“The most intense climate lie”: Last week it was all over the news: Temperatures in southern Europe skyrocketing to 48°C! But none of it was true.
By P Gosselin | No Tricks Zone | July 19, 2023
The hysteria was started when climate sensationalist media outlets in Germany and elsewhere, like the Relotius Spiegel, uncritically cited a sloppily and manipulatively formulated July 13 report from the European Space Agency (ESA), that first referred to “air” temperature:
Temperatures are sizzling across Europe this week amid an intense and prolonged period of heat. And it’s only just begun. Italy, Spain, France, Germany and Poland are all facing a major heatwave with air temperatures expected to climb to 48°C on the islands of Sicily and Sardinia – potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe.”
The original ESA report continued, only later specifying that it was in fact referring to surface temperature (emphasis added):
The animation below uses data from the Copernicus Sentinel-3 mission’s radiometer instrument and shows the land surface temperature across Italy between 9 and 10 July. As the image clearly shows, in some cities the surface of the land exceeded 45°C, including Rome, Naples, Taranto and Foggia. Along the east slopes of Mount Etna in Sicily, many temperatures were recorded as over 50°C.”
Meant here were not the standard temperatures recorded at 2 meters above ground level that we always here in daily weather reports, which are much cooler, but rather those right at the ground surface. That crucial difference went totally unnoticed by media and journalists, who reported of new record high temperatures. By the time the ploy was exposed by careful readers, the news had already gone around the world.
Yesterday, the ESA issued a (vague) clarification explaining the difference between surface and air temperature at 2 meters above ground, yet continued to mislead:
Land surface temperature is how hot the ‘surface’ of Earth feels to the touch. Air temperature, given in our daily weather forecasts, is a measure of how hot the air is above the ground.”
The ESA did not bother to mention how the surface temperature is much hotter than the 2 meter air temperature.
“Most intense climate lie”
“What we experienced over the past days was most intense climate lie since temperature recording began,” reported Germany’s Achtung Reichelt on the implications of the ESA’s sloppy, manipulative press release and the media firestorm that ensued: “The problem with that report is that none of it is true.”
In Sicily the temperature reached only 32°C over the weekend – a far cry from 48°C, which illustrates the great difference between ground surface temperature and readings taken 2 meters above the ground.
Once the trickery was exposed, Spiegel quietly changed the wording in its July 14 report.
The Naked Emperor’s Newsletter | July 24, 2023
In March, The Lancet published a paper “Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study in 854 cities in Europe”.
Despite all the doom-mongering, the paper reported what we all know – the cold kills far more people than the heat does. In fact, it kills around 10 times more people. In the 854 urban areas in Europe, 203,620 people died from the cold and 20,173 from the heat. This corresponds to 129 per 100,000 person-years for the cold and 13 per 100,000 person-years for the heat.
But there is a narrative to maintain – the world is burning up.
So, when presenting their results, the chart that was shown was as follows:
It looks as though heat deaths are almost as bad as cold deaths. However, if you look closely, that’s because they have changed the axis for the heat related excess death rate.
When the axis on the right is redrawn (h/t Bjorn Lomborg) so that it is the same as the one on the left, you get a chart that looks like this.
But I guess that isn’t as scary and won’t stop you driving your car or going on holiday.
By Alex Starling | Reaction | July 21, 2023
Nothing beats a good silly-season panic, it seems, but the latest handwringing about Summer heat is surely a step too far. Yes, it’s hot – “Southern Europe on fire” – but is this unusual when the jet stream is aligned as it is now, with hot Saharan air being pulled up from Africa? Judging by recent reporting, you’d be forgiven for thinking the end is nigh. There’s a climate emergency, didn’t you know?
Such scaremongering is of course a free pass, as usually no one really checks up on what actually takes place, but the catastrophic outcome can be milked to its full potential. “Drizzly day in Derby” never did sell any papers.
However, the fourth estate does have an obligation to present its viewers and readers with accurate information. This is where the story gets interesting – this is not just a case of eye-rolling pushback against apocalyptic hyperbole. Ranging from casual sloppy reporting to highly targeted attempts to influence the narrative, there is now a weight of evidence demonstrating the existence of a systemic bias towards catastrophising otherwise run-of-the-mill data.
Consider the following vignettes.
