“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

Note: title suffix – “autosuggest still blocked” has been removed, see update2 at bottom of story.

We’ve had the term “global warming” in the lexicon since well before the Internet became a household tool, certainly well before Google itself.

So it is with amazement that I report the rise of a new term, “Climategate” in just a little over 1 week in the Google search engine.

Here’s our old friend “global warming”:

And here is the new term that is spreading like lightning, “climategate”:

global warming  – 10,100,000

climategate – 10,400,000

Note that these are web searches, not news searches, but Google suggests a few news stories first. These two searches were conducted about 1 minute apart.

Individual results and search permutations may vary, but it sure seems like “climategate” has grown virally in since the story on the CRU files broke on November 19th.

Here are some other interesting tidbits about “climategate”.

Google seems to be blocking their search box suggestions from using the word, reports on WUWT and my own observation two days ago indicate it was once there. I used by upper right Google Search Box in IE8 to find out.

For example “global war….” has lots of suggestions:

And so does “climate”:

I find it interesting that climate depot and climate audit are suggested ahead of climate progress.

But even when you spell out almost the enirety of “climategate” Google doesn’t seem to think it’s worth suggesting to you:

With “climategate” now as big as, likely even bigger than “global warming” on the web, Google might want to rethink this.

UPDATE: From comments I see that “Bing”, the new search engine from Microsoft, has no such problems, and in fact puts “climategate” right at the top after only 3 letters “c l i”:

click for larger image

I thought the Langjokull Glacier in Iceland was a nice touch. Bing apparently rotates backgrounds, so who knows what you’ll see.

 

UPDATE2: About 3 hours after this story was first posted, it appears that Google has added the word “climategate” to autosuggest.

About these ads

366 thoughts on ““Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

  1. For a moment I assumed it might be that they don’t index made up words (unlikely I know,) so I went to try a few other -gate scandals. Watergate obviously shows up. but so does monicagate, with just 31,000 pages.

    Google likes to hide behind the idea that their algorithms are entirely automatic and that there’s no human intervention in the index, but there is. There’s been a conscious choice on the part of Google to index this particular neologism even though other memes will pop up and become part of the helper often within hours of their sudden rise to popularity.

  2. Perhaps Google are in on it! Can we trust ANYONE? Will there be knocks on dissenter’s doors in the middle of the night? Are we safe in our beds? So many questions, so little time, so much to do, what with Copenhagen looming.

    REPLY: I’m assuming this is sarcasm – A

  3. La-la-la-la-la…can’t hear you…don’t you know Copenhagen is coming up and we need to press our elected officials to commit to real action…even if if the science is bunk, we are causing our planet to die and must do something about it! This supposed “Climategate” story only detracts from our goals!

    – at least what I suspect is happening at Google, Youtube, Wikipidia, CBS, etc, etc, etc.

  4. This, more than anything, frightens me about what kind of servile future some people are trying to bring about.

  5. 248,000 for Professor Michael Mann , several hits in the top 10 associate him w/Climate Gate. Such fun.

  6. For reasons of additional disclosure I note that a search on Google for “Globalwarming” (all one word) produces12,300,000 results. However, the point of this blog entry is still with merit and significance. Google has historically made pro-AGW material much more accessible via their system than material which challenges the IPCC, AGW supporters, and Gore.

    The numbers for ‘climategate’ indicate that the issue is not simply going to disappear in a matter of hours or a few days. The integrity and ethic of KEY PLAYERS have been rightfully questioned and the proof is now public. A sad day for the scientific community.

  7. Several of us concurred in prior comments on other threads:
    ”climagegate” definitely WAS offered in the Google search suggestions list for a time a couple days ago, and then ”became disappeared”.

    . . . leading me to suggest WRT last comment in this thread start; i.e.:
    ”Google might want to rethink this.”
    I think it’s crystal clear that having climategate ”go missing” in the Google suggestions list was very definitely and deliberately ”thought about”, from the partisan AGW agenda perspective.
    As another WUWT commenter astutely pointed out on another thread:
    Al Gore sits (or at least used to sit) on the Google BOD. ‘nough said.

  8. In fact, Bing recommends climategate as soon as you get to “cli…”, and returns 50.8 million hits.

  9. The results for a Google “climategate” search are now 722,000!!!
    They have totally ripped the guts out of the result numbers. It’s not even a subtle manipulation, it’s a blatant fraud. Google are globalist scum.

    Here is a screenshot

  10. Google is known for removing unwanted search terms. Another autosuggest that disappeared is CRU Email. Type in CRU and the autosuggest would suggest CRU Email, now CRU suggests nothing.

  11. Google goes up and down because it is a distributed system in continuous update, trying to handle so much information that the counts you see are nothing more than estimates. It takes close to a month for even old dead static information to stabilize in search results when major index updates are rolled out.

    All of the search engines have pretty much the same problems and as long as the web keeps adding pages it will only get worse.

    Been there, done that, today a few grand tomorrow nada.

  12. Bing shows 50,800,000 results

    And this may be just me, but it seems like the quality of the tops hits is also better at bing.

  13. Who was it who suggested the term first? I recollect someone suggesting it on WUWT just after the news broke.

  14. Results 1 – 10 of about 10,400,000 for climategate. (0.10 seconds)

    All we can *really* say at the moment is that something is happening with the numbers. Anyone’s motivation is pure guesswork.

    You might be right about Google’s reasons, but it’s hardly “crystal clear”. That’s the sort of mistake that AGW proponents make when they link melting glaciers etc with dangerous warming.

    Please, let’s keep the argument to facts.

  15. I don’t claim to understand how Google works but I tried an interesting little search: +Climategate +Watts.

    It turns up two results:

    Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm … 26 Nov 2009 … Watts Up With That? Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, ….. When the Google hit count for ”climagegate” passes ”global …
    wattsupwiththat.com/…/climatgate-pielke-senior-on-the-ncdc-ccsp-report-strong-arm-tactics/ – Cached –

    Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen … 25 Nov 2009 … Watts Up With That? Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, ….. Could Dr. Mitchell be ClimageGate’s “Deep Throat”? …
    wattsupwiththat.com/…/climategate-men

    It offers you the opportunity then to search for more results on “Wattsupwiththat.com”.

    That search, however, results in an error:

    Error: The server could not complete your request. Try again in 30 seconds.

    Is this standard behaviour for Google? The search was conducted on google.ca, not .com.

    Just wondering…

  16. I bet $1.00 that the data they officially release will differ from the 100+MB of raw data in the FOI2009 archive.

  17. Just as an aside, the term Medieval Climate Anomaly I first came across on this website as the preferred tem in Michael Mann’s paper yet when I Google Medieval Warm Period, the tope result is the wiki page where it says:
    “Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important.”
    Interestingly the reference for this is a paper of some years ago, but one which postdates, it appears, the representation of the MWP as having been ommited from the earlier AGW graphs.
    I wonder how many other subtleties of rededinition we are missing?

  18. Googlegate?

    Chris Schoneveld (13:41:05) :

    Who was it who suggested the term first? I recollect someone suggesting it on WUWT just after the news broke.

    Bulldust did it. Warmista thugs will probably be paying him a visit with hockey sticks.

  19. In fact, Bing recommends climategate as soon as you get to “cli…”

    Interesting. “Climategate” overtook “Clip Art” between the time my comment and Karl Maki’s were posted.

    By tomorrow, just typing “c” should be enough.

  20. I did notice that you only have to type “c” into Google’s news search to get climategate. Only 600ish results there.

  21. From my experience of Google it does take a little time for Autosuggest to kick into gear. I maybe wrong but I don’t think its deliberate IMHO. As for the results it is truly REMARKABLE!!! 10 days as opposed to 30 years.

    On a slightly skeptical note all is not known about Google’s Algorithms and how they choose to present Autosuggest so I would not put too much questioning there for now. I think over time it will move to nearer the top of the Autosuggest.

  22. The Google and Obama connection. See the November 9, 2009 Fortune cover story. “Obama & Google: A Love Story”. Pages 105-112.

    Page 105 “Google CEO Schmidt actively stumped for the candidate (Obama) and served as an informal economic adviser during the campaign, and after Obama was elected, Schmidt and other Google executives forked over $25,000 apiece to help pay for the inaugural celebration.”

    As the old saying goes “Follow the money”

  23. Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

    CRU in Damage Control Bid

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

    Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

    By Robert Mendick
    28 Nov 2009

    Leading British scientists who were accused of manipulating climate change data have agreed to publish their figures in full.

    David Holland is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.

    The U-turn by the university follows a week of controversy after the emergence of hundreds of leaked emails, “stolen” by hackers and published online, triggered claims that the academics had massaged statistics.

    In a statement welcomed by climate change sceptics, the university said it would make all the data accessible as soon as possible, once its Climatic Research Unit (CRU) had negotiated its release from a range of non-publication agreements.

    The publication will be carried out in collaboration with the Met Office Hadley Centre. The full data, when disclosed, is certain to be scrutinised by both sides in the fierce debate.

    A grandfather with a training in electrical engineering dating back more than 40 years emerged from the leaked emails as a leading climate sceptic trying to bring down the scientific establishment on global warming.

    David Holland, who describes himself as a David taking on the Goliath that is the prevailing scientific consensus, is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws.

    Mr Holland, of Northampton, complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) last week after the leaked emails included several Freedom of Information requests he had submitted to the CRU, and scientists’ private responses to them.

    Within hours, a senior complaints officer in the ICO wrote back by email: “I have started to examine the issues that you have raised in your letter and I am currently liaising with colleagues in our Enforcement and Data Protection teams as to what steps to take next.”

    The official also promised to investigate other universities linked to the CRU, which is one of the world’s leading authorities on temperature levels and has helped to prove that man-made global warming not only exists but will have catastrophic consequences if not tackled urgently. Mr Holland is convinced the threat has been greatly exaggerated.

    In one email dated May 28, 2008, one academic writes to a colleague having received Mr Holland’s request: “Oh MAN! Will this crap ever end??”

    Mr Holland, who graduated with an external degree in electrical engineering from London University in 1966 before going on to run his own businesses, told The Sunday Telegraph: “It’s like David versus Goliath. Thanks to these leaked emails a lot of little people can begin to make some impact on this monolithic entity that is the climate change lobby.”

    He added: “These guys called climate scientists have not done any more physics or chemistry than I did. A lifetime in engineering gives you a very good antenna. It also cures people of any self belief they cannot be wrong. You clear up a lot of messes during a lifetime in engineering. I could be wrong on global warming – I know that – but the guys on the other side don’t believe they can ever be wrong.”

    Professor Trevor Davies, the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement, said yesterday: “CRU’s full data will be published in the interests of research transparency when we have the necessary agreements. It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

    “We are grateful for the necessary support of the Met Office in requesting the permissions for releasing the information but understand that responses may take several months and that some countries may refuse permission due to the economic value of the data.”

    Among the leaked emails disclosed last week were an alleged note from Professor Phil Jones, 57, the director of the CRU and a leading target of climate change sceptics, to an American colleague describing the death of a sceptic as “cheering news”; and a suggestion from Prof Jones that a “trick” is used to “hide the decline” in temperature.

