RealClimate logo

A problem with YouTube

Filed under: — rasmus @ 7 April 2020

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) started to stream sessions at their annual meeting in San Francisco a few years ago. This kind of participation over the Internet is a nice alternative since many scholars are unable to attend the AGU meetings due to distance, time constraints, time difference and cost.


I watched some of the talks, and the streaming from AGU motivated an idea of sharing videoed talks on YouTube. I started together with my colleagues to film talks that we had already prepared and presented at recent conferences. That way, the only extra effort involved the filming, editing and publishing on YouTube. The plan is to film rehearsals for talks to be presented at future conferences and upload them to YouTube.


We came up with a concept we branded “Heavy MET talk” to get it more streamlined and easier to find on YouTube. The name Heavy MET talks is a combination of an acronym for ‘Meteorological’ (“MET”), with “Heavy” in front to signal more scientific heavy talks. The videos target international colleagues on typical conference level information.


Sharing talks on YouTube may have several potential positive effects: (1) The presenter gets more conscious about the way they present; (2) Instead of reaching an audience of 10-100, we may reach thousands on a platform such as YouTube; (3) It’s more environmentally friendly and reduces travels (a concern in times with spreading viruses); (4) People who cannot attend conferences get the chance of hearing the talk; (5) It increases our visibility.


By coincidence, our efforts with Heavy MET talks started two months before the corona outbreak, but the pandemic underscored the value of this type of outreach.  


After uploading a few talks, I began sharing the talks on Twitter using the search string My tweets were retweeted by several colleagues.


Katharine Hayhoe then alerted about a problem that YouTube also adds suggested videos to the “Heavy MET talks”, some of which having a science denial character on par with metaphorical “contagion” (van den Linden et al. 2017) (the list of suggestions seems to vary somewhat from time to time).


I was aware that some colleagues have complained that serious climate information channels face increasing obstacles from YouTube while denial sites are thriving. There are also similar concerns about organised “anti-science movements” in other disciplines such as vaccination (Hotez, 2020), and the science community has a common interest in preserving the confidence in science.


Both the increasing obstacles on serious material and the promotion of intellectual rubbish are problematic, and I think we need to let YouTube hear that this actually is a big problem that can easily be fixed. According to a report in the Guardian, YouTube has acted on conspiracy theories about 5G and corona, and WhatsApp has allegedly in made changes to limit the spread of conspiracy theories. Hopefully, YouTube will also listen when it comes to climate change.

By spreading lies, bullshit, and falsehoods, the social platforms steal the truth from us.


  1. S. van der Linden, A. Leiserowitz, S. Rosenthal, and E. Maibach, "Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change", Global Challenges, vol. 1, pp. 1600008, 2017.
  2. P.J. Hotez, "Combating antiscience: Are we preparing for the 2020s?", PLOS Biology, vol. 18, pp. e3000683, 2020.

53 Responses to “A problem with YouTube”

  1. 1

    It really is a problem. There isn’t a global warming video on Youtube that isn’t swamped by denier comments. And don’t get me started on Flat Earth.

  2. 2
    JIm Newman says:

    Absolutely agree with that as I have noticed it on just about every occasion we have posted something there.
    We all need to make a concerted effort with You Tube to get that eliminated.
    That’s the key.

  3. 3
    Greg Guy says:

    The problem is you are using a private entertainment network for this rather than develop something more suited for science video. Maybe a video version of Arxiv say. No matter what you do the deniers will always be able to game the algorithms. There is also no way to be able to police the billion or so uploads that youtube has to deal with either.

  4. 4
    Twila Moon says:

    This is a serious and well-documented problem (e.g., see Have you found information on the best way forward to pressure YouTube into correcting this?

  5. 5

    @Grey Guy,

    Well, there is a way to police the billion uploads, but it is not considered socially acceptable. In particular, many times deniers comments are taken down they scream “censorship” and, at least in the United States, given the temperament of the Republican government, they get a hearing.

  6. 6
    Folke Hermansson Snickars says:

    I agree with the comment Greg Guy. Here are some alternative:

  7. 7
    Mallen Baker says:

    I sympathise with the frustration, but there are some significant free speech issues you’re wading into by simply suggesting “something must be done” in the way you are.

