As Reuters reported in a recent fact-check, Mr. Gore was guilty of misrepresenting scientific data—or “spreading “misinformation.”“Some of the models suggest...there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."
There's really a lot to unpack in this article.
First, in regards to the pronouncement Al Gore made in 2009 about the vanishing of the polar ice cap, this was at best misinformation. At worst, it was a downright lie. The person Al Gore sourced for the information denies ever making such claims. Now, I am not a "climate change denier", however, there exists a polar opposite of that ('polar', get it?). That would be the "climate change alarmist". Those that believe and fear so strongly in the imminent destruction of life on Earth due to a warming climate that they will make facts up wholesale to convince people or simply use the most alarming information available without bothering to check sources. I believe that the best science available indicates that the climate is getting warmer. I also believe that humans are probably helping. However, I also believe that the vast majority of politicians on the climate change train have motives other that saving the Earth. There is also no reason to believe that changes that have thus far been proposed and/or implemented by governments will do a damn thing to change the climate. I also don't think that scientists have that firm of a handle on what the climate will be like 10 years from now or 100 years from now with or without "intervention".
All that aside, this isn't what the article is really about. It's about censorship. Twitter, Facebook, Youtube and others have taken to censoring what they consider "misinformation". Never mind that such misinformation is often just opinion or even actual information. One interesting thing that the article points out, however, is that Twitter (and presumably the situation is similar for other big tech social media outlets) has claimed the right in court "to ban any user any time for any reason” and can discriminate “on the basis of religion, or gender, or sexual preference, or physical disability, or mental disability.” Think about that one for a minute.
My views tend toward the libertarian so while I don't agree with Twitter's obviously partisan and otherwise flawed censorship policies, as a private company I think they have the right to run things how they please. It just illustrates the dangers of near monopolistic power and the need for more decentralized platforms. Having said that, there is something far more sinister going on. If this censorship were being done purely by these companies then personally I'm more than content to let the market work things out. Despite how it may seem now, these companies won't dominate forever. However, this isn't the case. This censorship is being done in coordination with the federal government. In July, the White House admitted to "flagging problematic posts for Facebook" and to being "in regular touch with these social media platforms." That is far more terrifying and completely unacceptable in a "free" society.
The greater point here is that people must be free to express their thoughts, views and opinions without fear of reprisal. Without tolerance and free expression, the actual science will suffer too. People will make mistakes and people will be wrong, even scientists. However, a centralized authority can't arbitrate right and wrong in the realm of ideas. If ideas can't be challenged, then we are doomed.