    They even include threats of violence. One American academic wrote to Prof Jones: “Next time I see Pat Michaels [a climate sceptic] at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”

    Dr Michaels, tracked down by this newspaper to the Cato Institute in Washington DC where he is a senior fellow in environmental studies, said last night: “There were a lot of people who thought I was exaggerating when I kept insisting terrible things are going on here.

    “This is business as usual for them. The world might be surprised but I am not. These guys have an attitude.”

    Prof Jones, who has refused to quit despite calls even from within the green movement, said last week in a statement issued through University of East Anglia, “My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues.”

    He suggested the theft of emails and publication first on a Russian server was “a concerted attempt to put a question mark over the science of climate change in the run-up to the Copenhagen talks”.

    He added: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Center in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

  24. I am used to google news being biased far to the left with seemingly every tenth “news” article suggested having a name like “Marxist Brotherhood”, “Socialist Progressives” or “The Stalinist Times/Transcript” but I had thought that their search engine was so dependant on bots and such that it was pretty objective. That’s probably why they suggested climategate originally and then some human decided to cleanse it. How long before Google search results become biased by human political ideology the way their news has been?

    I was going to have a rant about Google’s YouTube having a double standard in what material they allow from terrorist supporters verses terrorist critics but I would probably go too far off topic and make statements which, while true, might be a legal liability to this blog and thus get snipped so I’ll bite my metaphorical tongue. Search for the words YouTube, smackdown, and jihad if you are interested in the subject.

  25. What? No Hat tip? After all I put it in your comments. You even knocked me from 2nd to 3rd if you google “google climategate.”

  26. This I had noticed too but once I had my previous comment out of the way I went and started a Climate… search in Google and Climategate now is offered to us… responding to WUWT?
    More interestingly a search shows that UEA will now release its data…

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

    ….. but only once they have negotiated with those for whom the data has economic value… this they estimate may take a few months.
    True? or a delaying tactic?
    ANy organisation that refuses to release its data under the current circumstances should be named and shamed. Or maybe, Prof Jones will share a little more of his huge grants fund to help them out?

  27. This is quite important re Australian Politics Galaxy Poll Australia shows 60% want ETS delayed and 80% don’t even understand it! Sunday Mail Australia Poll taken Yesterday completely contradicts Mr Turnbull’s “private Polling” This will surely influence change of Coalition leader Tuesday and eventually if the ETS is even considered again here.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/joe-hockey-gets-advice-from-john-howard-by-making-house-call/story-e6frf7l6-1225804977755

  28. Use the hyphenated form and you will get twice as many hits – climate-gate

    Dump the paranoia, use another search engine

  29. Further to my last post please note that people in different countries can see different results from different servers. It’s basically down to servers and updating. Be a little gentle on Google as it is dealing with billions of pages. Just look at the proliferation of WUWT pages and other blogs for example :-)

    I have my own website which I have been running for 8 years now and have noticed issues that’s why I comment on this though I maybe wrong. Just be patient on Autosuggest I suggest.

  30. Of course the reason us skeptics want this delayed (ETS in Australia) is because we are convinced that very shortly the climagate scam will bring the whole thing down probably in weeks not months so that’s then reality will set in we hope.

  31. Oh well if google wants to rapidly lose 50-60% users (check USA, Australia Polls re Gloabla warming) i would have no hesitation in moving over to bing or whatever beware google! Unfortunately for Google, on the net this would happen very quickly!

  32. Ryan (13:34:42) :

    You know what?

    I think I will switch to Bing.

    I find that Bing Video has better search than Google Video.

  33. And further still things disappear from Google search results because you are being served different results from different server and depending on updates IMHO.

  34. Google is a charter member of the Green Club.

    Just like GE, you may notice not much on Climategate on the NBC Green is Universal family of stations including CNBC where this information really matters to Investors. Lets hope the Comcast deal gets done and they shutdown MSNBC and free up commentators on CNBC to actually talk about world events.

    Site Search of CNBC for Climategate – Responses = 0

  35. Here are the results on Bing, the Microsoft Search Engine using Firefox Browser.

    Global Warming 15,300,000 results

    Climategate 50,800,000 results

    Interesting that the second suggestion item on Bing for “global warming” was “global warming hoax.”

    Bing suggested Climategate straight up.

  36. If Bing returns millions more hits on “climategate” than Google, isn’t it doing a more thorough search?

  37. I see that Gavin over at RC is spinning like crazy.

    If you have any wet clothes; just toss them on him and they will be dry in no time…………

    Serenity now………..

  38. It’s not often I disagree with a posting on here, but it’s most probably a separate process that generates the ‘suggest’ autocomplete, and it probably has to do so much cross – indexing to produce the database for it, that may be it jus thasn’t filtered through whatever servers / processes Google uses to make it after only 1 week! I doubt it is manually edited.

    Quite often a new website, for instance, may take a few weeks to ripple into the more results searches on Google, so we know this is normal behaviour really. All those ‘Google Bots’ take time to do their chores you know!

  39. It’s breaking, it may finally be breaking.

    In the Telegraph it’s moved from the blogs to the comment page (and not just Booker’s glorious piece as he’s been the one shining regular sceptic they allowed to publish) and was editor’s choice yesterday. Now a seriously *fair* analysis piece has appeared in the Times (with excellent detail on the ‘lost’ data), which only a few days ago was having Abramovich parrotting the BBC’s “nothing to see here, move along” line and positively mocking Lord Lawson for thinking there was anything in it.

    It’s breaking. I think it may finally be breaking…

  40. Yes Smokey.

    Chris (13:32:00) :

    It seems the MSM is cracking. The Times has just weighed in with a scorching dismissal of the abuse of process:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece

    By a writer whimsically named “Jonathan Leake.” But at least the editors at the grand old Times recognize the global outrage Climategate engenders. Now, if they want to see their circulation return to the glory days – print the story on the front page!

  41. A rather unscientific quick and dirty survey of of web filtering Google versus Bing, taken at about 3:30 PM Mountain Standard Time.

    Climategate Google 10.4 Million
    Bing 50.8 Million

    Sex in Hollywood
    Google 80 million
    Bing

  42. I’ve long suspected that Google monkeys with their suggestions for political and business reasons. I remember in the middle of a presidential election the top completion for “George Bush” lead to the “George Bush or Chimp” web site. Very funny. Very scary. Very evil (to any Googler’s reading this: their motto is “don’t be evil” except when it comes to collaborating to supress political dissent in China, etc…).

  43. Further and further to my last email please remember that Google can sometimes be sensetive to being spammed. When Michael Jackson died its servers thought they were under attack for a Denial of Service. You ended up with a page where you had to type in a CAPTCHA (type words in a box from an image showing text)

  44. A rather unscientific quick and dirty survey of of web filtering Google versus Bing, taken at about 3:30 PM Mountain Standard Time.

    Climategate Google 10.4 Million
    Bing 50.8 Million

    Sex in Hollywood
    Google 80 million
    Bing 30 million

    Explicit Sex Tapes
    Google 40 million
    Bing 3 million

    Corruption on Wall Street
    Google 5 million
    Bing 2.4 million

    Dirty Politics

  45. “Climategate” with quotation marks: 745,000 hits
    Climategate without quotation marks: 10,700,000 hits

  46. A rather unscientific quick and dirty survey of of web filtering Google versus Bing, taken at about 3:30 PM Mountain Standard Time. ClimateGate versus 4 other randomly chosen topics.

    Climategate
    Google 10.4 Million
    Bing 50.8 Million

    Sex in Hollywood
    Google 80 million
    Bing 30 million

    Explicit Sex Tapes
    Google 40 million
    Bing 3 million

    Corruption on Wall Street
    Google 5 million
    Bing 2.4 million

    Dirty Politics
    Google 23 million
    Bing 20 million

    This brief dataset suggests a bias

  47. OT: I was having a spirited debate over at ClimateProgress regarding Dr. Curry’s open letter wherein I being very careful to stay on the point of the article and play nice in the sandbox. After being challenged by dhogaza (who was surprisingly civil in our debate although not staying on topic) and ad-hom attacked by Ian Forrester, I was effectively countering their rebuttals and mounting a good case – at which point I got banned. So, I guess this is what they mean by the “debate is over.” Much like pulling the plug on the television means the show is over despite there is still 28 minutes to go?

  48. I don’t think “climategate” is being blocked on Google. Something else is going on.

    ” Andy (13:13:58) :

    Yet another reason to use Bing.”

    It has been my experience that Bing, or Live Search, or whatever the heck else it is called this year couldn’t find salt in the Dead Sea. I can always, ALWAYS, find what I want faster on Google than anybody else. I know a Microsoft funded study said Microsoft searches were better, but we should know by now what self-interests do in a study. 75% of the time with Google, I find what I need in the first page (not scientific, just a number to make a point). And I never need to go beyond the 4th page on Google to find what I need. Meanwhile, when I use Bing, I rarely find what I need page 1 or 2. Even Yahoo is better than Bing. Ultimately, I believe it what I am searching for, in that I believe Google is better at what I search for. The many names of Microsoft search may be better for what you need. I care about results, not the name.

  49. Invariant (13.28.39)

    I see that in the referenced Telegraph article, Christopher Booker is crediting his colleague James Dellingpole with coining ‘Climategate’

    Handbags at dawn I think.

  50. CLIMATE CHANGE: THIS IS THE WORST SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL OF OUR GENERATION
    Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

    A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term “Climategate” to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

    The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

    Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

    Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

    Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

    The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

    There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre’s blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt’s blog Watts Up With That), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

    They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

    This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones’s refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got “lost”. Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

    But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to “adjust” recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

    In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

    What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

    The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics’ work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

    Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre’s demolition of the “hockey stick”, he excoriated the way in which this same “tightly knit group” of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to “peer review” each other’s papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

    The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

  51. Smokey (14:32:23) :

    > If Bing returns millions more hits on “climategate” than Google, isn’t it doing a more thorough search?

    Not necessarily. It could also be that Microsoft is trying to make you think it has more hits than Google.

    Google’s hit number is just an estimate, and a rather bad one at that. If you find something with a couple hundred hits and look at all of them, don’t be surprised if it stops at around 70.

    —–

    The auto suggest thing for climategate works for me with my Firefox on “cl”. It may be responding to cached pages or searches though as it is displaying suggestions in two groups.

    Until we understand exactly how Google’s auto-suggest thing works I’d be really, really reluctant to to excoriate them over it. It may well be that the sudden rise in references to it has lit a red flag and auto-disabled it until a human can check see what the heck is going on and decide if some group is trying to bomb the search engine to get people to see their spam.

  52. OT??

    Why ‘climategate’ won’t stop greens …from URL below
    If you’re wondering how the robot-like march of the world’s politicians towards Copenhagen can possibly continue in the face of the scientific scandal dubbed “climategate,” it’s because Big Government, Big Business and Big Green don’t give ***** about “the science.”

    Not news to skeptics, but it is in MSM.

    Just MAYBE there is momentum to get this out. One hopes so.

    Thanks to Anthony and his gang of elves here at WUWT! Keep it up.

