News Round-Up: Factless Fact Checking, 'Disinformation Industry' and Cloud Seeding in Dubai

Every week, the editorial team of Freedom Research compiles a round-up of news that caught our eye, or what felt like under-reported aspects of news deserving more attention.

Over the past week, the following topics attracted our attention:

• Fact-checkers take on Climate: The Movie: did they actually check any facts?

• Dubai: did cloud seeding worsen the flooding?

• Study: replacing plastics with alternatives is worse for greenhouse gas emissions.

• Sweden lowers the age of changing legal gender.

• The 'disinformation industry' censoring journalism: how baseless claims that your outlet is 'misinfo spreader' by government funded bodies can get advertisers to boycott you.

Fact-checkers take on Climate: The Movie – but did they actually check any facts?

While social media platforms started restricting the distribution of Martin Durkin's documentary Climate: The Movie, which critically assesses the hypothesis of the ongoing climate emergency and the state of climate science as a whole, immediately after its release, now the "official" fact-checking portals have also stepped in. Last week, a portal called Science Feedback published a lengthy article claiming that the film presents misinformation and inaccuracies. It should be noted that the financial backers of Science Feedback include major social media and technology companies Meta, TikTok, and Google, as well as a range of public and private funding bodies.

Although the fact-check article states there are numerous errors in the film, in reality, however, in this case, it is not the facts that have been used to refute the supposed misinformation. The case is rather that the assessments and interpretations of the scientists who spoke in the film have been said to be false because other scientists who did not participate in the film have said so. For example, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Dr John Clauser's assessment in the film that 'there is no connection whatsoever between CO2 and climate change' is falsified in the fact-checking article by another scientist who says that there is. Both scientists can then justify why they think this is the case, based on their research. But the point is that claiming that one scientist's work and assessment is invalid because another scientist has said that the data should be interpreted differently can be used to justify belief or sympathy, but it does not prove something to be a fact.

John Clauser, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2022, is not fit to speak on climate, according to the fact-checkers, because he is a physicist, not a climate scientist. Foto: Peter Lyons/Wikimedia Commons.

As one example, the fact-checkers take issue with the film's assertion that there have been times in the Earth's history when CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been significantly higher and that current levels are rather low. The fact-checkers do not deny this fact, but explain that it is irrelevant because the levels have been lower on average over the last 800,000 years and periods millions or hundreds of millions of years ago are not comparable to the present. Hence the fact that there have been periods when CO2 levels have been higher is not refuted, but the conclusions of different scientists are shown to be different, which is quite natural, as evidenced by this case.

Similarly, the fact-checkers say that CO2 concentrations have oscillated in conjunction with Earth’s temperature for the last 800,000 years. Again, no one denies such a correlation, but the question is how to interpret it. Does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cause temperature fluctuations or vice versa? While fact-checkers claim that CO2 is the cause of temperature fluctuations, it can be countered by the data gathered from the samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, to show that the change in CO2 levels has followed the temperature change and not the other way around.

This issue has also been addressed by fact-checkers at another portal (which also said that the climate film is full of misinformation) by providing an explanation that basically concludes that anthropogenic CO2 is somehow different from natural CO2: 'Human-caused climate change is fundamentally different from natural glacial-interglacial climate cycles.'

And, of course, it should be pointed out that Facebook already admitted in 2021 in a lawsuit in the United States that the same Science Feedback that they fund through their parent company Meta is not actually fact-checking, but opinion, which is the basis for Facebook's own opinion on whether something is false.

Although, as we can constantly see, the claims made in such fact-checking articles are often incomplete or sometimes even false, and are admitted to be opinions, major social media channels rely on them to indiscriminately declare the content under scrutiny to be false and flag them accordingly. This has a direct impact on the further circulation of that content – the content is visibly flagged and its circulation drops significantly, or is allegedly restricted by as much as 95%. In other words, it amounts to censorship.

You can read our in-depth articles on climate change and climate science here.

Dubai: did cloud seeding worsen the flooding?

The United Arab Emirates was hit by exceptional rainfall earlier this week. For example, in the desert city of Dubai, 142 mm of water came down in a downpour that started on Monday evening. In the town of Al Ain, 100 km from Dubai, 265 mm fell. Normally, less than 100 mm of rain falls in the region throughout the year.

The heavy rainfall caused significant flooding in the country, turning city streets and national highways into rivers, as well as airport runways, disrupting air traffic at one of the busiest airports in the world.

But what could have caused such a major rainstorm? Climate change? The BBC writes that it is not yet possible to accurately assess the impact of climate change because scientific analysis is needed.

However, Bloomberg initially entitled its article on the developing storm with a reference to human activity: "Dubai Grinds to Standstill as Cloud Seeding Worsens Flooding".

The article claims that the National Center of Meteorology of UAE was engaged in what is known as cloud seeding during the rain, in order to get more rainfall. Cloud seeding involves spraying various chemicals from aircraft into the atmosphere to increase the amount of rainfall. These chemicals include silver iodide, potassium chloride, or dry ice. In the UAE, the practice of cloud seeding has been going on for years and, according to Bloomberg, the planes that took off from Al Ain airport on Monday and Tuesday this week did just that. Despite flooded streets and houses, Dubai's media office dubbed the big storm "rains of goodness". However, on Wednesday, the meteorology center already started to claim that cloud seeding was not done on Tuesday and was only being done on Sunday and Monday. On Wednesday Wired already reported that cloud seeding had not caused flooding in Dubai.

