The big-tech censors are at it again: the CO2 Coalition’s Executive Director Gregory Wrightstone has been permanently banned from LinkedIn. What did Wrightstone do to earn the banishment? His “crime” consisted of posting charts from peer reviewed research supported by official sources demonstrating that current global average CO2 levels are well within the natural range of concentrations throughout the Earth’s history.
LinkedIn’s moderators sent Wrightstone an email informing him that his violations have been so numerous and/or so severe that they couldn’t allow him to continue to use the platform. A screenshot of the email and ban inducing charts have been provided by Wrightstone and are shown below.
Not only that, but according to Wrightstone’s Twitter account, the censors at Facebook also rejected a Facebook ad linking to the CO2 Coalition’s statement on Wrightstone’s LinkedIn ban. This suggests Facebook is acting in coordination with the “professional networking” social media site LinkedIn to silence Wrightstone and the CO2 Coalition.
This isn’t the first time Wrightstone has been banned from LinkedIn. When Climate Realism reached out for comment, he said that around August of 2021, he noticed that his posts were being repeatedly removed by LinkedIn staff. Then in October, he received his first ban after years of posting climate information on the site. Wrightstone reports that he regularly got tens of thousands of views on his LinkedIn posts discussing climate science prior to the ban. The site’s reasoning for kicking him out was that his information is “false and misleading,” and that “this type of content is not allowed.” He only recently had his account reinstated before it was banned again.
Wrightstone told Climate Realism:
The material I posted to Linked In was based on data that is widely accepted by the climate science community, including the U.S. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I was quickly growing a very large following by posting information showing the many flaws in the notion that increasing CO2 was leading to a looming climate crisis. Many of my posts showcased the many benefits of the combination of modest warming and increasing CO2 leading to huge benefits to the Earth’s ecosystems and humanity.
I was opening eyes and creating converts to climate realism. For that reason, I needed to be silenced.
What is especially interesting is that Wrightstone is what climate alarmists would call an expert climate scientist—as a 35-year veteran researcher with bachelor’s and master’s degrees in geology. He has served as an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC itself.
Worse, the data in the charts come straight from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC). The data has been referenced in IPCC reports. The charts generated using that data show the CO2 context of each major geologic period, allowing the average non-scientist to see that current CO2 levels are actually at some of the lowest concentrations in Earth’s history. This is not controversial stuff, or honestly debatable, it is the best available science.
So, it appears that a dataset approved and used by world governments in the discussion of climate change is off-limits if a researcher uses it to undermine the notion carbon dioxide emissions are historically high, and climate change may not be catastrophic. Historical records of CO2 in the atmosphere are important in the climate change debate as they refute any claim that current CO2 concentrations are “unprecedented,” and are therefore demonstrably dangerous to life on Earth. This truth is evidently the “type of content” that is “not allowed” by the non-scientist account reviewers at social media sites like LinkedIn and Facebook. It is the reviewers, not Wrightstone, who are rejecting the science. But they have the power as government protected social media censors.
This is unacceptable.
I have left LinkedIn.
I refuse to be associated with this conduct.
Jerzy Maciolek
I was banned for suggesting to the IPCC to eliminate H2O (~100X higher content than CO2) from the atmosphere first……
..
I reposted the charts on my LinkedIn account. They can ban me too.
This is more evidence that “THEY” have an agenda, to cram “Climate Change Disaster” down everyone’s throat even though there is no evidence to support it. One reason to reject “climate change” is that proponents of “global warming” repeat the lie that any warming will result in disaster on earth, when a little logic and intelligence would say that warming would be a mix of bad and good both together. In fact the evidence says from the actual experience of the middle ages warming, the results were all good, Greenland was being settled with farms, man kind created some of our greatest structures, man flourished on earth then.
LinkedIn is a faint shadow of its former reasonable self…. I haven’t used it for many months. Husband deleted his account some time ago for just this type action by LinkedIn management.
This is alarming news and should not be tolerated. I suppose the only venue that seems available now is the internet and old postal mail. However, I hope you are looking at Truth Social as possibly the only venue where truth is allowed.
Simply saving access to your page before fake book takes the post down. The post which indicated Finky’s bad behavior in banning the info, shared on fakebook, is more valuable than fakebook and finky, together.
I quit Linked in long ago because of its idiocy over climate change.
Truly 420 ppm of hell would not be able to warm the earth…
I talk about “greenhouse gases“ which we learned was covering the earth and the primordial issues that then turned into life on earth…
People really need to rethink what 420 ppm of anything can do in our atmosphere. And I get that there is an equilibrium with ocean and with the education and With human beings and other mammals breathing… But in the end this is simply a way to take over every penny of every dollar of every economy on earth.
No one disagrees with the idea that we need to move from dirty energy to clean energy overtime. But they don’t want that. And they don’t want it because it does not allow them the power over all of those trillions and trillions of dollars.
Clearly we are talking about center of power in a rapidly changing world and I think it’s also clear that they will stop at nothing to ensure that they don’t lose.
Oh dang… I microphone text and so it will auto correct a sentence or two after I said something…
Anyway hopefully the one or two people to read what I wrote are able to decipher my content for the current situation in “climate science”
Has anyone gotten an actual job through LinkedIn?
Jul 13, 2022 Space Weather, Plankton, James Webb Images | S0 News
https://youtu.be/1AfANRk7o_M
AGW is pseudo science in violation of both the scientific method (never experimentally demnstrated) and causation (the warming happens before the CO2 rise).
It’s time to expose the faceless censors and see what their credentials are. What we will see is a bunch of brainwashed “tech nerds” who enjoy shutting people up. Maybe a defamation lawsuit against LinkedIn would stop this nonsense, too.
How is atmospheric CO2 measured? Is it by satellite or ground station? If the latter, are they as poorly located as the temperature stations, and do the resulting data also have a ‘correction factor’ applied?