    I go into the issues in more depth in my own video – but the key question kicks in at “where do you draw the line?”. Your approach to “deniers” might be the same as the old definition for obscenity “I know it when I see it” but there is a huge grey area and some alarming implications. Don’t ever lobby for a system that you’re not prepared to have used against you when “the other side” get their turn. It is better to promote free speech, and answer bad free speech with more free speech. And there are techniques you can use within YouTube’s own system to gain prominence in some of the debates.

  8. 8
    Al Bundy says:

    “Internet is a nice alternative since many scholars are unable to attend the AGU meetings due to distance, time constraints, time difference and cost.”

    A suggestion: put “carbon emissions” in front of the list since it is far more important.

  9. 9
    Russell says:

    An easy boilerplate solution exists- those who post the videos can , being first in line , post a cautionary lede comment warning viewers to

    1. Expect the ususl memes from the usual pseudoskeptics and cranks , and

    2. Providing a short list of the most predictable and bogus, with links to saner explanations from sites like Skeptical Science, or for that matter, RealClimate or, Climate Wars:

  10. 10
    Jeremy Grimm says:

    I agree with Greg Guy @3 — I believe Academia, given the vast sums extracted for undergraduate education, might find a way to build and fund a public site for sharing video — sorta like youtube was originally before it became a commercial property purchased by Google … and the music videos, movie extracts, and cute cat videos can stay on youtube where they belong. Maybe the National Science Foundation could fund the site.

    I don’t like the set of recommended videos on the side of youtube. I don’t like the way Google blocks me from downloading and converting presentations so I can watch them on my television where I have better audio and visual than on my computer [and no way am I going to hook my television to the Internet!]. I don’t enjoy the increasing load of commercials stuffed into the middle of the videos I want to watch — mostly lectures and How-to videos created and uploaded by users to share. The academic site can use a search algorithm that works and tie in related information based on references contained in the video the user selected.

  11. 11
    nigelj says:

    Interesting video: YouTubes climate denial problem, by Zentouro.

  12. 12
    Keith Woollard says:

    I like to watch a lot of videos about cars, particularly nice track cars. But I hate French cars and always have.
    Every so often youtube suggests I watch a video about French cars. I hate that so much and despite me writing to youtube, they still do it!
    What on earth should I do? Should I stop using youtube? Or maybe write a blog post about how they don’t listen to my concerns?

    Or maybe I just don’t watch everything they suggest

    I feel just that little bit stupider now that I wasted 5 minutes of my life even thinking about this post

  13. 13

    This is nothing new in terms of poisoning the waters. Googling for MET search terms will way too often lead to WUWT and their nonsensical charts and arguments. The best way around this is to use instead, which will only occasionally give a WUWT citation.

  14. 14
    sidd says:

    Re: ” the way Google blocks me from downloading and converting presentations”




  15. 15
    Sir Charles says:

    Switch off the comment function on YT (make it available for minors).

  16. 16
    Al Bundy says:

    Keith Woolhead: Every so often youtube suggests I watch a video about French cars. I hate that so much and despite me writing to youtube, they still do it!
    What on earth should I do?

    AB: Do as you say by stopping your polluting of RealClimate!!! Hypocrite!

  17. 17

    #12, KW–

    And you really think that the hijacking of threads meant for serious scientific discussion by FUD impeding the discussion is equivalent to your dislike for French cars? And particularly when the scientific discussion is crucial to an essential central question of public policy?

    Personally, I think one of these things is not like the other.

    Very much ‘not like’, in fact.

  18. 18
    Greg Guy says:

    @Jan Galkowski

    I suggest you “Do the Maths”. Look at how many uploads and updates youtube receives a day, work out how many moderators this needs. Work out how long it takes to hire and train such moderators. look at typical figures for job churn in such positions. Figure out the cost to Google.