Bloomberg, too, apparently realised they needed to walk back at least a little and changed the original headline of their article. It now says: "Dubai Grinds to Standstill as Flooding Hits City".

Study: replacing plastics with alternatives is worse for greenhouse gas emissions

Substituting plastics with alternative materials is likely to result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, according to a study by the University of Sheffield in the UK.

The study, carried out by Dr Fanran Meng from the University’s department of chemical and biological engineering, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Cambridge and the KTH Royal Institute of Technology, measured the greenhouse gas emissions associated with plastics and compared them with the alternatives that are on offer as replacements. It was studied across various applications, including packaging, construction, automotive, textiles, and consumer durables. These sectors collectively represent a significant portion of global plastic usage.

Turns out that in 15 out of the 16 applications examined, plastic products actually result in lower greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives. The reduction in emissions spans from 10 percent to as high as 90 percent across the product life cycle.

Researchers say that plastic packaging plays an important role in the containment of food, which in turn also reduces greenhouse gases from food spoilage. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Factors such as lower energy intensity during production and the weight efficiency of plastics contribute to their reduced environmental footprint compared to alternatives like glass or metal. Furthermore, plastic packaging plays a crucial role in preserving the quality of food across a wide range of categories, helping to prevent food spoilage and the greenhouse gas emissions it causes.

“Demand reduction, efficiency optimization, lifetime extension, and reuse/recycling are win-win strategies to reduce emissions effectively. Solely focusing on switching to alternative materials is not,” Meng commented.

The 'disinformation industry' censoring journalism: how baseless claims that your outlet is 'disinfo spreader' by government funded bodies can get advertisers to boycott you

British publication UnHerd learnt recently that they have been placed on a list of publications that allegedly spread misinformation and should therefore be boycotted by advertisers. Such lists are compiled by organisations such as the Global Disinformation Index (GDI). The GDI was founded in the UK in 2018 with an aim to disrupt the business model of publications spreading misinformation, i.e. to deprive them of advertising money. GDI's funders include the George Soros' Open Society Foundation, UK government, European Union, German Foreign Office, and a body called Disinfo Cloud, funded by the US State Department.

Founded in 2017, UnHerd has grown into a widely read publication that reaches 40 million people in the UK and US, and is read worldwide.

They report news, interview fascinating people, produce video content, and publish insightful analytical articles. One of their strengths is their wide range of authors, including well-known writers, journalists, culture figures, academics, university professors, etc. They are people who dare to have opinions that do not necessarily concur with those deemed 'acceptable' by the powers that be and are willing to express them. In other words, they place themselves outside the herd mentality, therefore the publication is called UnHerd.

Their economic model has depended on paid subscriptions, but recently they became interested in advertising sales. To their surprise – and also to the surprise of three advertising agencies they worked with – they only received between 2% and 6% of the ad revenue normally expected for an audience of their size.

When they started to investigate the matter, it was discovered that the low interest from advertisers was caused by the GDI that had put them on a 'dynamic exclusion list' of publications that supposedly promote “disinformation” and should therefore be boycotted by all advertisers.

Asking the GDI for an explanation, they were told that their site has anti-LGBTQI+ narratives and that some of the authors who have spoken out there have been known to take 'gender-critical' beliefs. They provided Kathleen Stock, whose columns are up for a National Press Award, Julie Bindel, a lifelong campaigner against violence against women, and Debbie Hayton, who is transgender, as examples of offending content. It turned out that the GDI equates “gender-critical” beliefs, or maintaining that biological sex differences exist, with “disinformation”. Although the case feels absurd, GDI refused to change UnHerd's rating.

Of course, this face of the fact-checking industry is no surprise. In fact, such disinformation assessors are often not based on facts but on ideology, as is the case here. Freddie Sayers, editor-in-chief of UnHerd, gives a simple example of how the same GDI treats actual facts. In 2021, the founder of GDI, Clare Meldford, said: "A lot of disinformation is not just whether something is true or false – it escapes from the limits of fact-checking. Something can be factually accurate, but still extremely harmful."

GDI has repeatedly proven that they behave as their founder has stated. For example, in the same year, 2021, they misreported a Spanish website that claimed in an article that a third of people who died from the Covid-19 Delta variant in the UK had been vaccinated. In fact, official figures showed that as many as 45% of those who had died from Covid-19 Delta variant had received at least one injection. However, the facts did not stop the GDI from labelling the website as a spreader of dangerous disinformation and therefore denying them advertising revenue.

We have written about the problem with fact-checkers several times in the past, read e.g. here and here.

Sweden lowers the age of changing legal gender to 16

While the current law in Sweden states that you may change your legal gender from the age of 18, the age limit is going to be lowered to 16 and the whole process is simplified.

Changing one's legal gender does not mean that an operation has to precede the change, but is simply a legal procedure when a person feels that their physical sex does not correspond to their gender identity. For example, a man who wants to become a woman at some point can inform the authorities and thus change his official sex. This practice is already in place in many countries of the world.

Currently, Sweden has a procedure whereby people who want to change their legal gender need a doctor's diagnosis of gender dysphoria to do it. However, the new law, which will come into force in July 2025, will make the process much simpler, deeming a short consultation with a doctor or psychologist and an ensuing approval from the National Board of Health and Welfare sufficient for the purpose. For those under 18, the consent of parents, guardian, doctor and the National Board of Health and Welfare will be required to execute a legal change of gender.

The law passed with 234 votes in favour and 94 against in Sweden's parliament.