    This is a good read.

    http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.torontosun.com/images/columnists/lorrie_goldstein248.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/&usg=__3AMaTRfkslcXLfUgrVSgdD6k_5Q=&h=187&w=248&sz=6&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=cjQlg4Sj0sQA0M:&tbnh=84&tbnw=111&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522LORRIE%2BGOLDSTEIN%2522%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

  53. I that this leaks/hack episode has at least elevated awareness enough to help throw some focus on the important underlying issues about the lack of tracability back to the raw data. The Times has just put this story on its website:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    “SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. ”

    “In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” ”

    I am sure this has been know for while but I don’t think it has been mentioned on such a mainstream source before.

  54. Quick question: is this paper worth reading? Well, I have a PH.D. in Physics, so I can see that the equations look good, but I am worried that it is not in agremmenet with experiments, and it is also quite long, please advice.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    (I wish Dr. Svalgaard was still around here at WUWT, he would point out why the paper is no good right away)

  55. And before I go to bed I have performed searches on Google which differed within the space of 30 seconds!!! Take that to the bank.

  56. From my webrobot:
    Time: Nov 28th, 23:40 CEST (requested: http:www.google.de)
    ‘climategate/climate gate': 11.200.000 results
    ‘cru gate’ – has quite some entries not related to CRU/ClimateGate’. 7.270.000 results
    ‘hadley hack’ : 195.000 results
    ‘hadley phil jones’ 112.000 results

    sites:

    search: ‘realclimate.org': 346.000 results
    search: ‘wattsupwiththat.com': 154.000 results //I doubt that, too low, IMHO
    search: ‘surfacestations.org': 75.600 results
    //———————————–
    // comment: when surfacestations.org has 75.600,
    // comment: wattsupwiththat. com should be fivefold, at least.
    // comment: tenfold would be a reasonable number.
    //———————————–
    search: ‘cimateaudit': 176.000 results
    search: ‘climateaudit.org': 161.000 results

    @operator: can you forward it to Anthony, pls?
    These google results don’t make sense to me.

    Rgds
    KlausB

  57. correction: And before I go to bed I have performed THE SAME searches on Google which differed within the space of 30 seconds!!! Take that to the bank.

  58. OT but it appears near the top of this page – have any of you clicked the Google ad “How to stop global warming” – please do for two reasons – one it will contribute to AW’s fighting fund and two, it might give you a laugh.

    It takes you through to Ed Milliband’s masterplan to save the planet (actually, it’s edspledge – fighting for a strong deal at Copenhagen) – you can vote on which of the three top topics to prioritise for fighting global warming.

    Top of Ed’s list is sending our esteemed prime minister Gordon Brown to Copenhagen.

    Wow – Labour has really got it’s finger on the pulse of global warming

  59. Would not be surprised if Google is currently under immense pressure to censor this. Fortunately the Internet does not belong to them and there are alternatives. If I were google I would think very carefully about what they are doing. They might lose a large percentage of followers….

  60. CBC just reported that the Inuit have complained about the quotas set by the federal goverment for polar bear kills. Government numbers suggest a 22% decline since 1980. Elders suggest the population of bears has DOUBLED in the past 30 years. That’s the first anti-special interest piece I have seen on the CBC ever! I will try to find the link… not on their site yet.

  61. Invariant (15:12:55) :

    “I wish Dr. Svalgaard was still around here at WUWT . . .”

    Yeah, miss him and the whole solar topic. But there must be a way to contact him?

    John

  62. Hengav,

    Look up the Macah tribe of the Pacific Northwest. They keep fighting hard to reinstitute their traditions and religious practices of… hunting orca. The CBC had to have picked a side in there too.

  63. I thought this very exact thing. Couldn’t believe google wouldn’t let u autosearch the term. FYI, there were 290,000 hits for ‘climategate’ the day before thanksgiving.

    This will no doubt go
    down as the greatest scam off all time…..u can not possibly silence this!!!

  64. Bing was interesting.
    I followed a link to www/climate-gate.org and did a search under Salinger.
    In one of the emails I found this comment (http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=306&keyword= )
    QUOTE:
    Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly
    giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad
    hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.

    If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing
    to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.

    In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply
    disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels’
    PhD is at the same level).

    ______________________________

    Best wishes to all,
    Tom.
    END QUOTE.

    There was another email where they discussed getting Pat Michaels PhD revoked by challenging his thesis. Seems there is no level they won’t stoop to.
    But who is deFreitas? Nothing on wiki but Bing turned up this link: http://exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists:Chris_DeFreitas

  65. bing yielded 50,800,000 results on climategate, and 13,600,000 on global warming. Google found only about 10,600,000 for climategate. What’s Up With That? Why is google not finding 40 million sites?

  66. Chris Schoneveld (13:41:05) :

    Who was it who suggested the term first? I recollect someone suggesting it on WUWT just after the news broke.

    Bulldust. And that poster coined the straw that broke the hump on the AGW camels back.

  67. I would find it unlikely that google is manipulating autosuggest like that. I will ask my friends when I get to SF.

  68. *************
    Hank Hancock (14:49:15) :

    OT: I was having a spirited debate over at ClimateProgress regarding Dr. Curry’s open letter wherein I being very careful to stay on the point of the article and play nice in the sandbox. After being challenged by dhogaza (who was surprisingly civil in our debate although not staying on topic) and ad-hom attacked by Ian Forrester, I was effectively countering their rebuttals and mounting a good case – at which point I got banned. So, I guess this is what they mean by the “debate is over.” Much like pulling the plug on the television means the show is over despite there is still 28 minutes to go?
    ************
    Maybe it’s just me, but in the various places I discuss “climate change” there seems to be a meme coming from AWG defenders that it is good to release the data but not the code. Releasing the data is a good thing, but certainly a lot has been found in the code when it has been obtained. I say release both!!

  69. Would not be surprised if Google is currently under immense pressure to censor this. Fortunately the Internet does not belong to them and there are alternatives. If I were google I would think very carefully about what they are doing. They might lose a large percentage of followers….

    You’re almost certainly wrong here. The fact is you don’t know what the google algorithm is doing when it selects auto-suggestions. From what I do know about algorithms, longevity scores – this thing has only been out a week.

  70. Now we have another Hitler takeoff

    Peer review at the Climatic Research Unit:

    REPLY: Note to all commenters. I’m growing tired of people posting this video, it’s stupid, it’s insulting, and it does the same thing that we accuse the other side of doing when they label us “deniers” with all of its holocaust connotations.

    Don’t post this video again.

    – Anthony

  71. Al Gore was interviewed on CBC radion on Wednesday, Nov.25/09. In his intro we were informed that he was on the Board of Directors for Google.

    Just sayin’

  72. Don’t know what it means, but in my Firefox browser, if I type “climateg” into the built-in search box I do get “climategate” as the top suggestion (although not until I type the “g”).

    The default for me is google.co.uk, not .com.

    But if I actually go to Google.co.uk I get no “climategate” suggestion even if I type in the whole word.

  73. Well, it looks like we are doing our job!

    Google is no longer CENSORING the term “climategate” from their autocomplete suggestion list. It now appears when I type “clim”

    But it’s too little too late in my book. The damage is already done. The fact that they chose to remove it tells me volumes about their concepts of freedom of information, integrity, and truth. I suspect the only reason they put it back in is because of this blog.

    Thanks Anthony! Well done!

  74. No problem with Safari using Google. Climategate comes up first.

    i think it’s more of an IE8 thing than anything else.

  75. But it’s too little too late in my book. The damage is already done. The fact that they chose to remove it tells me volumes about their concepts of freedom of information, integrity, and truth. I suspect the only reason they put it back in is because of this blog.

    I don’t think accusations like this are helpful. They make us look paranoid. If you have evidence it was removed manually, i.e. not the result of the algorithm selecting the best response, then please show it. Otherwise, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. If it still didn’t show up in, say, a month, I’d either think it was deliberately removed or that the algorithm was pants. I think the latter would be my preferred answer here.

  76. Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row
    “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

    David Holland is seeking prosecutions against some of Britain’s most eminent academics for allegedly holding back information in breach of disclosure laws”.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html

  77. Depending on what settings you use and whether you have installed the google toolbar you will find that google uses your search history to construct the list.

    So it is probably premature to assume that the missing keyword is a deliberate suppression.

    REPLY: I thought of that, and cleared the history beforehand, the results I posted were after the cache clear. Before the cache clear, climategate was ina separate section of suggestions based on the previous history. When cache was cleared, climategate was not suggested. -A

  78. I find it amazing that we can castigate the Chinese and Iranian governments for censoring the internet – especially in light of this form of censorship. So much for illusory freedoms…..

  79. Not to defend Google but I saw a long discussion of those hit numbers on a programming blog a year or so ago and those numbers are just statistical estimates based on some secret algorithm. They don’t actually count the sites.

    But that doesn’t affect their fiddling with the numbers.


  80. Gary K

    No problem with Safari using Google. Climategate comes up first.

    i think it’s more of an IE8 thing than anything else.

    No, Google just stopped censoring it. The autosuggest list is provided from the Google server to the Google webpage. The results shown are completely independent of the browser used to view them.

  81. REPLY: Note to all commenters. I’m growing tired of people posting this video, it’s stupid, it’s insulting, and it does the same thing that we accuse the other side of doing when they label us “deniers” with all of its holocaust connotations.

    Don’t post this video again.

    – Anthony

    Sorry

  82. Yeah, but if you do a google news search, news.google.com, and you just type in the letter c , you will see that climategate is the first suggestion. This means that it is on the top of peoples intrests, at least in the news section.

  83. Is it possible at this juncture to somehow rename Climategate, to go around the Google block mechanism? “Gate” is kind of “hack”neyed anyway, isn’t it? More to the point, this issue desperately needs to be about reining back in science fraud, & the demand for the word “hacked” to be put in its place. The odds this was “hacked” by an outsider rather than leaked by an insider are truly miniscule. Emphasizing that the info was supposedly “hacked” is simply an attempt to block the option of court action against these crooks, nothing more. This is not some minor transgression, this is cheat science. Challenging this NOW is the equivalent to bringing down of the Berlin Wall erected by alarmists, in the pay of corporations ready to become trillionaires from global carbon taxes. Climate communism is more like it. It is that important, especially regarding the threatened future of sovereign nations & the last stand battle to retain a semblance of real democracy. Climate warms & climate cools. It is SCIENCE which is on trial here. If SCIENCE can be bought, we might as well be in the dark ages. Emphasis on the word “hack” is meant to distract the non discerning from the REAL issue by trying to make those who posted the truth look immoral, say, compared to those who lied & fudged data to make climate look quite other than it is. Hackers are boasters & pranksters. They do not quietly drop info into the public realm & then quietly leave again. This is NOT the profile for hackers at all. It is however the profile for whistle blowers on the inside. Someone had had enough of deception & decided it was time to bust a hole in the “immunity to question” clause of climate hysteria fed daily. That oxymoronic term “climate scientists, is only a “science” in its infancy, based on abstract computer models designed by people who spend all their time INDOORS. Cooling & warming inside this ailenated reality is totally artificial, as fake as the fudged data. No amount of protest is going to make this truth go away. The truth, even if blocked, has legs. Look who is in denial now.