It is currently hot in Southern Europe. Earlier this month the European Space Agency (ESA) issued an attractively-coloured map as part of a press release forecasting air temperatures of 48°C in Sardinia and Sicily that would be “potentially the hottest temperatures ever recorded in Europe”. The quotable quote was suitably amplified by the media, only this time it was picked up by astute observers who pointed out that the ESA had conflated land temperatures with the much cooler air temperatures at the standard 2m measuring height (i.e. while you might be able to fry an egg on tarmac, the same egg suspended 2m on the ground will take much longer to become a culinary delight). The ESA subsequently issued a clarification, with corrections being issued by media organisations such as Der Spiegel which had picked up the original story.
A recent article in this publication also came to my attention. Walter Ellis wrote a piece about urban migration in Zaragoza in Spain. Fascinating though it was, he included some doom-laden forecasts regarding an ongoing summer drought: “It hasn’t rained here for months and the [official forecast] prognosis is for more – that is to say, less – to come… today, as a direct result of climate change, temperatures even in the more northerly regions, including Aragon, are at record highs”. Walter is just relaying official forecasts – hardly a mortal sin and you would hope official forecasts could be relied upon. But a slightly inconvenient truth is that these forecasters managed to get these (very short-term!) predictions completely wrong – the Iberian Peninsula was given an absolute drenching throughout May and June. Oops.
None of this would particularly matter if this idle chatter about the weather was just that; reporting on meteorological curiosities du jour. But quoting Twain: “A lie can travel halfway round the world and back again while the truth is putting on its boots”. And these weather untruths – whether they be honest mistakes, sloppy reporting or cynical ploys – tend to have one thing in common: they are seemingly always yoked to a great article of faith. That is, they are always indicative of a climate ‘emergency’, or at least ‘climate change’ (the old term ‘global warming’ seems to have temporarily gone out of fashion following various postponements of the previously imminent Armageddon).
Walter Ellis’s passing comment mentioned above lays the blame for an (incidentally totally incorrect) forecast of ongoing drought “directly on climate change”, begging the question about this direct causal link given that the prediction did not come to pass. The ESA is able to state that as “climate change takes grip, heatwaves such as this are likely to be more frequent and more severe, with far-reaching consequences”. A Met Office spokesman recently produced this cryptic quote in The Times : “As we get this climate warming, the extremes are becoming more extreme”, in an article worrying about a temporary warm spell in Greenland when the actual data shows that the snow mass was way above average at the height of summer. Even Reaction – if you can believe it – has managed to publish bold conjecture: “As temperatures continue to rise, heatwaves will become more severe. It’s crucial that governments worldwide take swift and decisive action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions immediately… while we can slow down the rate of global warming, the effects of climate change will continue to be experienced in the future”.
These are not cherry picked examples – this climate Lysenkoism is given blanket coverage. The message is ubiquitous (albeit sometimes subliminal) and in starker terms can be summarised as: “hot weather is caused by climate change, and mankind has caused climate change by producing CO2. There is an existential emergency!”
This ‘consensus’ is so consensual that it seemingly needs to be rammed home at every opportunity – almost as if this message (rather than the planet) is fragile, a complex construct that needs protection from awkward questions or detailed analysis. Grand proclamations and joint public statements are made by very serious organisations declaring The Truth that the faithful shall adhere to. Data is continually adjusted such that the graphs have suitable hockey sticks, and academics behind the scenes really know what they are doing. Armies of sycophants can be trusted to hound those who merely report on the weather without anchoring it to a climate scare, and senior sympathisers within the BBC enforce ‘appropriate’ edits and encourage activists to “flag similar cases in the future so they can adapt the content accordingly”.
Or consider Quentin Letts. He was court-martialled to have committed a “serious” breach of BBC rules on impartiality after producing a light-hearted Radio 4 programme entitled “What’s the point of the Met Office?” The recording was so offensive that it was eviscerated from BBC Sounds, lest a member of the public should stumble on such heresy. Not only that, the BBC has claimed that Letts had ignored a pre-production agreement “never to touch on climate change” – Letts categorically denies that this was ever agreed, let alone discussed. And in academia, even if the occasional journal paper with the ‘wrong’ conclusions does slip through the peer-review process, publishers can be relied on to create murky procedural grounds for retraction, especially when newspapers like The Guardian apply a modicum of pressure and editors are made to “think of the implications of publishing”.