  19. 19
    Ignorant Guy says:

    I know of another problem with video talks. Maybe it’s tiny. Maybe it’s really, really nano-tiny. Maybe it’s just me. But in my own imagination I am a very common and typical sort of person so maybe it’s not just me. And it is that I don’t mind at all to read a text but I really hate to watch a video talk. My point is that maybe the right medium for this kind of material (a talk, a lecture) is not video. There is exactly one advantage of a talk/lecture compared with a text and that is that you can ask questions to the lecturer. That advantage is completely lost when the lecture is not in real time.
    Apart for my own dislike of video talks I agree with Greg Guy.

  20. 20
    Jeremy Grimm says:

    Thanks! I’ll try the programs you referenced. I had been using the Linux Mint VLC video player to grab and convert lectures off youtube until it stopped working for no apparent reason.

  21. 21
    Lorne Covington says:

    Youtube is a cesspool, but fortunately not the only platform.

    Check out, they have a business model that is based on their users, not on their advertisers. It’s what pro media people use, it gives you MUCH more control over your content and how it’s used. While free, I suggest the Plus or Pro subscriptions, you can control how videos are embedded in websites, control how they appear, control access and visibility, and what other video links are shown (if any) are shown at the end, etc. etc. (I have nothing to do with vimeo other than being a happy customer for many years.)

  22. 22
    Ray Ladbury says:

    We are all familiar with the ad hominem fallacy. It’s even easy to understand why it is a fallacy to say that information is wrong just because of the source of the information. An unreliable source may provide correct information occasionally, even if only by accident (Granted, this has not yet happened with WUWT, but there’s always hope).

    However, given that we live in a world replete with sources of information, the downside to rejecting information from an unreliable source must now be infinitesimal. I am certainly none the worse off for refusing to watch the daily reality-TV COVID sh!tshow.

    It seems to me that it should be possible to develop a ratings system that characterizes the reliability of an information source. Certainly, we do this in science–I’m a lot more likely to consider research to be credible if it is done by a thoughtful, careful researcher with a long track record of advancing the field. Then if one wants reliable research or reliable comments on the video, one sorts on the reliability metric. Granted, this means will dump anonymous comments along with those of the bots and trolls, but that is not a disadvantage in all cases.

  23. 23
    zebra says:

    #19 Ignorant Guy,

    You are not alone. While sometimes people make too much of it, there really are “learning style” and “thinking styles”. I simply don’t have the patience to listen to someone drone on with information I can acquire in a fraction of the time from text and images on paper.

    And you can’t predict student outcomes on a single factor like how attentive they seem in a class lecture; you will often be surprised…pleasantly or otherwise… by performance on a test or in producing a lab report, regardless of how worshipfully (or not) they seem to hang on your every word.

  24. 24

    A response to #19

    One of the early all-video virtual conferences is the ICLR Integration of Deep Neural Models and Differential Equations” to be held April 26. I have a presentation slotted and was directed to use SlidesLive, which appears to force everyone to do a conventional talking-head style presentation, even though it will all be pre-recorded. We shall see how it turns out and if and where they make it available outside of the meeting.

    FYI, my presentation is “Nonlinear Differential Equations with External Forcing” — the application is ENSO.

  25. 25
    Karsten V. Johansen says:

    The fundamental problem here is (apart from the obvious flaws of video lectures except when they use good animations) that “a lie always flies all around the globe before the truth even gets it’s shoes on”. Without any doubt you can say that the socalled “social media” (antisocial advertising & surveillance industry seems to me to be a more precise description) have made that old problem explode. What seems to have happened historically seen is simply that technological development has made it possible to spread nonsense, lies and rumours far more effectively and in far more sophisticated ways.

    Or as a swedish researcher put it 1979: “Shit is just shit even if transmitted per satellite” (in swedish this rhymes: “Skit är skit om än per satellit”). This reflects a more general problem with technological development: at the same time as productivity gets bigger, destructivity does exactly the same (and often under the dusguise of productivity), and since it has always been easier to destroy than to create, the net result is as one would fear.