  84. Gary K I don’t think accusations like this are helpful. They make us look paranoid. If you have evidence it was removed manually, i.e. not the result of the algorithm selecting the best response, then please show it. Otherwise, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt. If it still didn’t show up in, say, a month, I’d either think it was deliberately removed or that the algorithm was pants. I think the latter would be my preferred answer here.

    I agree that such accusations could look paranoid at first glance and should be avoided if there is no evidence to support them. But I think we have plenty of evidence to prove them in this case. First, there are plenty of folks who will testify that climategate had been appearing in the autocomplete suggestion list for a number of days before it was removed two days ago. It began appearing for me when the Google hits were around 20,000 if I recall correctly. This makes perfect sense because Google uses an algorithm to automatically add keywords to the autosuggestion list. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to that algorithm so I can not PROVE that climategate would have been automatically added. This is why I have to use personal testimony and basic logic on this point. Furthermore, comparison with other keywords in the autosuggestion list show that many things with relatively few hits (such as old songs) come up in the list. Any algorithm that automatically includes obscure items with a smaller number of hits would certainly include something like climategate. Indeed, it was included, and then removed, so we know it was a human choice, not an algorithm.

    Given the above review of the facts, I think the accusation that Google censored the keyword climategate from its autocomplete list is fully justified and not paranoid in any way at all.

  85. If you go to nocapandtrade.com you will see a list of companies to boycott. Google is on the list.

    These are all multinational companies who have decided that profit is the goal.

  86. Smokey (14:32:23) :

    If Bing returns millions more hits on “climategate” than Google, isn’t it doing a more thorough search?

    Dang nab it Smokey, all of those counts are merely estimates, Google, Bing, Yahoo, the whole bunch estimate. They never have an exact count on results since they have to short circuit their actual result retrievals otherwise you could sit forever waiting for search results.

  87. Belvedere (16:42:15) :

    uhm.. What is up with the latest SOHO picture?

    Is our sun really going to die?

    Nope,just napping for oh,30-50 years….

  88. *turns up the heater*

    Isn’t this the real doom?

    I mean.. Is it not going to get very, very cold in the near future?

    Brrrrrr..

  89. Just checked google again.

    Typing…

    “Cli” now has Climategate in 7th place.

    “Clim” now has Climategate in first place.

  90. I find it amazing that we can castigate the Chinese and Iranian governments for censoring the internet – especially in light of this form of censorship. So much for illusory freedoms…..

    Me too. Google chose to cooperate with the Chinese government to censor any web page talking about Tienanmen Square and other stuff deemed “harmful” to the Party. Read this:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

    They censor lot’s of terms relating to bad things like child abuse and racial hate. I’m fine with that. But with a few keystrokes, they can use the same software to eliminate climategate, which is precisely what they did.

  91. He added: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

    Don’t CRU and GISS ultimately use the same data to produce results? Are the CRU not fudging their data and GISS fudging their data, then the two datasets are combined to give, suprise suprise, the same results for CRU and GISS?

  92. PaulS (16:59:45)

    …And don’t both CRU and GISS submit their data back to NOAA after taking the data from NOAA originally and running their Al-Gore-rythems?

  93. Don’t worry too much about Google hit counts. They go up and down all the time. For example, the search count for my website is always higher on the weekdays then on the weekends, but the weekend numbers are almost always the same, and the weekdays numbers are almost always the same. I suspect this happens because of their computer maintenance schedule.

  94. mRE (16:56:28) :
    Just checked google again.
    Typing…
    “Cli” now has Climategate in 7th place.
    “Clim” now has Climategate in first place.

    Which google extension are you using? Google.co.uk still doesn’t show this…

  95. Mia Nony
    Is it possible at this juncture to somehow rename Climategate, to go around the Google block mechanism? “Gate” is kind of “hack”neyed anyway, isn’t it?

    Yes, it’s a bit “hackneyed” but that can be good because then everyone knows what it means so it has a very potent easily understood impact. The connection with Nixon is also good given that the New York Times illegally printed the Top Secret Pentagon Papers on the front page of their paper! This makes a mockery of their refusal to deal with the content of the emails on the pretext that they were “obtained illegally.”

    And then we must remember that climategate is pretty much the name this baby received the day it was born. I think we should stick with it.

  96. If you really want to see some bias search on Wikipedia and you will find a whitewash version that could have been (maybe was) written by Phil Jones along with:
    “This page is currently protected from editing until disputes have been resolved.
    This protection is not an endorsement of the current version. See the protection policy and protection log for more details. Please discuss any changes on the talk page; you may use the {{editprotected}} template to ask an administrator to make the edit if it is supported by consensus. You may also request that this page be unprotected.’

  97. I tried Al-Jazeera. Nothing.
    I tried leaving a comment at Al-Jazeera. There are countless blogs but no comments on any of them. My comment is still “being approved.”

    NPR. Nadda.

    BBC. Nadda.

  98. Some genius at YouTube steared me over to WikiLeaks. “Thank goodness for WikiLeaks,” he cried.

    The coverage is awful.

  99. Guys think about this..

    The sun is as dead as a guinie pig monkey floating on an airbed compressed and pumped full of and with CO2..

    It sinks..

    And it stinks..

    U know what i think? They (the elite) try to stop this global cooling at any cost, at any prize.. They just found out HAARP doesnt work the way they want.. Mother nature cannot be controled..

    Raining for 2 weeks in row here btw.. ;)

    *maximum heating on*

  100. You folks chasing Google’s placement of a specific word in a suggestion list are likely to get differing results until the information that is used by the display system gets pushed to all of Google’s millions of clusters the process takes quite a bit of time in the meantime you are directed to a different set of machines just about every time make a request of Google.

    It is useless to attach any actual meaning to where something shows up.

  101. “Yeah, but if you do a google news search, news.google.com, and you just type in the letter c , you will see that climategate is the first suggestion. This means that it is on the top of peoples intrests, at least in the news section.”

    Intersting, you are very right.

    However, when I went to do it just now, what was the Second story on the Google News home page (before doing a search) “Leaders say momentum building on climate change “

  102. I haven’t even looked at Google for many months now… Bing is so effective and has so many nice features. But I would be wary about assuming any kind of censorship of the autosuggest list, as I would expect this is automatically generated. I would be truly amazed if anyone had manually adjusted it. (But then, I have been truly amazed about a lot of things lately.)

  103. One more; a quote from another blogger who describes himself as a student of net censorship since the 90s. ”
    If you were to draw up a matrix of political and economic policies, of every country in the world, and look for overlap, look for areas where they all pretty much agreed, in actions, if not in words, you’ll find just three or four areas. One would be that they are all into this climate change crap. Another that they’re all (increasingly) censoring the internet within their borders, and in some case outside. And a third, interestingly, is that they are almost all shifting intellectual property breaches from the civil code, to the criminal code.
    I don’t believe this is coincidence.
    The internet is all that stands between us and totalitarianism.

  104. I think that we should have some consideration for the past and (especially) current students of the University of East Anglia. In all probability, any qualification they obtain(ed) from that organisation will be deemed as laughable. How would you feel if your whole life had been blighted in that manner?

  105. Google auto-suggest on Safari and Firefox on Mac OS 10.6 gives “climategate” as the number one suggestion.

  106. I think this qualifies as breaking news:

    http://2su.de/j8M

    Title: Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row

    Sub-header: Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full.

    Here’s the capper; final paragraph [quote by Prof Jones].

    He added: “Our global temperature series tallies with those of other, completely independent, groups of scientists working for NASA and the National Climate Data Centre in the United States, among others. Even if you were to ignore our findings, theirs show the same results. The facts speak for themselves; there is no need for anyone to manipulate them.”

    Yes, I’m sure that Hansen at NASA and his friends over at the NCDC would be more than happy to share their ‘data'; especially after having a week to tidy things up.

  107. Steve Schapel (17:14:30) :

    I haven’t even looked at Google for many months now… Bing is so effective and has so many nice features. But I would be wary about assuming any kind of censorship of the autosuggest list, as I would expect this is automatically generated. I would be truly amazed if anyone had manually adjusted it. (But then, I have been truly amazed about a lot of things lately.)

    Hey Steve,

    It is well known that Google has code in place to censor the autocomplete list. That’s why “child abuse” does not show up. This is documented in this article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

    QUOTE: Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. “Dirty” search suggestions end in an apostrophe, period, or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words “teen” or “teenager” are forbidden. “Child abuse” is notoriously blocked as well, but not “abused children”.

    I would be surprised if it took more than a few keystrokes to add a term to the censored list.

  108. Belvedere (17:11:52) :

    The sun appears to be settling in, once again, to one’s of it’s habitual SC24 snoozes. Silently mocking the warmists, especially Mr. Gore.
    November sports one good display of spotted activity and a slew of blinking sub-spots.
    Fizzled out.

  109. Just googled climategate and it came up as the top suggestion after “clim”. That was at 5:30 pm Pacific time.

  110. R Dunn (17:20:36) : Google auto-suggest on Safari and Firefox on Mac OS 10.6 gives “climategate” as the number one suggestion.

    Yes, it appears that Google removed censorship of climategate from the autocomplete list sometime during the last couple hours.

    It is important not to confuse this with censorship of search results. I don’t have any evidence they are doing that, though there are some anecdotal reports that the pages returned by bing are better.

  111. Now we have another Hitler takeoff

    Peer review at the Climatic Research Unit:

    REPLY: Note to all commenters. I’m growing tired of people posting this video, it’s stupid, it’s insulting, and it does the same thing that we accuse the other side of doing when they label us “deniers” with all of its holocaust connotations.

    Don’t post this video again.

    Ya wohl mein furher,
    but its pretty funny if you’ve been through all that (snip)!

  112. -Google from Brazil: “climategate” does NOT auto-suggest
    yesterday were 11.200.000 hits and today keeps going…. down = 10.800.000, 10.600.000, ….
    “climategate” on brazilian pages: 2.550

    -Bing from Brazil: climategate does NOT auto-suggest
    today 2.060.000 hits
    “climategate” on brazilian pages: 75

  113. CPT Charles: “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia … have agreed to publish their figures in full”

    Right. I want to see a copy of all the emails, and a transcript of all discussions, that led to this decision!

  114. “SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based. ”

    “In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.” ”

    The dog ate my homework. But I can show you the poo.

  115. Expat in France said

    Perhaps Google are in on it! Can we trust ANYONE? Will there be knocks on dissenter’s doors in the middle of the night? Are we safe in our beds? So many questions, so little time, so much to do, what with Copenhagen looming.

    REPLY: I’m assuming this is sarcasm – A

    ERRrrr…. Actually I am expecting that knock on the door, but they usually pick 5:00 AM not midnight and show up with several SUVs full of SWAT teams. And no I am afraid this is not sarcasm Anthony but a real fear based on the experience of the Henshaws, the Drs Faillace and others who have irritated the US government.