That is quite a statement. Scientific curiosity is sidelined by today’s regime, which is tough on thought crime and tough on the causes of thought crime. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command”: do not, under any circumstance, ask questions about recent cold weather events and records – which have seemingly abounded of late. Did you know that the Antarctic has been particularly and persistently cold in recent years? That the snow pack in California has been at extraordinarily high levels, resulting in mind-blowing skiing and white-water rafting conditions? That China and much of Siberia experienced record cold earlier in 2023? And that miserable and cold weather has persisted in Australia for many years now?
These are just anecdotes about the weather – our climate changes, after all. We should keep a weather (!) eye on this, as it was not that long ago that we were warned of an imminent ice age, and the earth’s magnetic field has been waning over the last century. Why don’t the BBC and The Guardian investigate and report on these fascinating phenomena rather than regale us with anecdotes about hot weather, as decreed by ‘Group Sustainability Directors’ who get to post-edit technical output within their organisations?
Perhaps, though, we should be grateful that the green lobby – this veritable hydra of loosely aligned eco-activists, shrieking media and sustainable energy salesmen – are there to protect ‘The Science’ from coming to harm at the hands of the scientific method.
Because surely – surely? – the public at large will eventually notice this pseudoscientific quackery and reject increasingly desperate attempts to apply cancel culture techniques to silence or ridicule heretics. Consider Dr John Clauser, the recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics, who recently criticised the climate emergency narrative, calling it “a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people” and that “there is no climate crisis and that increasing CO2 concentrations will benefit the world”. People with such credentials should have their hypotheses examined — not shouted down.
How much more hot air will we have to put up with until a more reasoned debate ensues? It is clear to many that nihilistic climate alarmism is stopping us from investing in reliable energy and pursuing economic growth. If we continue down this Lysenkoist path, we risk deindustrialisation and pauperisation, which would spell an end to the quality of life that we have enjoyed in recent decades – and that our forebears could only dream of.
BY CHRIS MORRISON | THE DAILY SCEPTIC | JULY 18, 2023
It’s summer in the Northern Hemisphere so the heat hucksters are out in force. Alas, there are currently thin pickings in the U.K. – last year’s star of the show – where the summer has turned distinctly chilly. Further north is also very disappointing and largely absent from the public prints. Arctic sea ice continues its steady decade-long recovery, and current levels on the Greenland ice sheet are above the 1981-2010 average. But no matter – African countries surrounding the Sahara and nearby southern European locations can always be guaranteed to raise a scorchio cheer, along with Death Valley in the Arizona desert. Guaranteed climate change fearmongering in action here, every day of the week.
Come rain or shine, flood or drought, the weather is being ruthlessly weaponised to persuade us to embrace a collectivist Net Zero plan. Last week, heavy rain caused some flash flooding in Vermont. USA Today claimed that “dramatic flooding” was rare in Vermont, adding: “Expect more amid climate change.” The BBC reported the event, adding the routine house scare that “climate change makes extreme rainfall more likely”. What is missing in all this propaganda is any proof of the claims and any attempt to put bad weather into an historical perspective.
In a paper looking at the climate variability of the American state’s natural hazards, published in 2002 by the Vermont Historical Society, it was noted:
One of the most pervasive hazards that impinges upon and marks the Vermont landscape is flooding. Rarely does a year elapse without a flooding event of a significant magnitude being reported in at least one of Vermont’s 14 counties or perhaps state-wide, making this the number one hazard across the state.
On July 4th, Matt McGrath of the BBC reported that the world’s average temperature had reached a new daily high of 17°C. McGrath partly attributed the rise to “ongoing emissions of carbon dioxide”, and reported the view that July will be the hottest month in 120,000 years. Quite how anyone can know that is a mystery.
It turns out that the hottest day claim, which provided clickbait for headlines around the world, was the product of a computer model called Climate Reanalyzer, run out of the University of Maine. The operators perhaps felt a pang of guilt over the widespread use of their modelled figure noting, a few days later, that much of the elevated global temperature “can be attributed to weather patterns in the Southern Hemisphere that have brought warmer than usual air over portions of the Antarctic”. In other words, long-term climate change, human-caused or natural, had nothing to do with any rise, it was a local meteorological event.
