> In my video, Shellenberger dares say, "A small change in temperature is not the difference between normalcy and catastrophe." Climate Feedback doesn't want people to hear that.
If you are sailing on a boat made of ice through (salt) water that is 3 degrees below freezing, then a "small" change of 3 degrees absolutely could be the difference between normalcy and catastrophe.
Of course that's an extreme example, but presumably Climate Feedback wanted the video to acknowledge that the climate is a non-linear system, with feedback loops and potential phase transitions.
It seems absolutely possible that a change in temperature outside of the range that forests are historically used to could cause dramatically different outcomes for those forests.
So "possible" now means "necessarily"? Because FB's checkers didn't take down any videos claiming that climate change exclusively caused the fires, did they?
OK, but that's not really the point. For purposes of this discussion, the point was that the video got rejected based on Climate Feedback. And it got rejected by them on the basis of "reports" from two people, neither of whom had actually seen the video, and neither of whom thought it was problematic once they did see it.
So either Climate Feedback rejected it on their own, but lied about why (or had a bureaucratic error), or two reviewers told them it was problematic and then lied about doing so (or both forgot that they had done so).
Outsourcing checking for disinformation to people who lie and/or have bureaucratic errors is going to have issues, even if those people are omniscient as to the facts of the subject matter... but nobody actually is that, either.
reply