  116. Mia Mony….Is it possible at this juncture to somehow rename Climategate, to go around the Google block mechanism?

    If you read the above comments and all the comments on previous threads on this forum, what is the most common issue? It would seem to be the angst that this hasn’t made it to the ‘lamestream media’ and that ‘google would appear to be fudging the numbers’. Let’s remember something…. the media is not our friend here (and that includes google). These are the folks that have been cozying up to the glowbull warmongers for the last decade and are soooo invested in this pile of crap that they will NEVER report on it … at least not in any way that gives the story the breadth and scope that is deserving of such a fraud. So, what I gather from these posts is that folks are expecting that the same corrupt group that has been in bed with the IPCC/CRU at each stage of the way (supporting and giving cover to their agenda) are now going to report accurately on them and expose this whole mess to the great unwashed. Do you realize how insane that concept is? It’s not going to happen and thus the onus is on each person who has a good understanding of what is really going on to tell all those around them. You certainly can’t count on any lamestream media to be a reliable conduit for this development.

    Finally, your thought about renaming ‘climategate’. I’ve been giving this a bit of thought and I agree with you. From hereto and henceforth, let us call it CLIMEDIAGATE. First of all, the word ‘gate’ indicates scandal – it is a well recognized suffix and since we are dealing here with something that is totally outrageous and scandalous, ‘gate’ should be part of any term that defines the entity. Secondly, there are actually two scandals here…. the first and obvious one is the scandal that is what has gone on with the IPCC/CRU with respect to their corruption related to ‘hide the decline’. The second scandal here is the media…essentially, their willingness to go along with the IPCC/CRU and do their bidding over the past 10 years… and now that the CRU email exposure is out there for all the world to see, the media almost on mass has just decided to deep-six the whole darn thing and hope it goes away. Why? They are totally invested in the whole thing being true because they wanted it to be true. Remember the lesson from Watergate…. it wasn’t the original crime – it was the cover up. In this case, it would seem that people are hoping that the ‘cover-uppers’, aiders and abetters (i.e. the media) are going to be the one that expose this story to the masses. They are in essence, the other-shoe-dropping of this scandal…… hence it really is CLIMEDIAGATE. This term describes it perfectly! Think about it…. what do you get when you have intimate relations between one (or possibly both) partners with an STD? You get something that thought sounds like climediagate…. and something that is a disease that smells like a town in Denmark.

  117. There’s new reason for tourists to pose in front of Tom’s Diner (above which James Hansen works).

    The ‘Fire James Hansen’ group on Facebook still has only 444 users though.

  118. Aww, damnit. Bing doesn’t have a spell checker….. I wish they’d put a spell checker on it it… It’s the only feature I ever used on google’s.

  119. Kathyryn….The internet is all that stands between us and totalitarianism.

    Bingo… you have exactly defined where we are at. I have no idea what country you are located in but it doesn’t mater, your statement is true no matter where you are.

  120. Google autosuggest is weird. For me (Italy) with google.com will give climategate with the first “c”, then only with “clim”.
    If you see the list split in two, the first part is about your past searches that Google remember. Here I have 10.7 M hits for climategate,
    Testing google.co.uk I see the same if my language is italian, but if I set the language to english the autosuggest don’t give any climategate suggestion.
    I set japanese as language (with co.uk) and they gave me climategate, climate-gate, “clima frode” (this is italian for “climate fraud”)

    Interesting enough, “clima frode” is the first suggestion Bing gave me.

    The data set is limited and the fact that we can not account for these result is a travesty!!!!

    Anyone from Germany, Holland, Finland, Uzbekistan would like to tell their results?

  121. Steve Schapel (17:52:10) :

    There’s that, and I’d be equally interested in the emails between the CRU, NCDC and NASA in the week following ‘Climategate’.

    As confidently stated by Prof Jones, I’m quite sure all the data to be ‘offered’ will be quite ‘in order’.

  122. Roger Sowell (15:58:46) :

    bing yielded 50,800,000 results on climategate, and 13,600,000 on global warming. Google found only about 10,600,000 for climategate. What’s Up With That? Why is google not finding 40 million sites?

    What makes you believe that Microsoft’s search engines have found 50 million new web pages that reference climategate and disbelieve Google’s claim?

    I told Bing to start at reference 10,000, and it popped up page 96 with the message 951-952 of 952 results.

    Try http://www.bing.com/search?q=climategate&first=10000&FORM=PERE3

    Trying the same with Google with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=20&q=climategate&start=10000&sa=N I get “Sorry, Google does not serve more than 1000 results for any query. (You asked for results starting from 10000.)”

    Starting at 980 with http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&num=20&q=climategate&start=980&sa=N I get “Results 701 – 718 of about 10,900,000 for climategate.”

    Folks, I am really disappointed in the quality of research in this thread. You don’t believe a thing that Hansen, Mann, etc say but you believe claims from search engines without making any attempt whatsoever to verify them? Worse, people are taking the responses and going way out on a limb to determine what the search engines are doing and armed with such flimsy conclusions are going off to battle.

    Notes:

    I’m proud to call myself a skeptic and accept the responsibility that comes with the title.

    Common sense applies – it takes weeks for Google’s web crawlers to indes the web, how it it possibly have found 10 miilion references in a few days?

    Read up on what Google does for searching the web – they use a bunch of PCs hooked together in odd ways. They are are not a monolithic central server that handles all search requests. I haven’t checked in on that in a decade or so, but I haven’t heard of major redesign.

    Just because there is a reference to climategate, it doesn’t mean that it’s any good. There’s still something to be said for quality over quantity.

    Chuck the giddiness. Check the data.

  123. youtube.com is currently having this problem as well. It does not come up in the drop-down suggestion box.

  124. Autosuggest works for me again. Earlier today it did not work.

    It does sound like 50M odd pages is unlikely. Hell, even 10M pages sounds unlikely.

  125. Jim Treacher (18:08:53) :

    Too bad they fixed Googlebombing. It would be fun to link Wikipedia’s Global Warming page to the searchwords “miserable failure.”

    Actually a good Google washing might still be doable. although harder than in the past. Matt Cutts and his crew at Google have tighten up a lot of the mack truck sized holes in way pages get ranked.

    In a Google wash the goal is force a competing page out of the serps by rearranging the order the results get presented in. It is done in a similar way to a Google bomb only instead of using the keywords in links from a number of other pages on the web. You duplicate the content that Google sees on a target page produce links to the duplicate page and let Google see the multiple pages. Done, with the correct links to the duplicated page Google has been known to toss both it and the original page into the bit bucket.

  126. Google’s Blogger has had my site http://obamboozled.blogspot.com/ shut down for three days now due to it having been flagged as a “machine generated spam site”.

    A previous site I ran was once flagged as such and Blogger simply placed a CAPTCHA barrier to new posts which it removed within hours.

    I also have personal experience with having google search result referrals fall by 90% on a single day and then staying permanently at that level, while another site I have that contains less content and draws less traffic continues with normal referrals (the only difference being the political nature of the content).

  127. Still not on google.co.uk – but I think it is coincidence it kicked in on google.com now, probably a routines weekly update to the engine ;-|

    Hmmmm. The Telegraph has another new article:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100018243/the-bbc-and-climategate-was-a-reporter-put-under-pressure-to-ignore-the-story/

    “The BBC and Climategate: was a reporter put under pressure to ignore the story?” Makes me wonder if the Print version of The Sunday Telegraph will have quite a big spread in a few hours. We’ll see.

    The above was actually cited from a new Mail Article published late last night http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html

    “The BBC has become tangled in the row over the alleged manipulation of scientific data on global warming.

    One of its reporters has revealed he was sent some of the leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia more than a month ago – but did nothing about them”

  128. Worse, people are taking the responses and going way out on a limb to determine what the search engines are doing and armed with such flimsy conclusions are going off to battle.

    Well said.

  129. Regarding Update 2 about the auto-suggest being “fixed” to include “climategate”.

    Well it’s still broke in Australia.

  130. this whole google thing is silly. If they are blocking results there is a story, if people think they are trying suppress information by taking an autocomplete word out, no story. The world doesn’t get its info from chance encounters on google autocomplete web edition.

    The count thing is silly too. That is not a count of web pages that mention the search word, and ‘global warming’ would be two words in any case.

    I think this shows the leak information is pretty much fully digested at least — everyone is still is ‘scour’ mode and having a hard time dialing it back down : ).

  131. Vern:
    “Kathyryn….The internet is all that stands between us and totalitarianism.

    Bingo… you have exactly defined where we are at. I have no idea what country you are located in but it doesn’t mater, your statement is true no matter where you are.”
    ———–
    My greatest fear is that we need to add “… at present” to that statement. When are we going to need to find another route?

  132. Google’s secret algorithm has been leaked!

    ;
    ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for search terms!!
    ;
    if searchterm=’climategate’ display=false

  133. Richard McGough,

    Thank you for pointing to the information about Google’s censorship policy. I was not aware of that.

  134. I think Bulldust is going into hiding >.>

    Actually the funny thing is, it is a nickname from the Hash House Harriers. A few hundred people know me in real life by that name rather than my mundane (birth certificate) name.

    Bulldust is the guy in this pic:

    http://www.angelfire.com/mi/birdman/bh3.html

    Yes, we had just jogged through a blizzard… I am strangely immune to cold weather – should put me in good stead when the next ice age rolls in >.>

    The picture is suitably blurry so that I may continue to be hidden from the warmistas.

  135. The hacked emails of climategate are not necessary to show that global warming has stopped and human caused global warming never was.

    The Argo float data shows that global warming stopped abruptly in about 2004 (graph on pp4 of http://www.oceanobs09.net/plenary/files/Wijffels_HeatContentTemperature_2Aa_vfinal.pdf )

    The research presented in the October 14 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true provides a model that accurately calculates all average global temperatures since 1895 with no consideration whatsoever of changes to the level of CO2 or any other ghg. All unknowns in the model can be determined just using data prior to about 1975. The model then accurately predicts average global temperatures since then.

  136. I’ve been watching this Google issue for awhile and provided my thoughts in an earlier WUWT post. Google was playing games with the issue at first, but has begun to allow the natural sequence of events to occur…

    My hope is that this is a beta example of how the whole Climategate scenario will play out – at first the MSM and AGW comrades in arms will play every outer barrier “card” available to them, but eventually the barrier will begin to fall and come under siege.

    Contrary to how the left (sorry AJ) would perceive the development of this story, the worldwide population that has been beaten over the head with this “green” movement and AGW is sick and tired of the “holier than thou” attitude put forth by such advocates.

    People have had enough and this is Global Warming’s Y2K moment – the party is over.

  137. Google at 10,700,000 search hits now, but for some reason I had to type out the entire word “climate gate”. However when I typed climate it’s second suggestion was this current blog, which I think is awsome. Keep up the good things you guys are doing, ie telling the truth and reporting without bias.

  138. There is now one Climategate web site up and running. I did a search in Bing, and one of the entries was http://www.climate-gate.org/

    Appears to be a search engine of the “released” files, and other related videos. Sites with the title “climategate” (.com and .org) appear to be advertising sites that hope to sell their domain names.

  139. Sorry if repost: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece

    Climate change data dumped

    SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

    It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

    The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

    The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

    see link for rest

  140. “mkurbo (19:05:28) :

    People have had enough and this is Global Warming’s Y2K moment – the party is over.”