It is important to understand that all these ‘records’ are based on historical data that are incomplete, often inaccurate and are rarely more than 100 years old. Until recently, sea temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were recorded from a bucket thrown from a passing ship. All the major land surface temperature datasets are ravaged by growing urban heat corruption, and recent temperatures have been further warmed on a retrospective basis via ‘adjustments’. Growing questions are being asked about the accuracy of many recordings, with the U.K. Met Office willing to declare ‘records’ from a runway used by Typhoon fighter jets and other sites that the World Meteorological Organisation states come with an error estimate of up to 2°C. Meanwhile, the most accurate record we have of air temperatures is compiled from satellite data by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and this shows less warming since 1979. The results are rarely noted in mainstream media, and last year Google demonetised one of the compilers by banning him from receiving money from its AdSense scheme.
Climate historian Tony Heller has released a short film noting that “fake historical data” and bright red maps are key tools being used to scare people into compliance with an anti-energy agenda. The highest temperature ever recorded on the planet was 58°C in the Libyan desert, and the record stood for 100 years before climate alarmists managed to erase it from the record. Temperatures over 50°C are not unknown in Libya, with 50.2°C recorded in June 1995 at Zuara.
In the past, Heller notes temperatures over 38°C were recorded in Alaska over 70 years ago. In 1957, the Soviet weather service reported a week of 38°C temperatures north of the Arctic circle. In Phoenix, Arizona, there were 18 consecutive days of 43°C in 1974, at a time, Heller notes, when there was a fear of global cooling. This record may be broken in the near future he continues, but it will not have anything to do with global warming, just as the temperatures in 1974 had nothing to do with global cooling. The U.S. is likely to see highs of 38°C in Texas and the desert southwest, observes Heller, but in 1936, 13 states were over 43°C and 30 passed 38°C. Illinois was over 45°C, and people were reported to be dying from the heat in Detroit at the rate of one every 10 minutes.
The fact is that the percentage of the United States that reaches 38°C sometime during the year has plummeted since the 1930s.
The graph above shows that since the mid 1930s, the number of U.S. weather stations recording at least 38°C (100°F) has fallen by half. In addition, it shows the trend sharply decreasing since the turn of the century. People in authority, argues Heller, are pushing for the demise of fossil fuels using fake statistics and blood-red maps. The red fires of hell, he suggests, have always been used to scare the public into conforming.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptics Environment Editor.
By Christina Maas | Reclaim The Net | July 20, 2023
In newly unveiled testimony, Laura Dehmlow, section chief of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF), disclosed that the FBI was aware of the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s laptop as early as 2019. However, the Bureau declined to affirm its legitimacy to major tech companies during the 2020 election period.
That was already known. But it turns out that on the day the New York Post broke its report about the laptop, the FBI confirmed its validity to Twitter, only to retract their statement with a hasty “no further comment” response. From that point forward, the Bureau withheld comment on the laptop’s veracity to other tech giants, leading to widespread confusion and speculation ahead of the 2020 election.
According to a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Dehmlow revealed in her testimony that FBI staff, who had been warning social media platforms of potential Russian interference via a “hack and leak” operation prior to the 2020 election, were aware that the Hunter Biden laptop story was not an instance of Russian disinformation.
We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.
When Twitter inquired about the laptop’s legitimacy on the day of the New York Post’s release, an FBI analyst confirmed its authenticity. However, an FBI attorney swiftly interrupted, leaving the conversation with “no further comment.” Following suit, Facebook also received the same vague response from the Bureau.
As per Dehmlow’s account, Twitter, after receiving initial confirmation about the laptop’s legitimacy, joined Facebook in imposing a censorship campaign that significantly influenced the voting behavior of a large number of Americans. Sharing the link was prohibited on Twitter, and the New York Post account was locked for several weeks. Facebook reduced the story’s visibility as well.
The FBI reportedly had regular interactions with major tech companies leading up to the election but chose to avoid answering direct questions about the laptop’s authenticity after the initial admission to Twitter.
In the backdrop of this confusing narrative, Big Tech was led to believe, by the FBI and other influencers, including the Biden campaign, that the controversial information from Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation aimed at manipulating the election. When, in reality, many consider the censorship of the story to be the true attempt at election manipulation.
