Guardian Censorship Policy

James Hansen gave thousands of interviews pushing his climate nonsense while at NASA. while simultaneously complaining that he was being censored.

James Hansen and Mark Bowen on Censored Science : NPR

Top Nasa climate scientist ‘censored’ | Science | The Guardian

The Guardian says censorship is very bad.  They also say it is their official policy.

Climate change is not a matter for debate. We must not offer credibility to those who deny it | Letters | Environment | The Guardian

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Guardian Censorship Policy

  1. Steelman says:

    The Guardian and most MSM, globally.
    What I’m struggling to understand, is their need to censor the so called deniers, when the science is settled?
    After all, the science has proved that co2 drives the climate, or?

    • --B-- says:

      They must censor because the science is settled through social manipulation, economic incentive, and force and how high the stakes are. People are not going give up power over their lives to degree that is desired unless they are very scared. To achieve that other voices must be silenced.

      • Jeff Jones says:

        Yes. In fact it is really incredible that the bits of true science we have has sneaked out of the political swamp over the centuries.

  2. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    The trend of increasing censorship in the MSM and on social media is frightening. Because Progressive ideas can’t be supported with logical argument or rational debate, it’s much easier to simply censor dissenting views. As a result, we are witnessing the death of free speech not just in the US but in the civilized world.

    • Steelman says:

      Sad but true, sir. Worst thing is that the average folks, don’t believe it, before it’s too late.

      • tonyheller says:

        Hitler was quite open about his plans to exterminate Jews all through the 1930’s. Leftists and many German Jews chose to ignore what was going on right under their noses.

        • Steelman says:

          Also sad but true, Tony. The policy of the progressive/leftists are remarkably similar to the nazi regime in many ways.

        • Former95B says:

          Hitler laid it all out in ‘Mein Kampf’, more than a decade earlier, and today the book is the #2 best seller in the Muslim world.

        • Robertv says:

          Most of the (poor) German/ European population ‘disliked’ the rich 1 %. A lot of them were Jews. So it was easy for Hitler to use it as a tool to grow his power

        • RAH says:

          It was the Armistice and then the harsh conditions of the Treaty of Versailles that set it all up. The harsh conditions along with the great depression set the economic conditions. The Armistice allowed Hitler to claim that Germany had not been defeated on the battlefield but was taken down internally by the sedition of communists and Jews. Thus it was the communists and Jews that were at fault for the terrible conditions for the German people after the war.

        • RAH says:

          It was with great difficulty that the allies held off Stalin in his demands for heavy financial recompense from Germany as part of the terms for the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. A question. Was it that Stalin had not learned anything from WW I? Or was it that Stalin wanted to set up conditions so that portion of Germany that he didn’t hold would go communist? I think the later.

    • why is it like this? says:

      on the other hand , this site is censored in the opposite way. Yes, I said that.

      people form their beliefs based on who and what they trust. over time the political right has separated from the political left. it’s a social issue.

  3. EternalOptimist says:

    Alarmist Claim – Such and such just occurred. It’s unprecedented
    Sceptic – Actually it’s not. It’s happened here and here and here.
    Alarmist – You are a Denier and I am going to suppress your views

    This is not censorship, this is institutionalised lying

  4. Sean says:

    Censoring opinions you don’t like is like laying a minefield to thwart an attack. It works for a brief period of time until folks have figured out where the mines are and go around them. What’s most remarkable is that the “no debate” gambit lost its effectiveness nearly 10 years ago and likely lead to climate scepticism becoming a vote winning issue in the last election in the US, in local elections in Canada and likely toppling the Australian prime minister. How much funding does the climate science community need to lose before they see its in their best interest to debate?

    • RAH says:

      It’s not their money so they don’t give a damn how much they lose.

    • Anon says:

      I really think there is a difference in thinking between the right and the left. It seems to me that those with left leaning and progressive views, act more through “feeling” than thinking. So, if you are a progressive, you act to generate good feelings; because you voted to help the less fortunate, you feel good about who you are and that generates a sense of well being and eventually a sense of moral superiority on that side.

