think so. Commenting on an unrelated fact check, Laframboise noted strategic omissions from Climate Feedback reviewers, stating their absolute reliance on the peer-review mechanic to attack credibility instead of holistically evaluating an idea or argument for accuracy, undermined their own credibility.
As Laframboise states, ‘peer review is no guarantee. Not of credibility. And not of accuracy. Fact-checkers who say otherwise are [themselves] profoundly misleading the public.’
Ian Plimer seconds this: ‘just because a scientific paper is peer-reviewed does not mean it is correct. The peer-reviewed scientific literature is full of papers that contradict each other so they can’t all be right.
Peer-review does not stop bad science being published. Scientific theories live or die on evidence, not whether or not they were published in the peer-reviewed literature.’
While Shellenberger’s activist “scientist” assassins, didn’t throw down another “sit down and shut up – the science-is-settled, you must “believe” the science” vitriolic, their case against him isn’t airtight.
It comes across as a carefully crafted, neatly packaged denouncement of Shellenberger.
One that’s too conveniently aligned with largely leftist dominated Big Tech, and big money, to dismiss any suspicions of bias on behalf of said fact check reviewers, some of whom appear to be well-positioned, and well-funded members of the fearmongering Gaian priesthood.
To apply the words of Andreas Vou from Spiked-Online, the contempt towards Shellenberger is an example of how ‘terrible of an idea it is to have Big Tech companies act as arbiters of truth.’
To pad the point, Forbes has since suppressed Shellenberger’s article, removing it from his Forbes author page.
Shellenberger isn’t backing down. He’s posted a rebuttal to Climate Feedback and has challenged Facebook’s censorship.
His original article is available on Environmental Progress and a PDF is accessible here.
The explosive piece also kick-started the launch of his book, ‘Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All’, an excerpt of which has been made available by Shellenberger on Quillette.
Read more at Spectator AU
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
4TimesAYear
| #
Yep – I posted it – and was promptly forbidden to leave comments on other pages, they limited the viewing, etc. I told them they were calling him a liar. Facebook factcheckers are a farce. They don’t care about those stories that they were meant to fact check, like “Share this and you’ll have a chance to win (whatever)” on pages that never give the purported prize away, and never announce the name of the winner. I think that was their intended purpose – but they NEVER check those things. They think they’re God.
Reply
Jerry
| #
Michael Snellenberger still makes the assertion that climate will continue warm and there is no support for that assertion.
At least he admits the IPCC has been lying.
As for peer reviews, they have as little credibility as the IPCC.
Reply