The FBI had possession of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop as early as December 2019, a fact confirmed in Gary Shapley’s testimony, an IRS whistleblower, to the House Ways and Means Committee. Yet the FBI chose to maintain its “no comment” narrative until after the 2020 election, further compounding the confusion.
A federal judge’s memorandum ruling in Missouri v. Biden demonstrated that this approach deprived millions of Americans from getting a clear understanding of an important issue in the 2020 presidential election.
Chairman Jordan is now demanding that Wray identify those within the FBI’s FITF who knew about the laptop’s authenticity yet still advocated for the agency to remain silent until after the election. He also demanded all documents, records, and communications related to the FBI’s meetings with Silicon Valley giants since 2017 be handed over by August 3 and that all FBI employees involved in this issue be available for transcribed interviews with the committee.
Sputnik – 21.07.2023
WASHINGTON – An analyst with the FBI conducted an improper search of a US senator’s name in a surveillance database, American media reported on Friday, as lawmakers weigh the future of the agency’s surveillance authorities.
The FBI analyst searched information collected using warrantless surveillance programs using the names of a US senator and a state senator, the report said, citing a recently declassified court document.
The June 2022 searches were reportedly conducted due to information indicating the lawmakers were potentially targeted by foreign intelligence agents. However, the analyst failed to receive approval from higher-ups before conducting a sensitive search involving public officials.
Moreover, the analyst failed to demonstrate the searches would be reasonably likely to produce foreign intelligence or criminal evidence, the report said.
It was also reported the declassified court document notes there is no reason to believe the FBI has improved its compliance with surveillance protocols.
The revelation comes as lawmakers in Congress weigh whether to extend the FBI’s surveillance authorities, following multiple allegations of misuse. US intelligence and national security officials have repeatedly defended the program and its importance to their missions.
By Oleg Burunov – Sputnik – 21.07.2023
The POTUS and his son are investigated by the Republican-controlled House panel over allegations that they ran an illegal “pay-to-play” corruption scheme involving cash payments to Hunter Biden in exchange for access to his father while Biden was vice president.
Republicans have gone on Twitter to react to the release of an unclassified Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) document related to President Joe Biden’s alleged involvement in an international bribery scheme, with some GOP members calling for his impeachment.
They included Marjorie Taylor Greene, who called the 46th US president “a criminal, […] leading us into WW3.”
“Republicans can no longer delay, but we need 218 Republican votes to do it. I’ve been there since day one and so are the American people. IMPEACH BIDEN!!!” she added.
Greene was echoed by Anna Paulina Luna, who argued that Biden “needs to be impeached” because of the “evidence and testimony” that she had seen as a member of the House Oversight Committee investigating the Biden family finances. “He is compromised and his son is selling access to him,” Luna tweeted.
The same tone was struck by Lauren Boebert as she wrote that it’s necessary to “Read and understand just how deep the corruption goes,” and that “Biden should be thrown out of office. Impeach!”
Similar messages were shared by Jim Banks, who described the Bidens as the “Most corrupt family to ever live in the White House,” also urging for Joe Biden’s impeachment.
The reaction comes after Republican Senator Chuck Grassley released the FBI’s FD-1023 form on Thursday, which focused on how Biden, along with his son Hunter Biden, ostensibly “coerced” chief executive of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Nikolai Zlochevsky to pay them $5 million each in exchange for their help in getting a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the firm fired.
The document pertains to the FBI’s interview with a “highly credible” confidential source who detailed multiple meetings and conversations he or she had with Zlochevsky over the course of several years starting in 2015. During those gatherings, the Burisma CEO at one point reportedly said that Joe Biden’s son “was stupid”, and that “his [Zlochevsky’s] dog was smarter.”
Hunter sat on the board of Burisma at the time while his father served as Barack Obama’s vice president.
Grassley, for his part, stressed that he released the document so that Americans can read it “for themselves without the filter of politicians or bureaucrats.” The senator acquired the form via legally protected disclosures by Justice Department whistleblowers, according to the senator’s office.
The FBI responded with a sharply worded statement, slamming GOP lawmakers for ignoring the bureau’s “significant concerns” about the dangers of releasing the material.
“We have repeatedly explained to Congress, in correspondence and in briefings, how critical it is to keep this source information confidential. […] Today’s release of the 1023 – at a minimum – unnecessarily risks the safety of a confidential source,” the FBI statement said.
