As Free Speech War Totally Lost, “Hate Speech” Groups Now Moving to Silence Global Warming Skeptics

All of the “hate speech” has basically been removed from the internet.

The Daily Stormer is still here, but barely. No one can find us unless they know the address. It can’t be linked anywhere and it can’t be spoken of.

Elon Musk’s claim that he was going to allow free speech on Twitter turned out to be total bullshit.

The war that started in 2017 with the censoring of the Daily Stormer ended in 2023 when Elon capitulated to allowing the ADL to run Twitter.

Of course, there is always something that needs to be silenced, so these “anti-hate” censorship groups are now moving on to silencing people who say that windmills are not efficient.

CNN is of course on the frontlines of justifying an entire new front in the American mass censorship program:

If you’ve been on YouTube lately, you might have come across someone claiming wind and solar energy don’t work, that rising sea levels will help coral reefs flourish, or that climate scientists are corrupt and alarmist.

These are all false and misleading statements taken from a handful of thousands of YouTube videos analyzed by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has identified a stark change in the tactics of climate deniers over the past few years.

Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach, one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst.


The globe is warming regardless, because we’re at the tail-end of an ice age as a result of the solar cycle.

Obviously, warmer weather is better in every way. It’s virtually impossible to die from heat. Warm weather means every type of abundance, which is why brown people are so reproductively successful.

If warm weather is bad, why not have the debate?

Presumably, the same reason you won’t have a debate about whether Jewish domination of America is a good thing.

However, the claim is that it can’t be talked about because this is a democracy, and therefore the voting public has to be protected from “wrong ideas” in order to prevent them from voting the wrong way.

Personally, I would prefer an authoritarian governmental system that allowed for personal freedom of thought and open inquiry. The idea that democracy means you can’t have any open discussion about any controversial topic because it could make people vote the wrong way makes democracy nonviable, in my opinion.

The past five years have seen a “startling” rise in this “new denial,” according to a CCDH analysis published Tuesday, which also suggests this shift in narrative could also be helping YouTube video creators circumvent the social media company’s ban on monetizing climate denial.

Researchers gathered transcripts from more than 12,000 videos posted between 2018 and 2023 across 96 YouTube channels that have promoted climate denial and misinformation. Transcripts were analyzed by artificial intelligence to categorize the climate denial narratives used as either “old denial” or “new denial.”

“New denial” content — attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement — now makes up 70% of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35% in 2018.

Classic “old denial” claims that global warming isn’t happening declined from 48% of all denial claims in 2018 to 14% in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won’t work, however, soared from 9% to 30% over the same period.

Personally, I’m an old denialist and a new denialist.

I still deny that humans are capable of changing the weather in any significant way by increasing greenhouse gasses by a fraction of 1%.

However, I also deny that it would be a problem if humans did increase the weather, and I deny that the Western world alone cutting carbon emissions is going to make any difference at all at the rate China is expanding.

I also criticize the poisoning of the natural world with these “climate solutions,” which dump all these poisonous waste chemicals (most of them related to rare earth minerals) into the human living environment.

It’s an environmental atrocity, what these global warming people are doing to the world.

Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer and founder of CCDH, said the report in some ways is a story of success.

“The climate movement has won the argument that climate change is real, and that it is hurting our planet’s ecosystems,” he told CNN. As the impacts of the climate crisis — from scorching heat waves to fierce storms — affect a broader swath of the global population, narratives that deny the existence of climate change are becoming less effective.

But, he added, it’s also a huge warning. “Now that the majority of people recognize old climate denial as counterfactual and discredited, climate deniers have cynically concluded that the only way to derail climate action is to tell people the solutions don’t work.”

“This new climate denial is no less insidious,” Ahmed said, “and it could hold enormous influence over public opinion on climate action for decades to come.”

It’s particularly worrying because of the young demographic attracted to YouTube, according to the CCDH. A December survey from Pew Research Center found YouTube to be the most widely used social media platform it analyzed among 13- to 17-year olds, used by roughly nine in 10 of them.

What you will never find is anyone explaining why someone would want to “deny” global warming.

What is the motive?

We know that all of the big “fossil fuel” companies are on-board with the “green energy” agenda and making money off of it. Further, if these YouTubers were being funded by some oil company, you’d be able to trace that.

So why do people care, unless this is what they actually believe? And if they actually believe it, and there is no hidden agenda, how is it even possible that any society would ban them from having an opinion of energy policy?

At least with “hate speech” they have this whole narrative surrounding it. But banning people for having energy policy views is just “you have to believe everything the government says about everything or we will silence you.”