  26. 26
    MA Rodger says:

    Karsten V. Johansen @25,
    You put a historical aspect on the spread of denialisms but there once was a wolrd in which science did not exist. Thus we find Bacon (1620) ‘Novum Organum’ (English translation here), a work “instrumental in the historical development of the scientific method”, saying:-

    “The idols and false notions which are now in possession of the human understanding, and have taken deep root therein, not only so beset men’s minds that truth can hardly find entrance, but even after entrance is obtained, they will again in the very instauration of the sciences meet and trouble us, unless men being forewarned of the danger fortify themselves as far as may be against their assaults.”

    ‘Novum Organum’ runs to 80,000 words so nuanced interpretation of Bacon’s 17th century understanding of the task necessary to establish science has its limits. Perhaps most famous within Bacon’s ideas are the four ‘Idols of the Mind’ (of the Tribe [physiology], of the Cave [psychology], of the Market Place [linguistic pedantry] and of the Theater [dogmatic falsehood]) but, as science had not been established in the 17th century, where today’s AGW denialists would fit into Bacon’s scheme or how he would advise that we “fortify [our]selves as far as may be against their assaults” isn’t immediately apparent.

  27. 27
    Ray Ladbury says:

    MA Rodger,
    Interesting that you brought up Novum Organum. I’ve been going back and reading it for my own edification with a view to trying to understand when natural philosophy became “science”. In many ways, it is difficult to relate to the mindset of intellectuals of the late Renaissance and Enlightenment, because our common culture is so different than theirs.
    At the time Bacon was writing, every learned person would have had a classical, ecclesiastical education that would have included Latin, rhetoric and logic. Printing was still a relatively new technology, so while books were much cheaper than they were prior to Gutenberg, they were still a luxury. Communication between like-minded natural philosophers was still quite limited.

    So, was Bacon a scientist? Probably not, even though he came up with much of the scientific method.

    Was Galileo? Again, probably not, even though he took empirical much further than anyone previously. He certainly comes much closer than any previous natural philosopher.

    How about Newton? Hooke? Edmund Halley? Now, we are starting to get to the transition, and a large part of the difference was the founding of the Royal Society.

    And today’s denialists–they bow to all four idols. They cannot grasp that subtle and seemingly gradual (on a human scale) changes in climate have profound implications (tribe). Their fear does not let them accept the truth (cave). They rely on rhetoric and “common sense” (market place). And they cling to zombie lies long after they’ve been slain (theatre).

    I think you’ll also find a lot of St. Augustine in their rhetoric.

  28. 28
    David B. Benson says:

    Ray Ladbury @27 — There is a partial biography of Robert Hooke stating that he was the first professional scientist. For he was employed by the Baconist Society to give demonstration lectures at meetings in Hooke’s digs at Gresham College, where Robert Hooke professed geometry.

    The Baconist Society became the Royal Society later.

  29. 29

    Ray, I can’t agree that Galileo wasn’t a scientist. In a practical sense, he did science–he empirically investigated the universe, recorded his observations, published.

  30. 30
    Ray Ladbury says:

    David Benson, I presume by “professional scientist,” they mean one who makes one’s living as a scientist. This certainly was true during Hooke’s early career. However, during the latter part of his career, he made more as an architect (working with Wren to rebuild London after the fire). His rivalry with Newton was, of course, legendary. There is some speculation that Newton’s comment about standing on the shoulders of giants was actually a dig at Hooke’s short stature more than an attempt at false humility by Newton. Really, the only person who got along with Newton long term was probably Halley.

    It was a fascinating era.

  31. 31
    Guest (O.) says:

    I don’t see the problem here.
    Just switch of the comments for your video.

    If the video is good or even great, even good comments will not add much.
    If the video is mediocre or bad, some ugly comments might match it’s quality.

    So, switch comments off and anything regarding comments is fine.

  32. 32
    jb says:

    guesto at 31:

    “I don’t see the problem here. Just switch of [sic] the comments for your video.”

    Did we read the same post? The problem that the post brings up is not toxic comments, it is “suggested videos” that come from youtube’s algorithms. It states that these types of suggestions constitute the promotion of groups with an anti-science agenda, i.e., the “promotion of intellectual rubbish.” Unfortunately, we live in an age where scientists have to point at a pile of rubbish and say “that is rubbish.” Otherwise, people start eating it. Actually, a lot of people eat it anyway.