The developments follow US Internal Revenue Service investigator Joseph Ziegler telling lawmakers he discovered Hunter Biden and his business associates received $17 million from foreign sources, including $7.3 million from Burisma, during a probe he described as hindered by senior Justice Department officials.
Ziegler had remained anonymous until his appearance at a House oversight committee hearing on Wednesday that was convened over Republican allegations that President Biden and his son Hunter were involved in a bribery scheme with Burisma.
Hunter Biden’s attorneys and the US Justice Department announced last month an agreement under which he will plead guilty to misdemeanor tax charges and enter a pretrial diversionary agreement on a felony firearms offense in an effort to resolve the criminal probe against him and avoid prison time.
Since 2018, the First Son has been under a series of investigations into tax-related crimes, drug use, money laundering and illegal business dealings in foreign countries, including Ukraine and China. Investigators are specifically looking into the content of Hunter Biden’s so-called “laptop from Hell”, which purportedly included naked photos and graphic videos of the 46th president’s son.
Brownstone Institute | July 20, 2023
Despite the uproar surrounding the case, Judge Terry Doughty’s order in Missouri v. Biden was straightforward. It prohibited government actors from colluding with social media companies to censor “content containing protected free speech.”
In other words, the defendants – including the White House, the CDC, and the Department of Justice – must obey the Constitution they swore to uphold by adhering to the First Amendment. The censorship regime responded with familiar doublethink: denying the censorship exists while arguing that it must continue.
On Tuesday, the court held a hearing to consider whether Judge Doughty’s order should be reinstated. The oral arguments revealed the government’s three-part strategy: deny, deflect, and defend. Its lawyers denied the established facts, deflected from the controversy, and defended its actions through outlandish justifications.
In doing so, they demonstrated the censorship apparatus’s lack of remorse for stripping Americans of their constitutional liberties. Even worse, they insist that the totalitarian operations must continue.
At the hearing, government defendants maintained that plaintiffs have manufactured the case. Like their allies in the media, they argued that allegations of censorship were nothing more than “an assortment of out-of-context quotes and select portions of documents that distort the record to build a narrative that the bare facts simply do not support.”
The censorship is nonexistent, they insist. It is a “thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory,” in the words of Larry Tribe.
Unlike issues of legal interpretation, this is a factual matter. Either government actors colluded with Big Tech to suppress Americans’ free speech rights or they did not. Discovery revealed extensive documentation proving that they did, and the defendants make no effort to explain how Judge Doughty’s 155-page order detailing dozens of violations of the First Amendment is merely “an assortment of out-of-context quotes.”
Journalists including Matt Taibbi, Michael Shellenberger, and Alex Berenson have detailed the “censorship industrial complex,” the entangled web of government agencies, NGOs, and private-public partnerships that seek to control the free flow of information. But reviewing that series of connections and collusions is unnecessary – the defendants’ recorded statements contradict their denial.
“Thank you for the ongoing collaboration,” one bureaucrat wrote after a US Government “industry meeting” with Big Tech companies in October 2020.
White House Advisor Rob Flaherty took a different tack in his demands to Twitter: “Please remove this account immediately.” The company complied within an hour. “Are you guys fucking serious?” he wrote to company officials after they failed to censor critics of the Covid vaccine. “I want an answer on what happened here and I want it today.” His boss was similarly direct regarding posts from RFK, Jr. “Hey Folks-Wanted to flag the below tweet and am wondering if we can get moving on the process of having it removed ASAP.”
There is no need to recreate Judge Doughty’s 155-page opinion, but the denial of the censorship regime is facially absurd. Alex Berenson’s case, the revelations of the Twitter files, and the undisputed facts of Missouri v. Biden refute the defendant’s premise.
Rather than address the case’s inconvenient facts, government lawyers quickly pivoted to their second tactic: deflection. They avoided the case and Judge Doughty’s ruling in favor of a hypothetical narrative.
At one point, they defended government agencies’ right to issue health advisories that say “the vaccines work or smoking is dangerous.” They argued, “There’s nothing unlawful about the government’s use of the bully pulpit.” That reasoning was uncontroversial, but it was not responsive to Judge Doughty’s order.