    No, I disagree. The Y2K “bug” scaremongering and propaganda leading up to Y2K itself was very effective. I work in the IT industry in New Zealand at the time and I tried to assure people that nothing, catastrophic anyway, would happen. There was more risk from being punched by Winston Peters on a Friday night than from any “problem” resulting from coputer failure. Still many fell for the hype, stocked up on water canned foods etc. Banks went into overdrive with Y2K complaince testing, some projects costing AU$200mil, resulting in nothing. Still, Y2K came and passed without incident. Then the claims of success started. There was no Y2K problem because of the investment and work leading up to the event, which was poppycock.

    The AGW party is just getting started because an event cannot be predicted, therefore will never arrive, but the AGW gravy train will continue unabated to combat climate change (LOL).

    I wonder when we’ll get to see an asteriod tax, or a death-star tax?

  141. Kathyryn….The internet is all that stands between us and totalitarianism.

    Bingo… you have exactly defined where we are at. I have no idea what country you are located in but it doesn’t mater, your statement is true no matter where you are.”
    ———–
    My greatest fear is that we need to add “… at present” to that statement. When are we going to need to find another route?
    ______

    Hmmm… I agree, the encroaching nature of totalitarianism is such that the current liberating state of the internet is just a ‘loophole’ to these thugs that is screaming to be closed. In answer to your question…. well, in the regime of Mao the guvmint would daily post newspapers of the ‘official story’ on bulletin boards throughout neighbourhoods. By the next morning, the papers would have ‘reinterpretations’ penned all along the margins, between the stories and anywhere else there was available space. Gives a precise visual of ‘reading between the lines’.

    On one of my other posts here, I suggested that the only way the truth will ever get out there is for each of us (who understand this story) to commit to explaining it is as well and giving it as far flung exposure as we personally can go with it. I am personally working on this with everyone in my family, the circle of friends, neighbours, business associates and so on. The media is hopeless when an issue like climediagate is upon us…. because they are in on the fix.

    If anything is to be learned from this saga, it is the realization as to how close totalitarianism is to being upon us.

  142. Oooooopppppsssss!

    Google DOESN’T work the way you’ve been thinking, folks!

    When you search Google for ClimateGate, the internal search processor breaks the single word up into two words. It’s smart, like that. After all, you might have inadvertently left out the space between “climate” and “gate”.

    So Google goes off to find how many pages have the word “climate” and also separately how many pages have the word “gate” and how many pages have the two words near each other. So you get results in millions.

    That’s why when you want to search for the particular word, you should enclose it in quotes:

    “ClimateGate”

    That tells Google to find it as a single search string of characters and not ALSO as two separate words. You get results in tens of thousands.

    I’ve been a news hound for over ten years, and never found Google definitively manipulating searches. I search routinely on very sensitive topics.

    Google News has given prominent daily placement to the ‘ClimateGate’ story in the Sci-Tech news section of their News homepage.

    Google is still my friend. Our friend.

    People are using it right now to find….. us!

    Thus climate truth.

  143. Shame that is a .org Climategate web site – I guess I won’t be collecting phat royalties :( I may need the cash for the reconstructive facial surgery before i go into hiding :D

  144. OK, at some point, the Had Crew will be required to produce the original data, when this comes to court. And it will.

    Their only defense is that the dog ate the data; otherwise the Had Crew have erased the original data. This is the only possible explanation if they do not produce it. Forget the-mails, secondary; look at the S/W code: a disgrace.

    But, also, bear in mind one more point. When one is accused of fraud, or cheating, or lying, in the UK you can always resort to slander and libel laws. The fact that these lying, fraudulent crimatologists haven’t done this is an admittal of their guilt. They are welcome to sue me if they wish,

    Burn in hell, crimatalogists.

  145. Hey, there was even an almost-unbiased article about Climategate in the leftist Montreal Gazette today.

    But meanwhile, it’s business-as-usual for enviro lobby groups and eco-journalists who continue to pressure governments to reach a deal at Copenhagen.

    Even the French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Queen Elizabeth have gone overboard about global warming at the current Commonwealth Summit:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091127/wl_afp/commonwealthsummitunclimate

  146. Google : Tiger Woods accident

    23,700,000 for tiger woods accident. (0.08 seconds)

    Google : ClimateGate

    10,600,000 for climategate. (0.11 seconds)

  147. Climate Gate is YOUR fight from http://www.repubx.com/

    by DefendUSx November 27, 2009 12:54

    Most Americans don’t even know about the carbon tax, and many of them, even if they’re skeptical that man is behind global warming, are unaware that if there ever was global warming, it ended at least 10 years ago and the Earth has been cooling for several years, driven by a startling lack of solar activity. They must be made aware, and they must have a fire lit under the backsides, to understand that they cannot sit around unaware and uncaring of current events. The carbon tax is a pretext to global government, which is a pretext to depopulation – genocide. This is no longer about being “into politics”. It’s survival. Push for an aggressive congressional investigation. Write to your local newspaper. Call in to talk radio. Motivate others to do the same. The media will not drive this story. In fact they will do everything in their power to suppress it. Despite their deteriorating credibility, they still wield incredible influence over the masses – in this case simply by refusing to inform the public of a scandal related to an issue that affects us all. This is our fight. Squad up.

  148. By 1980 I had reached a point in my career as an ME where I could finally afford a “nice” car, so I bought a new Chrysler Cordoba “with fine Corinthian Leather.” It turned out to be the worst car I’ve ever owned. Things broke on that car that I didn’t believe could break. As a result I have not purchased another Chrysler since. I’ve since owned Fords, Lexus and MB’s (I currently drive a BMW 5).

    I’ve used Webcrawler, AltaVista, Mooter, Yahoo, Google, and Bing and some other bizarre search engines. They’re tools … just tools. Some worked for a while and then they broke. Google was great and now it may … or may not … be broke.

    Don’t depend on one form of transportation. If the injector nozzles fall into the intake manifold, Chrysler wasn’t doing it to get you … stop driving it and use the BMW!

  149. Google : brad jennifer back together

    11,100,000 for brad jennifer back together. (0.26 seconds)

    Google : ClimateGate

    10,600,000 for climategate. (0.11 seconds)

  150. I posted a query on Google Help about the lack of the ClimateGate autosuggest, and got this response from someone:

    幻 has posted an answer to the question “Is google censoring ClimateGate?”:

    Yes, as a matter of fact they are. I used to get a suggestion for “Climategate” in the past, when I typed climate, but now it’s gone. I’ve searched the internet, and it appears some others have noticed as well.

    Here is one such result:

    http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1314

    I’m about ready to switch to Bing as well. The internet’s biggest search engine is trying to push and protect their own agenda. Pathetic…

    (Dunno about the link … could be OK.

  151. I posted a comment in the Australian Weather Forum where the Head of the National Climate Centre, BoM in Australia often posts… My comment questioned his belief system… the next day my post was deleted and the thread locked..

    Heres the link – http://planetweather.forumotion.net/climatology-f4/integrity-a-reminder-of-a-near-extinct-human-quality-t163.htm#10392

    Censorship is alive and well.. So I thought i’d post my comments here with the detaisl on what happened…

    [i][b]Integrity:[/b]

    Main Entry: in•teg•ri•ty
    Pronunciation: \in-ˈte-grə-tē\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
    Date: 14th century
    1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : incorruptibility
    2 : an unimpaired condition : soundness
    3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : completeness
    synonyms see: honesty[/i]
    Some of you may ask, what ahs this to do with the climate? A fair question indeed. Well, too often do people consider themselves to be a person of character, or integrity, but sadly, actions speak louder than words. And I decided to use this example, which I will do into detail below, as a demonstration of what is now common place amongst those that “believe” in the AGW theory. I use quote marks because, whilst I am not a scientist, I used to think that science was about seeking out the truth through debate, research and fallibility. The word ‘belief’ is defined as:

    [i]Main Entry: be•lief
    Pronunciation: \bə-ˈlēf\
    Function: noun
    Etymology: Middle English beleave, probably alteration of Old English gelēafa, from ge-, associative prefix + lēafa; akin to Old English lȳfan — more at believe
    Date: 12th century
    1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
    2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
    3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

    synonyms belief, [b]faith[/b], credence, credit mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer . faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof . credence suggests intellectual assent without implying anything about grounds for assent . credit may imply assent on grounds other than direct proof .
    synonyms see in addition opinion

    If faced with evidence that challenges our belief, yet we still continue to hold our view regardless, we then start to hold a faith, not a belief.[/i]

    Yesterday, I posted a comment questioning the AGW theory in this forum. I particularly questioned the professionalism and the integrity of David Jones – The Head of the National Climate Centre at the BOM. A government job, his salary paid by my taxes. It is within reason to expect that we, as the tax payer, have a right to question such a person.

    It was not abusive, there was o personal attack – except direct questions regarding the specific comments David made. I even said that he had a right, as we all do, to his view.

    Thankfully I kept a copy of my post, as it was (unsurprisingly) deleted with the following statement from David Jones:

    [b]This forum is for those who enjoy the weather. Many of us moved here because we tired of arguing with “skeptics” who have no interest in the weather, but rather use forums to promote political views. I’ve locked this topic.[/b]

    and…

    This from the forum owner, Karl Jijnders (excerpts):

    [b]I am in no way affiliated with the BoM or any other organization, I am speak for no one but me. But seeing as I have put this place together with a group of enthusiasts to discuss weather and yes climate without the verbal bashings and lashings from the underground right and left parties.[/b]

    And this from the same post:

    [b]I personally will not tolerate things on this forum being taken out of context for personal gain, people made to stand trial over and over again for they’re occupation, and will not tolerate any form of abuse. Go elsewhere to behave that way.[/b]

    So it is quite clear from your actions that whilst you like ‘discussion’, you will only allow your discussion on the basis that all agree with you.

    And therein lies the problem. David Jones locks the thread that I posted so that no one could comment further. Karl makes a statement about personal gain, abuse, standing trail… Well – where in my post, did I commit such atrocities?

    I thought the standing trail bit was priceless! He is in a public position after all. One wonders whether their stance on this would be more welcome in a country with somewhat less liberties?

    So in the name of free speech I am cross posting this comment to the following blogs:

    Andrew Bolt – currently rated in the top 100 largest blogs in the world.
    Joanne Nova
    Watts Up With That

    I may decide to publish in the national press blogs too.

    Luckily for free speech, another blogger has already posted about my deleted comment in Andrew’s blog – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_betrayal_of_science_and_of_you/

    So I thought it important to post my original comment which this forum deleted, in Andrews comments section… that can be found here under the name.. David of St Kilda. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/tips_for_sunday_november_29/desc/#commentsmore

    And, here’s my original post:

    [i]David, I’d like to comment on a post you’ve made on this site that bothers me in a few ways especially given you are the current Head of the National Climate Centre over at the BOM.

    I have huge respect for the BOM in general. I am a pilot and a yachty and rely on accurate short range forcasts provided by your organisation. Most of the time you’re bang on! No one expects perfection, the future, is the future after all.

    Having said that, in your post you say that you cannot comment on Andrew Bolt’s work for professional reasons… then in the next sentence you say his work is rubbish? How is that not commenting? And, on what basis do you call it rubbish? Is it that you don’t agree with him? or do you have contradicting data?

    I’m confused, because this is an issue of great interest to me, so I check up on his work and to date, have not found any errors.