    The post also states that “serious climate information channels face increasing obstacles from YouTube while denial sites are thriving.” I’m not sure what these obstacles are, but they don’t seem to be connected to comments.

  33. 33
    Keith Woollard says:

    I am assuming that most commenters here just skimmed Rasmus’ post, made assumptions about his points and blindly started typing away on their keyboards. Rasmus does NOT complain about comments, or hijacking of threads – that is all you warriors out there, trying to defend your leader.

    Read the post

    The post is about Youtube suggesting other videos – that is their business model – make people watch videos.

    Rasmus simply does not like some of the suggestions and wants to control what gets offered

    If you are a viewer and don’t like the suggestions, don’t watch them
    If you are a publisher and don’t like the suggestions, use another platform

    I am not the hypocrite Al@16, Rasmus is, he likes it when Youtube’s business model increases his viewership to thousands, but not when someone else also increases their viewership

  34. 34
    Al Bundy says:

    Interesting conversation. I’ll add that perhaps less than 1% of humanity has the ability to add significant value to a scientific discussion so as technology gives voice to everyone the signal to skit ratio declines precipitously (You can use Swedish or English to define “skit”)

  35. 35
    B Eggen says:

    I discussed this with some of my academic colleagues, one, Chris Ewels working at CNRS in Nantes, France, wrote: Academia does this through peer review – paper stamp of approval from colleagues. Why not same for videos, some academic website that gives a « thumbs up » for videos whose contents corresponds to current scientific consensus ? That YouTube listing can then put in its text « approved by AAAS » or whoever?

    [BE adds: And YouTube could make clear what the significance of such an approval is, plus caveats for unapproved content.]

  36. 36
    MA Rodger says:

    Ray Ladbury @27,

    Was Francis Bacon a scientist? I think the view at the time was that he didn’t himself do actual ‘science’. There is the quote from his contemporary William Harvey (of blood circulation fame) who said demeaningly of Bacon that he wrote natural philosophy like a Lord Chancellor, a position Bacon held (until dismissed for corruption).

    As for denialism today in terms of Bacon’s Idols, in my understanding of the concept, it is the Idols of the Theatre that enslave them.

    I’m always drawn to Dickie Lindzen as an example of a scientist who took the ‘AGW won’t be a problem’ side in the climatological debate of the 1970s-80s and has refused to climb down since, despite the mountains of evidence saying he’s wrong.
    I’m sure Lindzen thinks he is still doing science, thinks the next development will prove him right and his opponents wrong. And entrapped by his Idol of the Theatre that insists ‘AGW won’t be a problem’, scientific rigor is allowed to slip letting in those Idols of the Cave until we find him pretty-much lying to the world:-

    “Points to take away from the global mean temperature record.
    Changes are small. They are in the order of several tenths of a degree. Changes are not causal but rather the residue of regional changes. Changes in the order of several tenths of a degree are always present at virtually all time scales. And obsessing on the details of this record is more akin to a spectator sport for tea-leaf reading than a serious contributor to scientific efforts.
    Say, at least so far: if some day I should see some changes of twenty-times what I’ve seen so far, that would be certainly remarkable but nothing so far looks that way.”

    [From 32 mins in this video of his talk in Palace of Westminster 2012]

    Here we have Lindzen, introduced as one who “adheres vigorously rigorously, as every scientist should, to the science,” effectively saying that the planet is safe because nothing “remarkable” has happened to the climate for…. When did global temperature last change by 20x AGW-so-far? Perhaps 300 million years ago.

  37. 37
    Simon C says:

    I think it could be argued that the scientific method is – and always has been, perhaps always will be – a work in progress. Humans are not capable of complete objectivity, the ability to see all potential solutions to a question and to fairly assess the evidence in favour of, or against, a particular theory. Some of the intelligence involved in science resides in the communal mechanisms of peer review and evaluation, systems which are still under development and are sure to change in future. Would a perfect AI be capable of perfect objectivity? Maybe, but as humans how would we recognise it even if we encountered it? So you can’t draw a hard and fast line establishing a border when true science began – it was and is a process, an ongoing struggle with ourselves and our limitations to find the best and most practical way to describe phenomena and their histories. Lots of things have been learned, and probably some things worth keeping forgotten, along the way. The scientific ideal is something to strive towards, and to assume we have got there is hubris. Of course there is manifest unscientific nonsense as well, and addressing it is part of the overall ongoing effort.