Under Doughty’s ruling, the White House can denounce journalists, deliver press briefings, publish on social media, enjoy the bully pulpit, and take advantage of the friendly media environment; it just can’t encourage private companies to censor constitutionally protected speech.
The defense conflates free speech with control over information to deflect attention from the censorship at issue. The tactic is not limited to the government’s powers under the order.
During the hearing, the judge asked the defense attorneys whether saying “the COVID vaccine does not work” is constitutionally protected free speech. “That speech itself could be protected,” the attorney responded at one point. After repeatedly refusing to concede that the First Amendment protects political opinions that deviate from President Biden’s agenda, he resorted to Russian fear-mongering.
“Let’s say it was spoken by a covert Russian operative, that would not be protected by free speech,” he told the judge. Like the issue of the government’s “use of the bully pulpit,” restricting Russian operatives’ speech is unrelated to Judge Doughty’s order.
The attorney’s refusal to defend basic First Amendment liberties was telling. The defense instinctively changed the issue from free speech to national security, relying on an oft-used fear tactic to subvert the First Amendment.
These deflections deliberately obfuscated the purpose of the hearings. Defendants implied the plaintiffs sought to ban anti-smoking PSAs and fund Kremlin media campaigns. Like their strategy of denial, the goal was to avoid discussion of their extensive censorship operations.
When the government was forced to address the case, it resorted to claiming that Covid justified the abolition of constitutional liberties. The pandemic-made-us-censor argument continued the pervasive Doublethink. Eradicating democratic norms was necessary to protect democracy, they reasoned. Previously, the Biden Administration told the court that reversing the order was necessary “to prevent grave harm to the American people and our democratic processes.”
Defendants argued that the evidence of the case vindicates the government actors. The attorneys said “It shows, in the face of urgent crises, a once-in-a-generation pandemic and bipartisan findings of foreign interference with U.S. elections, the government responsibly exercised its prerogative to speak on matters of public concern.”
They continued, “It promoted accurate information to protect the public and our democracy from these threats. And it used the bully pulpit to call on various sectors of society, including social media companies, to make efforts to reduce the spread of misinformation.”
Demonstrating no remorse, they remain proud of their efforts to usurp the First Amendment because of their self-professed noble aims. They expect this defense to evade judicial scrutiny.
When confronted with past censorship – including CISA’s “switchboarding” leading up to the 2020 election – defendants reasoned that prior conduct was not pertinent to the case because plaintiffs could not prove it will happen again.
They described the Department of Homeland Security’s unconstitutional censorship campaigns as “occurring long in the past.” They argued that health officials’ emails working to silence opponents should be disregarded because they were sent “more than two and a half years ago.”
The censorship apparatus is asking the courts to trust them to act responsibly despite repeatedly demonstrating its indifference, or perhaps disdain, toward the First Amendment.
While the government’s denials and deflections are insulting to the citizens they purport to represent, we must remain focused on their aim: they appealed Doughty’s order because they oppose constitutional restraints on their control of information.
We would hope that requiring the government to obey the Constitution would be uncontroversial; now, it may signify whether the rule of law still stands in the United States.
By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | July 19, 2023
It seems every day lately there is a new “shocking viral video” of “desperate drivers losing patience with Just Stop Oil”, or some similar phrasing.
Something like this…
No sporting event has been spared the orange dust and hi-viz vest of Just Stop Oil, and wherever they go they are either cheered on for their antics, or the subject of vigilante justice… which likewise gets a cheer.
But are these videos and protests organic? And if not, what is the point of these clashes?
First of all, let’s agree the protests themselves are pointless, even on their own terms.
Not only do none of the people being inconvenienced by the blocked traffic or disrupted sporting events have any power at all to “just stop oil”, but slowing down traffic actually increases emissions whilst the destruction and disruption will certainly turn many people against the movement.
But that doesn’t actually matter anyhow because the entire movement is FAKE.
Yup, stop the presses guys, news incoming is that Just Stop Oil are not actually a guerilla band of desperate anti-petrol hippies!
Turns out they have branding and funding and social media managers.
Turns out they are a product being marketed as much as anything else, and they are backed by the Climate Emergency Fund, a US-based NGO.
Shocking, right.
Ok, before any of you get apoplectic, it’s perfectly possible some (or all) of the JSO people out there actually wearing their hi-viz and chanting their slogans genuinely believe they’re doing the right thing.
