Michael Shellenberger Profile picture
Sep 14, 2020 5 tweets 4 min read Read on X
This is false

No mainstream scientist blames California's recent drought on climate change as Gov. @GavinNewsom has just done with @realDonaldTrump

The most scientists are willing to say is that it made the drought 15-20% more intense

Even the apocalyptic @nytimes says so
@GavinNewsom @realDonaldTrump @nytimes Will the @nytimes — which has been exaggerating climate change's role in California's fires & lionizing @GavinNewsom — report that the governor just grossly misrepresented the science, according to its own 2015 coverage of the science?

nytimes.com/2015/08/21/sci…
Will the news media report that California's high-intensity megafires wouldn't be occurring without ~5x normal wood fuel accumulation?

What was impact of a 15-20% more intense drought? Well, one thing we know is that it didn't kill anybody

By contrast, (pre-climate change) drought of 1876 - 78 killed 50M

Prosperity (eg irrigation, fertilizer, desal plants, etc) outweigh climate

I made this video to answer some of the questions people ask in this thread

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Michael Shellenberger

Michael Shellenberger Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shellenberger

Mar 29
A representative for the EU says, in response to our reporting, “We are not censoring anyone’s opinion.” In truth, she and the EU are putting in place a sweeping totalitarian system of censorship and lying about it.
Four days ago, Czech investigative journalist @CecilieJilkova exposed the censorship efforts of @VeraJourova. Jourova ignored repeated requests for an interview.

Now, supposedly coincidentally @VeraJourova is claiming to have uncovered a vast “Russian disinformation” effort
@CecilieJilkova @VeraJourova Suddenly, out of the blue, “Czech and Belgian intelligence” are alleging a vast Russian disinformation and bribery campaign. They are claiming to have proof that conservative politicians — ie, Jourkva’s political rivals — are Russian puppets.
Read 4 tweets
Mar 26
You are not crazy, you are right: elites across the West are imposing a crackdown on speech. They have weaponized intelligence and security agencies. The news media are helping them. But they will lose in Ireland and could lose elsewhere. We will support your fight for freedom.
The same characters are attacking free speech in Brazil:

public.substack.com/p/fbi-soros-an…
Read 8 tweets
Mar 24
We should trust @BBC to fight misinformation, it says. But we shouldn't. Last year it spread false information about hate speech, Nigel Farage, and Israel-Gaza. Now, a former BBC reporter says it killed a major story about the coverup of medical mistreatment of gender confusion. Image
The former BBC reporter @hannahsbee went on to write a book, "A Time To Think," about the scandal of giving drugs and surgeries to gender-confused kids. Last year, her book was short-listed for the prestigious "Orwell Prize."

amazon.com/Time-Think-Col…
Here's what happened, as reported in The Times Of London, today:

Barnes "was editing [BBC flagship program] Newsnight on the night she revealed that the [gender clinic hospital] Tavistock trust’s medical director, Dr Dinesh Sinha, had failed to mention a number of safeguarding concerns raised by [gender clinic] Gids staff in a review he had published of the service.

"It was a turning point in the story: a revelation that prompted the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct its own review, in which Gids would ultimately be rated 'inadequate.' Barnes had worked a 16-hour shift, editing the package down so that the story could air on the various news bulletins. None of it ran. 'It wasn’t anywhere on the BBC. The online piece was so buried that even though I had written it, I couldn’t find it.'"Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 23
For years, experts said we should give drugs and surgeries to kids confused about their gender. Given the sterility, loss of sexual function, and regret, that's been changing. Now, a French Senate report calls it “one of the greatest ethical scandals in the history of medicine." Image
"Maud Vasselle, a mother whose daughter underwent gender transition treatment, told Le Figaro: 'A child is not old enough to ask to have her body altered.

"'My daughter just needed the certificate of a psychiatrist, which she obtained after a one-hour consultation. But doctors don’t explain the consequences of puberty blockers,' she added.

“'My daughter didn’t realise that life wasn’t going to be so easy with all these treatments... She was a brilliant little girl but now she’s failing at school. And she is far from having found the solution to her problems.'"

telegraph.co.uk/world-news/202…
The French Senate report comes in the wake of leaked WPATH Files, which show that "gender medicine" doctors, therapists, and activists know they're causing harm and not getting informed consent from their victims.

Read 9 tweets
Mar 19
Victory! Quack trans group @WPATH has deleted its pseudoscientific "Standards of Care v8" from its website!

This comes two weeks after the release of the WPATH Files, which revealed widespread medical mistreatment and fraud

WPATH yesterday:

WPATH today:
h/t @JanedoeordontImage
Image
WPATH may also have removed its president, Marci Bowers.

Here's WPATH's website yesterday:

Here's WPATH's web site today:Image
Image
Everyone from the New York Times to the American Medical Association has, for years, relied on WPATH. Neither @NYT nor @AmerMedicalAssn has responded to the WPATH Files, despite growing evidence that "gender medicine" is the largest medical mistreatment scandal in history.Image
Image
Read 13 tweets
Mar 18
The Internet means we should rethink the First Amendment, say the media. But it doesn't. Telegraphs, radio, and TV didn't require restricting free speech. There's something wrong with anyone so intolerant of their fellow citizens that they want the government to censor them. Image
Jeff Kosseff: "Hey, Let's Not Rethink The First Amendment"

Leading free speech scholar pushes back against widespread claim that "peer-to-peer misinformation" on the Internet justifies government censorship

by @shellenberger

Many journalists, university professors, and Democrats say we must change how we think about the First Amendment for the Internet age. Maybe the government had no role in regulating speech before there existed social media platforms like X and Facebook, where “peer-to-peer misinformation” thrives. But now, given the threat such misinformation poses to democracy, we need the government to restrict what can be said on the Internet, claim Stanford researchers, the New York Times, and the Biden administration.

All of that is dangerous nonsense, according to Jeff Kosseff, a cybersecurity law professor at the U.S. Naval Academy and author of a new book, Liar In A Crowded Theater. “Starting about a century ago,” he told me in a new podcast, “the Supreme Court gradually developed robust [free speech] protections for all but a handful of exceptions…. And I think that, for the Internet, it needs to be the same, where we start off with the premise that this speech is not subject to regulation.”

Kosseff recognizes the Internet’s massive impact and the limits to freedom of speech. “I think, obviously, you need to have some somewhat different rules to make [the First Amendment] make sense on the Internet,” he explains. “And you can't [for example] lie in court and then say, ‘My rights are protected by the First Amendment.’”

However, the Supreme Court already ruled in Reno v. ACLU in 1997 that the First Amendment applied to speech on the Internet. After the Communications Decency Act passed in 1996, an aspect of it was challenged as unconstitutional. “The government's defense of it was, ‘Well, the Internet is not really like your average speech.' You don't get the full scope of First Amendment protections for the Internet. Instead, you get lesser protections, kind of like you get for radio and TV because the FCC can regulate cursing and pornography.’

“The Supreme Court very soundly and clearly rejected that. It said, ‘No, the Internet is not like broadcast because broadcast has scarce spectrum that has to be regulated by the government. The Internet is this new medium. ' It's a beautiful opinion. Justice Stevens wrote it, and most of it was joined by all of the justices. There were two minor dissents. I think that principle needs to carry on.”

I wanted to interview Kosseff before tomorrow’s Supreme Court hearing on Murthy v. Missouri, a potentially landmark First Amendment case involving government demands for online censorship....
Please subscribe now to support the fight for free speech, read the full article, and hear the full podcast!

Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(