  38. 38

    @Rasmus, yes there is a lot of garbage on YouTube, and despite Google’s “Don’t Be Evil” motto, there is a direct conflict of interest in censoring that garbage, which drives a lot of ad traffic.
    Now, maybe a petition signed by thousands of credentialed and decorated climate scientists could change that, but this post alone will not. I’m game if you want to try to get this message viral! In general, there is a lot that social media platforms can and should do to reduce misinformation, and I hope the COVID-19 misinformation crisis is having them reconsider their old model of “every share is a good share”. But without external pressures, all the incentives are aligned for Google to be a passive (or in the worst cases, active) contributor to agnotology.

    This is only part of a broader problem with them supporting climate denial, which has created backlash among their employees:

  39. 39
    Keith Woollard says:

    Rasmus and Katharine Hayhoe show a distinct lack of knowledge on how Youtube makes suggestions. There is obviously some tying of suggestions to the currently viewed video, but there are many other factors involved and the user’s history over time is much more important. I have just fired up youtube on a machine that has a dynamically allocated IP, that on a newely installed browser with no user login and done a search on “heavy MET talk” and chosen an appropriate video. I then looked down the list of about 30 suggestions and not one could be thought of as a “denialist” one. There was the typical Youtube selection of “real photos you never thought existed”, some weather ones, a few TED talks and a couple of Covids, even an Arnie one and something spruiking Warren Buffett investments. There are also a few music videos.

    With no history, it can only use the current video, as well as what other people in your area are watching, general country and world trends, what is getting pushed etc etc

    I suspect Katharine, out of curiosity or professional research may well have clicked on videos in the past she would not typically watch.

  40. 40
    Ray Ladbury says:

    I’ve always thought that Lindzen left the reservation when he couldn’t let go of his Iris Theory. He seems convinced that it must be true, regardless of the evidence.

  41. 41
    jb says:

    Keith Woollard at 33:

    “If you are a viewer and don’t like the suggestions, don’t watch them
    If you are a publisher and don’t like the suggestions, use another platform”

    Pure BS. Rasmus wants to educate the public. Youtube is the most ubiquitous platform – and it should be the one used for that education. It was built on publicly funded research and uses a publicly developed communications network – and educators have every right to demand that it not counterbalance educational content with disinformation. Enterprises do not have an unlimited right to internalize benefits and externalize costs.

    As for the demand that viewers not follow the suggestions if they “don’t like them,” that assumes that the person seeking to be educated already knows the subject matter – more nonsense.

  42. 42
    Keith Woollard says:

    As a bit of a statistical exercise, can all those who have any history of using Youtube please search “heavy MET talk” and start to play the first real talk on the list. Then count how far down the list of suggested videos is the first “denialist” video.
    Send that number to me…
    realclimatestats at
    I will collate and add a comment with the results
    This way we can determine if there is actually a problem with Youtube

  43. 43
    jb says:

    Woollard at 42:

    Ah, so I assume now that we’re going to stop spouting right-wing tripe and “determine if there is actually a problem” by using “a bit of a statistical exercise.”

    OK, I’ll bite.

    I’ll skip the question of whether the proposed estimator will produce a good estimate of a “problem.” Let’s go straight to his sampling method, which is:

    Send me a number at “realclimatestats …” (I won’t get into the humor of that name.)

    So here’s part of the problem. Most people who come to Realclimate for information about climate change long ago stopped reading this guy’s posts. They are generally tortuous (woolly, maybe?), tedious, tl;dr, result driven and loaded with right-wing murdochian tropes. So, few responses from people who are actually concerned with this issue. Instead, you’ll get lots of responses from the vultures silently circling this blog – WUWT fanboys and the like. A nice representative sample.

