One might think the (leisure) suits at Twitter might be a little more circumspect with Elon Musk’s $54 billion takeover bid on the table.
After all, the founder and CEO of Space X and Tesla wants to buy the social media platform outright, or tank its stock if its board fails to do its fiduciary duty to shareholders and rejects his bid, because of its atrocious record on free speech.
Twitter, to recap, has not only permanently kicked off people like former President Donald Trump and GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, but it also suspended popular conservative accounts like The Babylon Bee and Libs of Tik Tok, stifled the New York Post’s story on Hunter Biden laptop and muzzled critics who questioned Biden’s victory and pandemic policies.
Yet on Friday – Earth Day 2022 – Twitter upped the ante.
In a company blog post, Twitter execs wrote that they would reject any ads that question climate change.
“This month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or IPCC) published a new and alarming report, underscoring the urgency of the climate crisis – ‘immediate and deep emissions reductions,’ they wrote, are necessary to turn the tide on global warming,” noted Twitter’s honchos over “sustainability,” Sean Boyle and Casey Junod.
“Now more than ever, meaningful climate action, from all of us, is critical. Today – on #EarthDay2022 – we’re sharing more about our work to serve the climate conversations happening across Twitter, plus the latest on our own sustainability commitments.”
And how they intend to serve it is by making those conversations one-sided.
“Misleading advertisements on Twitter that contradict the scientific consensus on climate change are prohibited, in line with our inappropriate content policy,” they wrote.
“We believe that climate denialism shouldn’t be monetized on Twitter, and that misrepresentative ads shouldn’t detract from important conversations about the climate crisis. This approach is informed by authoritative sources, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports.”
“We recognize that misleading information about climate change can undermine efforts to protect the planet. In the coming months, we’ll have more to share on our work to add reliable, authoritative context to the climate conversations happening on Twitter.”
But much like we saw with the pandemic, what will Twitter do when these “authoritative sources” behind the “scientific consensus” are wrong or change their minds?
For example, last August climate scientist Bjorn Lomborg wrote a column in the New York Post noting the findings of the last IPCC report. The alarmist reaction to the document “highlights how much one-sided thinking takes place in the climate conversation,” he noted.
“Since the heat dome in June, there has been a lot of writing about more heat deaths. And the IPCC confirms that climate change indeed has increased heatwaves. However, the report equally firmly, if virtually unacknowledged, tells us that global warming means ‘the frequency and intensity of cold extremes have decreased.’” Lomborg pointed out that climate change actually saves 166,000 lives a year globally because it has mitigated extreme cold spells.
Lonborg added that the IPCC report “tells us that the evidence isn’t there to say floods are caused or driven by climate change.” “It also mentions climate upsides like the fact that more CO₂ in the atmosphere has acted as a fertilizer and created a profound global greening of the planet,” Lomborg noted, pointing out that a NASA study found that over a 35-year period, climate change added an area of green equivalent to twice the size of the continental United States.
“But don’t expect to read about this in any of the breathless articles on climate impact,” Lonborg wrote. Or, presumably, on Twitter.
When Republicans controlled the Senate, GOP Sen. Jim Inhofe, then-chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, released a report about 12 times climate alarmists had been wrong.
In one example, Inhofe noted that the IPCC used an “unsubstantiated and false statistic” from the World Wildlife Federation to claim Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035. Even Time magazine refuted the IPCC’s finding, calling it a “black eye for the IPCC and the climate-science community as a whole.”
Inhofe also pointed out that the IPCC’s fifth assessment in 2014 admitted that “conclusions regarding global increasing trend in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
Inhofe also highlighted a comment from Newsweek that observed, “Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures.”
Meanwhile, in early April, the climate-change skeptics at ClimateDepot.com wondered why the media never challenge the IPCC for being wrong.
For instance, they pointed to news reports from the past.
In 1989, the Associated Press reported that a “senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
In 2007, The Guardian, a left-wing British newspaper, noted that the IPCC reported the world had just eight years left “to avoid (the) worst effects” of global warming.
When 2015 came and went, Greenpeace noted in 2018 that the IPCC’s latest climate report “gives us 10 years to save the world.”
In response to the IPCC report cited by Twitter, Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com noted that George Perkins Marsh, often mentioned as the father of American ecology, sounded the alarm that Earth was “fast becoming an unfit home” for man. He also quoted an article from Newsweek, which observed, “The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.”
As Morano pointed out, “That warning appeared in an April 28, 1975, article about global cooling! Same rhetoric, different eco-scare.” Yet say that on Twitter and you’ll join Trump in the dustbin of social media history.