    You mention that the climate will decide for itself whether the science is right – a refreshing comment! But isn’t 15 years of no warming, and 7 years of cooling a reasonable start? Some might say, perhaps you too, that the past 10 years has been the hottest on record – that may be true, our records started 100 years ago (approx), so i’m not sure what that point is meant to prove except for a trivial tool to persuade the stupid..

    You comment that this November was the hottest on record.. OK? Was it? So what? What record are you referring to? Empirical or Proxy records? Last week I was looking at BOM temperature records from 1890 for Australia broken down by state, and with all of them, the mean temperatures where horizontal. No increase, no decrease. How is that possible if this November was the all time warmest? How also, when other parts of the world and indeed, here in Australia we have had unusual cold spells which get described as isolated weather events, yet the warm days are evidence of climate change?

    I remember when, in the late 70’s, warm days were weather events and cold days were further proof of global cooling..!?

    So we can refer to some IPCC graphs that indicate we are the hottest century on record, yet those graphs produced by the IPCC are now falling over like domino’s – as soon as you look at the raw data, all of a sudden the crisis disappears! How could that be? I suppose the data hasn’t been ‘adjusted’ – I’ll give you that, but adjustments are based on theories, not facts. So the corrected data differs depending on who adjusts the numbers.. surely that isn’t a finite way to conduct business, especially if nations are moving to change their way of life and economies over the results?

    Now, apparently the satellites are telling us the November temps were high.. But only if Spencer doesn’t adjust the numbers? For goodness sake. Raw data, is raw data. If two scientists cannot replicate a theory with the same data, then in my book its rubbish.

    With all that said.. aren’t you stating the obvious telling is the climate changes? Whether November was hottest on record or not is not important, what are you trying to prove? We know the climate changes.. And nowhere has Andrew Bolt said otherwise. I thought showing correlation to prove causation was forgotten about? I mean haven’t we moved on?

    I watched a guy fall over board in today’s yacht race, I was on a different boat, but perhaps I should feel responsible simple because i was crewing on a different boat.. on the same race?

    And, what of the more recent research that seems to totally debunk the theory (Linzden 2009 to name one), the emails, the released code (with comments included)?

    In a field that has yet to find a direct link to Emissions and Temperature, yet seems to have plenty of evidence proving there is no link, you would think that it’s specialists would be more balanced and open minded? A good friend of mine is a Micro Biologist.. I couldn’t imagine her saying “Perhaps a special bacteria message from the medical gods to Andrew” coming out of her mouth – if she disagree;s with a colleague or anyone for that matter, she discusses.. asks questions.. probes.Yest in this field, those that believe want to silence those that don’t…

    In private enterprise, if you were a head of a department, you’d be expected to be balanced, fair and open minded.. It seems the Government has far less expectations from their Heads.

    You have a very one eyed opinion, which you have a right to have! I suspect that no matter what new evidence comes to light, you will still believe in the AGW as you always have, your faith and your income rely on it. Is that a healthy attitude to have as Head of the National Climate Centre? With people like you, M.Mann, P.Jones, Rudd, Biffa, Gore, Obama and Flannery (shaking head) preaching the evils of man.. what hope do we have in finding the truth? You know.. the truth? That handy little thing that goes a long way to helping us find the real answers to the climate, so we can best deal with it and adapt.. Waging a war on Co2 (NOT CARBON) will not save the plight of the northward march of the south Siberian pine ant, to name one ridiculous (invented) claim. I wonder if instead we focused on real pollution, what difference would that make to our planet? I know there”s not much money in that though.

    Its like declaring war on Tasmania for human rights abuse in China.

    We should expect better.[/i]

    I didn’t post for political reasons. I posted because David Jones, a man that holds a senior position in government made a baseless statement about Andrew Bolt – who is known for allowing all views to be posted on his blog and whats more, does not make the science, reports what other scientists are doing, but are mostly experiencing the same treatment as me.. censorship.

    So why would we need to censor something? Surely not because it hurts your feelings? That’s school yard stuff.

    But some ideas would be:

    1. Because you want to hide something
    2. Their view opposes a set agenda
    3. To hide your incompetence

    Well, there’d be more I’m sure.

    [b]So I ask – What are your frightened of?[/b]

    Integrity today is a rare quality indeed.

    Yours,

    David Hewison.

  152. Don’t worry about ClimateGate, Yahoo News has this at the top of their news if you search for Climategate:

    “Climategate aside, the world’s best scientists agree manmade global warming is for real.”

    If you click thru it goes to something called “The Week”…no article (but a hotlink to get 4 free issues).

    Those Yahoo guys and gals must be really putting some OT in trying to hunt thru the entire Internet to get the lamest response possible….what a job!

  153. The Google CEO’s are outer members of the CFR. Basically the global banking cartel. The ones looking to cash in on AGW regulations. Is it any wonder they censor searches? Especially being based out of the West coast in Kalifornia.

  154. Note this is not a Hitler video.
    I was only reflecting on how Goebbels, the pioneer of mass propaganda, would have controlled the internet. Well I guess for a start we would have Goble and not Google and he certainly would have had to change his techniques.

    Goebbels once said that the most primitive arguments are the most effective and he did not seem to worry too much about the intellectual minority. To-day I feel he may have had to rethink that but I am sure he would have had a ball with literally the world at his feet.

    One of the methods I have noticed is repackaging the message in different guises on different websites. The other day I was looking for some outdoor blinds and after googling, I kept being directed to no less than 20 websites all being controlled by the one parent company.

    The main method I feel however that Goebbels would have used is information saturation and you can see this vividly by the AGW lobby for example in all the things that global warming is supposed to cause.

    I am sure that there are dozens of other techniques that can be used by any side of an argument including the minorities. And I often see on this forum the statement “Thank God for the internet.” True, but don’t think it is always going to be fair. Politicians and the MSM are quickly learning that cyberspace is where all the battles for hearts and minds are going to be fought. I trust that WUWT has a battle plan to keep up with the art of cyber war.

  155. i started using Bing a few weeks ago, and i find it more useful than google in many ways… and i won’t say anything else ;]

  156. Warming is but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

  157. In the long run, it won’t matter because the politicians and greenies already have the momentum they need. The climate lies were just their booster rocket to get their tax and control scam off the ground. They may not need it anymore, as I posted on another thread (Obama says going to go ahead with Copenhagen anyway).

    Now here’s another one who sees that.

    http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2009/11/26/11929676-sun.html

    The only way we can stop the political madness is if there are enough principled politicians to say “NO!” Some more like these guys would be good.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

  158. Over two hundred responses… and no one checked the DATA!

    “climategate” in quotes (forget what Google or Bing claim for results)

    Bing reports 971-972 of 972 results if you actually find the last hit on the last page Bing will provide.

    Google reports Results 961 – 990 on the last hit on the last page Google will provide.

  159. OT: Monckton on Alex Jones Tv, 5 part interview, full hour on ClimateGate. Great stuff, naturally.

    Link to episode 1:

  160. Does Googly have a deal with the Obama Regime similar to the one Googly has with the Chinese Regime – a censorship agreement?

    My Googles are fogged – what should I do!

    Why go to bing when it’s owned by Steve Balmer – the guy that said “Using Linux is un-American!”

    Use an unaffiliated meta search service (49,000,000) climategate listings!

    http://startpage.com/

  161. Jeremy (13:43:58) :

    OT, sorry to threadjack…
    HAHA… Russian Scientist (defending AGW scientists from climategate emails) claims on live TV that Malaria has never occurred in Russia.

    Yeah, I watched that too and just laughed at that Russian guy.

    According to Professor Reiter on malaria in the “Little Ice Age” (as was posted on CA):

    In fact, the most catastrophic epidemic on record anywhere in the world occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1920s, with a peak incidence of 13 million cases per year, and 600,000 deaths. Transmission was high in many parts of Siberia, and there were 30,000 cases and 10,000 deaths due to falciparum infection (the most deadly malaria parasite) in Archangel, close to the Arctic circle.

    Perhaps someone in Russia should educate that guy eh?

  162. We still do not know who released this hacked data, and why? I know the “why” may seem obvious. But everything (almost) happens for a reason.

    Keep an objective mind and do not pass judgement until all the facts are known.

    Mind control is a terrible thing, especially among the masses.

  163. So on the one hand you have alarmists calling this an “incredibly dumb nontroversy” (as one blogger has put it), but on the other it seems to really be gaining traction – even with media sources who normally would have their fingers stuck in their ears.

    Maybe this really is a “Baghdad Bob” moment…

    [For anybody who might not have heard of him, or who has simply forgotten, that was a nickname used in the US for Saddam Hussien's spokesman during the Iraq War. This guy would have a press conference every day, telling how great the war was going for Iraq - sometimes even with shelling audible in the background, and with American tanks rolling through town just a few blocks away from him! Then, one day, he and the rest of the Iraqi govt suddenly stopped showing up for work, never to return. There's still a web site in "honor" of this guy: http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/ The last quote of his on that page is "We are winning!" Sound familiar?]

  164. Having been glued to my computer during most of my free time for the last week I’ve been quite aware of various Google machinations in regard to this issue. While there may be some problems with the Google algorithms with regard to how high search terms are placed in autosuggest (an exceedingly annoying feature for me), it does seem suspicious that “climategate” was present for a few days then suddenly disappeared. Also, the number of results on Google varies widely; at the time of this posting it is 11,400,000 but I saw numbers as low as 140,000 earlier today. Bing, OTOH, has “climategate” come up in the autosuggest every time and the number of results on Bing has been steadily increasing and stands at 50,800,000 a few seconds before I tried the same search on Google. This is certainly curious behavior.

    What I find the most damning about Google is what they’ve done to the M4GW “Hide the decline” clip. Despite the large number of viewings, some 260,000 the last time I looked, it does not appear in the most viewed videos list. Not only that, but if one looks at every other parameter that the top rated videos are rated on there is no sign of “hide the decline”. In the category of numbers of comments, the top rated clip had fewer comments than the M4GW clip! Google now owns YouTube and this is blatant censorship at its worst. After seeing this I immediately ditched Google as my primary search engine and switched to Bing. I also detest M$ but as long as Bing doesn’t appear to be deliberately censoring anything that doesn’t fit the warmist agenda, I’ll continue to use it. It would be interesting to see what would happen to Googles stand on this issue if they had a sudden decrease in traffic with a corresponding increase for Bing as millions of people boycotted them. I do a few hundred search engine lookups/day and if the heaviest internet users switched en-masse we could make a difference.

  165. Odd cycle this is – there was a day (back when the net was text) when 9 out of the top 10 Google hits for “Bulldust” pointed to pages I had coded in HTML 1.0 on Notepad(R) talking about the HHH (see above).

    Back to the Monckton audio :)

  166. CLIMATEGATE IS NOT IN MY GOOGLE AUTOSUGGEST LIST.

    You say they have added it back in, but I don’t see it this side.

    Is it because it’s localised: google.co.za

    What the?

  167. Google’s airheads are all about not “doing evil,” as if they had any conception of what the term means. Obviously auto suggesting “climategate” counts as evil in their shriveled moral compasses. Can’t do anything to aid us knuckledraggers in finding out the truth…

  168. TrevorG (18:49:56) :

    Regarding Update 2 about the auto-suggest being “fixed” to include “climategate”.