    So I’m going to guess that the sample mean of his “how far down numbers” will tend to infinity.

  44. 44
    Keith Woollard says:

    Assuming you are correct and the only responses I get are from “WUWT fanboys” then surely their Youtube history would be full of denialist antiscience propaganda. That would mean that the number would tend towards 1 (i.e. the opposite of what you said) and that would reinforce Rasmus’ argument.

    Even if no-one responds but at least a few check out for themselves, they will at least realise the falsehood of Rasmus’ claim.

    And my methodology is 100 times as good as Rasmus’ {one person I know thought this} analysis.

    Curious what right-wing comment I have ever made anywhere, please enlighten me. I suspect we might disagree on the definition.

  45. 45

    Woollard at #12 and #33

    Your analogy is a poor one. Science denialism is a serious issue that places people at risk, unlike your car preference example. Youtube thus justifiably cares about what scientific information it spreads to people. That’s why, for example, Youtube automatically adds a CDC link on COVID-19 to videos that discuss the subject. Similarly so for Youtube adding link to Wikipedia pages on global warming, flat Earther positions, etc. on videos discussing those subjects. Youtube also limits the frequency with which it recommends certain types of videos, and will even simply ban certain classes of videos:

    “YouTube has banned all conspiracy theory videos falsely linking coronavirus symptoms to 5G networks.
    The Google-owned service will now delete videos violating the policy. It had previously limited itself to reducing the frequency it recommended them in its Up Next section.”

    Given those precedents, it makes sense for rasmus to ask if Youtube can limit the frequency at which it recommends denialist videos after people watch a “Heavy MET talk” video. In contrast, your comments simply ignore the precedent set by Youtube’s actions; you act as if the only viable options are for viewers to not watch the recommended videos, or for those making “Heavy MET talk” video to use a platform other than Youtube. I guess your pretense on that point makes sense since, given your other comments on RealClimate and given what others have said about you, you want that type of climate science denialist information to spread via Youtube.

    free speech =/= freeze peach

    “Today, even the most critical thinkers seem to forget that the right to free speech doesn’t grant them the right to say whatever they like, wherever they like, and to be granted whichever platform they consider themselves worthy of. I have no right to walk in to my local KFC and preach vegetarianism on their property, just as I have no right to claim I am being silenced because The Guardian refused to publish this article.”

  46. 46
    jb says:

    1. At the very least, you will have a festering concoction of 1) response bias and 2) nonresponse bias. The test statistic will tend to one only if you get honest answers. Don’t count on that – that was my point – and it went straight over your head.

    2. No, your result will not be “100 times as good as [sic] Rasmus.'” Rasmus did not make a claim to anything other than anecdotal evidence. You fully intend to assert a superior claim based on “statistical analysis.”

    3. Read your posts above. They are brimming with right-wing libertarian tropes. Your inability to recognize them is interesting, though. How you have decided to “define” right-wing is irrelevant.

  47. 47
    Keith Woollard says:

    JB, I’ll assume you have looked at youtube and the results didn’t match your preconceived ideas and therefore you have not posted them here or to my email

  48. 48
    jb says:

    Woollard at 47:

    “I’ll assume [something I desperately want to be true]”

    I can’t control what goes on between your ears, dude.

    All I can do is:
    1. Point out the most obvious flaws in a deeply flawed procedure,
    2. Refuse to participate in such a flawed procedure, and
    3. If results are published from such a flawed procedure, rinse and repeat.

  49. 49
    James Charles says:

    “Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans | Full Documentary | Directed by Jeff Gibbs”


    “LONDON, 19 February, 2020 − Virtually all the world’s demand for electricity to run transport and to heat and cool homes and offices, as well as to provide the power demanded by industry, could be met by renewable energy by mid-century.
    This is the consensus of 47 peer-reviewed research papers from 13 independent groups with a total of 91 authors that have been brought together by Stanford University in California.”

  50. 50

    Moore’s film is already being criticized for being biased, incomplete, and full of cherry-picking and special pleading. For instance, its conclusion that electric cars didn’t help the environment was based on one location that got 95% of its electricity from coal.