But it’s just as possible they’re all being paid to be there.
Yes, just like charity collectors or seat fillers, paid protesters exist.
Hell, it’s possible the “ordinary people” doing the violence are paid too and the many of the “viral videos” are entirely staged.
Staged or not, paid or not, the violent videos will certainly encourage real violence eventually. And even if they don’t spawn more physical violence, they provide endless ammunition for violent disagreement.
Yes, you guessed it, it’s another fake binary.
A dialectic construction to control the conversation. Making the question on the public mind not “is climate change a problem?”, but “is protesting hydrocarbon production this way right?” or “is violence against protesters acceptable?”.
And, of course, no matter how you answer those questions you’re providing support for one establishment narrative or another.
See, if you support the protesters, you’re agreeing we should be using any means necessary to reduce CO2 emissions etc. You agree that the problem these people are reacting to requires a solution. That way lies carbon taxes and a laundry list of restrictive policies that contol and impoverish people in the name of “saving the planet”.
But, on the other hand, if you’re anti-protesters you’re going to be gaslit into supporting “new anti-protest legislature” to “stop environmentalists disrupting daily life” or “prevent outbreaks of violence” or something.
This anti-protest legislation will be used to stamp-out REAL protests when they inevitably occur in response to Great Reset policies down the line.
See how it works? It’s a win-win for the establishment.
That’s the nature and purpose of the false binary. Violent disagreement across a very narrow band of opinion, and no matter which side you take you’re partaking in a constructed reality that directs your behaviour and responses into endorsing a New Normal policy.
This is almost literally everything that’s been in the news since Covid sputtered out, and the solution is always the same: Keep objective and refuse to take a side.
Representative Jordan Puts Pfizer on Tight Timeline to Produce Evidence of Collusion with Executive Branch and Social Media
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | July 20, 2023
The noose is tightening around Pfizer’s European veterinarian CEO Albert Bourla. He has not faced a single hard question on the Hill but finally has received a request from House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH) to produce documents and contacts on how the pharmaceutical giant colluded with the Executive Branch and social media companies (Twitter, Gettr, Facebook, Telegram, Instagram etc.) by weaponizing “misinformation” in order to push mRNA vaccines.
I imagine a Pfizer strategy that was anchored to the Trusted News Initiative dating back to December 2020 will emerge.
For sure Jordan is interested in former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb and his influence peddling with Twitter to mute messaging on natural immunity as he was pushing mRNA as a Board member of Pfizer on national television.
Expect Pfizer will distract and delay on this request which has a deadline on August 1, 2023.
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
The volcanic mineral medicine will not patent — for the toxic burden medicine will not name
Lies are Unbekoming – October 30, 2026
Zeolite is old. It is in Roman concrete that has held for two thousand years. It’s in the water filters of ancient cisterns. It’s in the stomachs of Pacific livestock whose keepers knew, somehow, that this grey crumbling rock made the animals healthier. It’s in Soviet clinical protocols from the 1960s. It’s in the standard emergency response to the Chernobyl explosion.
In 1986, after the Chernobyl reactor failure, the Soviet Union manufactured and distributed natural zeolite at industrial scale — for soil remediation, for livestock feed, for human consumption, for the cleanup itself. Karl Hecht, who had been director of the Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pathophysiology at the Charité of Humboldt University Berlin, spent the six decades after that building the clinical research base — on silicon’s role in human health, on zeolite’s clinical safety, on its applications in ageing. In 2018, Pavelić and colleagues published a comprehensive clinical safety review of natural clinoptilolite in Frontiers in Pharmacology. In 2019, Mastinu analysed its binding affinities. In the Western medical literature, these works sit largely uncited.
What has not been treated at book length, until now, is how a volcanic mineral with six decades of Soviet clinical work behind it, two major peer-reviewed Western reviews, and ongoing clinical use across the former Eastern Bloc, remains almost entirely absent from Western medical practice — and what the toxic burden it’s meant to address actually is.
The Zeolite Book gathers the Soviet clinical record, the Western peer-reviewed studies, three contemporary practitioner voices, and three serious counterviews into one honest treatment. That’s why the book runs to seven appendices. 288 pages, four parts, three practitioner voices, three counterviews, seven appendices. The honest treatment is the argument.
Aletho News If Americans Knew No Tricks Zone