      For example:

      Bleeding Heart Tightwads

      This holiday season is a time to examine who’s been naughty and who’s been nice, but I’m unhappy with my findings. The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.

      Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

      Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

      Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

      The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans…

      Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in non-financial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

      “When I started doing research on charity,” Mr. Brooks wrote, “I expected to find that political liberals — who, I believed, genuinely cared more about others than conservatives did — would turn out to be the most privately charitable people. So when my early findings led me to the opposite conclusion, I assumed I had made some sort of technical error. I re-ran analyses. I got new data. Nothing worked. In the end, I had no option but to change my views.

      There is an OBVIOUS DISCONNECT here with reality. My impression is that censorship is necessary, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance, (popping the Bubble) which will lead a progressive to really start thinking about their world view and the truth – thus generating a whole lot of negative emotions that might even require psychotherapy to address.

      So, yes, I think the censorship is about trying to stifle conservative voices but also has a lot to do with the notion of: “out of sight, out of mind.” (bubble preservation) The idea that they don’t have all the right answers and they might not really be good people is too much to psychologically bear.

      Anyway, IMHO…

    • Josh says:

      Add Merkel and Macron the two staunch AGW believers. French enery minister resigned because Macron did not take action, while Merkel admits the goals were too optimistic and must be reduced.

  5. Jeff Jones says:

    One of the funniest lines I have seen in a long time . . .,”We are no longer willing to lend our credibility to debates . . .”

  6. John F. Hultquist says:

    If a person or group rents an auditorium (or prints paper) and invites contributions from only like-minded folks this is not censuring. It does not invoke a “free speech” issue. It transitions into censorship when, say a university, insists views can only be expressed from within a 10 ft. by 10 ft. square on the edge of campus behind the heating plant.

    Regarding giving: Research has shown that as the role of government “in helping people” goes up, the citizens do less. Political liberals hold the point of view that it is the government’s role. This has been known for a long time.
    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” [2006] seems not to have known this.
    He should read more, and write less.

    • NOEngineer says:

      Both conservatives and liberals exist in the same environment of government wealth transfer, so Liberals’ desire for more of it has no bearing on their generosity in the moment. The desire to help one group at the expense of another is not generosity. The government’s role is as collection agent for supposed generosity while skimming a large percentage off the top for government employees and lobbyists. The US government can threaten prison, bankruptcy, shame, etc. in a way that falls just short of organized crime since they cannot threaten death or torture for financial “crimes”. But, since prisons feature opportunities for death and torture while incarcerated, there might not be much difference.

    • Disillusioned says:

      “It transitions into censorship when, say a university, insists views can only be expressed from within a 10 ft. by 10 ft. square on the edge of campus behind the heating plant.”

      Behind the heating plant…

      On the south side of the building in the blacktop lot where the official USHCN climate monitoring station MMTS sensor sits.

  7. Gonzo says:

    Speaking of censoring. Why have you censored my Tony? I’m a supporter of your work and have been censored. What’s up with that?

  8. Jason Calley says:

    If a newspaper advertises itself as a provider of news and fact, but then provides only politically biased propaganda, have they committed fraud on their subscribers?

  9. Sharpshooter says:

    Kinda like Brennan having his right of free speech curtailed while on a dozen TV shows with talking heads….a bit after spying on U.S. citizens.

  10. Griff says:

    The Guardian also doesn’t give space to anti vaxxers, flat earthers, chemtrails enthusiasts, 9/11 conspirators, bithers, agenda 21 nuts or a slew of other widespread memes.

  11. Steve N says:

    You forgot this one …

    Houses claimed by the canal: life on Egypt’s climate change frontline

  12. Al Shelton says:

    Here is your reading material for today:

  13. Buck Turgidson says:

    but…the Maldives young president back then was “democratically-elected”, how could we not act and take US taxpayers’ money and give it to them! How cruel!

  14. Philip of Taos says:

    Garbage in – Guardian out. Only fools are afraid to debate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.