    Well it’s still broke in Australia.

    It still does not work for me either (U.S.) regardless if I type in:
    climateg or climate g

    It must have been a temporary change, that has since been “fixed”

    Larry

  169. The data was fudged (corrected – hee hee) – and obviously so – to cover up the fact the climate had trended cooler for the last 10 years – and not so unsurprisingly left off Al Gore’s hockey stick climate horse hockey.

    When a statistician encodes periodic attenuation averages with volatilities beyond orders of magnitude of 100 something is very wrong . If you look at those emails and study the code (a simple English scripting language used by non-software engineer statisticians) the ‘fudge’ is obvious to the point of ridiculous – a “C” high school algebra (oops – did I just say something Islamic) could spot the flaw.

    Those guys are low iodine corn ball politicians and that’s why everything is mucking up. A few years ago the inventor of Netscape wrote an article for Wired magazine in which he describes the “crappy guy syndrome”, whereby a manager will higher someone less credentialed or less skilled than he to assure his job security – ie – a political appointment rather than a “whats best for the future of the enterprise” appointment.

    Look at all that’s going on. Baxter, instead of manufacturing H1N1 vaccine in the Ukraine, is, instead, manufacturing Pneumonic Plague , bottling it and calling it vaccine. When all those Ukrainians got sick – the booga booga climate-o-fear created was supposed to sell a bunch of vaccine. It bacfired – the game was spotted – so now it’s alll hush hush and on the QT. A guy in LA a couple of weeks back, a Professor Joseph Moshe, called a talk radio show and said as much. Within ten minutes FBI/HLS SWAT was microwaving him – tasing him -gassing him (in rush hour LA traffic) and then either deported him or put him in a sanitarium (google it). I ask – how many talk show call in Wackos get that kind of attention from the FBI.

    There is no coincidence – only the allusion of it. All events are staged to create markets for public financing – false flag terror for the globaloney war on terror and correlation science for the globalony warming scam are but two slices in a great big fat ripoff pie!

    Hope for change – look at my thumb – gee your dumb!

  170. THIS IS A CALL TO ACTION
    We have been given a powerful tool in the form of GlimateGate.
    It now has a name and has the potential to get a life of its own.
    So if the mains stream media is not going to report on this then let us use the social Facebook and emails to spread the news.
    Send the following two YouTube videos to two people that you know and ask them to send it onto at least 2 others.

    And

    If you have a Facebook page post the two links.

    Will

  171. I don’t know, but I found this on the first page of my Google search, along with numerous others who are no friends of the AGW scam.

    http://www.verumserum.com/?p=10451

    Of Google is hiding anything, they don’t seem to be doing a great job of it, unless I’m missing something.

  172. Yep it’s still broken here in Oz, just as we are about to have a government vote re our own ETS (Cap and Trade Scheme) this week. Makes you wonder doen’t it.

  173. OK, I see now. If you don’t know to SPECIFICALLY search for the term “Climategate” they aren’t going to suggest it And, yes, that is a form of concealment.

    e.g., even if I type in “Climategat,” leaving off only the final “e,” all they suggest is “Climate Guatamala” and “Climate Guatamala City.”

    But, if you know to type in “Climategate,” you get “Results 1 – 10 of about 11,200,000 for climategate. (0.07 seconds) “

    Here’s an analysis by some people who have spent some time at it.

    http://minx.cc/?blog=86&post=295215

    NOTE-I tried typing “clim” and didn’t get “climategate” as they claimed was the case earlier. Maybe Google “fixed” that bug?

    Yes. I agree. Google is sleazy, all right.

  174. JMANON,
    Try googling Chris de Freitas and you should get quite a lot of material. Chris is an Associate Professor at the University of Auckland. In NZ, Associate Professor is a fairly senior position; most staff (faculty) don’t make it that far. The position is determined by a thorough process that is heavily weighted towards academic excellence. The University of Auckland is a leading institution and is well placed in the top 100 in the world, according to the Times, so there can be little doubt about Chris’s academic credentials.
    From what I have seen in the emails, Salinger demeans himself and I am disappointed in him.

  175. Google is obviously manipulating the search for climategate as much as they can, but their efforts pale beside those of the mainstream media. I’ve just watched the CTV national news here in Canada with no mention at all of climategate, but lots about the preparation and hopes for Copenhagen. There was a new item tonight, though. It seems that “scientists” have discovered that global warming is now forcing the polar bears to eat their cute little cubs. What will they think of next to distract people from the real story?

    Have a laugh at the warmists – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnkCa5-Zc8Q

  176. I’m living in Sweden, half an hour from Copenhagen by train.
    I google the word Global warming and get 10100000 hits.
    When I try Climategate I only get 788000 hits, hmmmm!
    Then I try Climate gate, now I get 5900000 hits, but way under what you get in U.S.A.
    Can anyone explain why there is such a different?

  177. Coogle USa may be Autosuggesting Climategate, but Google.co.uk still doesn’t autosuggest ‘Climategate’.

    It seems that Google UK is still supporting the ‘warmers’.

  178. at 10.31 UK time on the 27th November 2009 from google:

    Climate Gate 10,700,000 hits
    global warming 10,500,000 hits

  179. Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia….

    If there is a phrase that the lamestream has adopted that wants to make me hurl it’s this one (at least the lamestream that does stoop to report on this mess). ‘Leading’? Leading at what? Oh I see…. leading fraudsters! Silly me, I guess it should have been obvious that this is what they meant. By the way Bob, CTV is the worst at reporting on anything as far as pushing an agenda…there is simply not a single broadcast which doesn’t reek of something… and quite often it is some insidious reference designed to promote an anti-American position, ‘hate Bush’, suck up to Maobama, make the Liberals look good no matter how dire things are for them, promote the cause of the homosexuals … and so on. They are utterly hopeless.

  180. It is not suggested in the US as of this posting. Bing it is. Up to now, there has never been a realistic alternative to google, but this is Orwellian.

  181. After I type in all of these letters: “CLIMATE GATE” it suggests “climate gates” something different.

    when i type “climateg” all the way to “climategate” IT SUGGESTS NOTHING!

  182. BTW the results on google for “climategate” have GONE DOWN to 6,690,000. IT USED TO GIVE >12,000,000.

    When a story breaks the reuslts normally INCREASE for at least hte first month. But in under a weak the numbers have decreased by over half.

    I wish them edia covered things. It disgusts me.

  183. OMG “climate gate” (two words) gives even less.

    RUNDOWN:

    “climategate” and “climate gate” both gave over 12 million results at first.

    NOW:

    “climategate” : 6,690,000
    “climate gate”: 6,180,000

    TO SHOW THAT THIS IS ABSURD AND DIRECT CENSORSHIP

    “climate wall” yields: 32,600,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!

    WHAT WHAT??? Google you bastards.

    jodabomb13@Yahoo.com

  184. Also more proof of tampering “climate gate” is yielding less than “cliamtegate”. climate gate should always yield more as it SHOULD result in all sites with the word “climategate” (thaks to google’s algorithm) BUT also any websites taht have the words “climate” and “gate” in them.

    THIS IS DISGUSTING

  185. “Invariant (15:12:55) :

    Quick question: is this paper worth reading? Well, I have a PH.D. in Physics, so I can see that the equations look good, but I am worried that it is not in agremmenet with experiments, and it is also quite long, please advice.

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

    (I wish Dr. Svalgaard was still around here at WUWT, he would point out why the paper is no good right away)

    It’s neither a quick nor easy answer. That paper was discussed at length on either the CA bbs or UKweatherworld site about a year or two ago. I don’t recall anyone ever coming up with anything absolutely in gross error with it yet it seems to be wrong somewhere. Perhaps it is as simple as physics being done by mathematicians – which isn’t even quite as bad as math being done by a physicist. I glossed over it in about 3 hours and didn’t scratch the surface of what might be controversial or even where much of the debate concentrated on. Ultimately, I never got the sense that it was an unequivocal falsification and that it was worth investing enough time to go through point by point although others had done so and some of them seemed to think it had some valid points.

    If you are new to the arena, it might be worth going through at a light to intermediate level. Light being casual reading, intermediate being a tutorial. Before tackling a full analysis, I’d suggest reading the threads from various blogs concerning the Gerlich paper and what others found.

    Note this post is all my opinion and most of the details are muddled a bit from the time frame and also mixed in with another paper of that time by a Milscezki (sp) who showed or tried to show that atmospheric extinction or temperatures remained very constant with gw concentrations.

    good luck in your quest.

  186. Fintan Dunne (19:37:47) :

    Google DOESN’T work the way you’ve been thinking, folks!

    That’s why when you want to search for the particular word, you should enclose it in quotes:

    “ClimateGate”

    That tells Google to find it as a single search string of characters and not ALSO as two separate words. You get results in tens of thousands.

    Come on guys, no one has tried this and posted the results?
    From Google:

    climategate: 12,100,000
    “climategate”: 768,000
    “climate gate”: 93,200
    hide the decline: 3,610,000 (Searches for pages with those three words anywhere)
    “hide the decline”: 3,690,000 (I can’t explain that one!)

    I’ll leave the bing.com searches to Bing fans.

    I haven’t bothered to try to find the last page of any of these. Oh what the heck, for “climategate”, using http://www.google.com/search?start=900&hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&num=20&q=%22climategate%22&sa=N gives: Results 741 – 758 of about 850,000 for “climategate”.

    So:

    “climategate”: 758

  187. At 12.57pm google UK

    Results 1 – 10 of about 12,400,000 for climategate. (0.13 seconds)
    Results 1 – 10 of about 10,200,000 for global warming (0.12 seconds)

  188. Interesting what is coming to light here.

    Though only a few hours ago MartynB did a Googlefight here, where Climate Change beat Climategate; now Lubos (and myself) see Climategate emerging as winner.

    Yesterday Google declined to prompt me “Climategate” then late last night it conceded the prompt but today the prompt is missing again.

    Bing shows me, consistently, 1.6 million. No more.

    I understand U-tube won’t prompt Climategate or Hide the Decline (?)

    Rick Werme warns us to check our info – sensibly. A few puzzles don’t make a conspiracy and neither is it good to think the worst. But it is a reminder of the potential danger of monopolies. And a reminder to me, that I was concerned there was some kind of suppression of climate skeptics material at Amazon Books a few months ago – but not now – and it could have been a series of coincidences then.

  189. Instead of BING, why not try startpage. It is one of the few (maybe the only) search engine that does NOT record your searches.

  190. I found that Google placed an ad on this site for http://www.edspledge.com.
    I clicked on it and discover it is Ed Milliband wanting to forge a deal at Copenhagen.

    Cheeky blighter.
    He has a “Poll” where he invites you to state your priorities.
    He has options of:
    i) The Prime Minister attending Copenhagen to help deliver a deal….
    ii) Doing more to provide home insulation in the UK
    iii) More government support to create Green Jobs.

    I did look but didn’t find “none of the above”.
    Nor and option of :”Tell Gordon to stay home”, “Take away Gordon’s magic pen, the one he uses to sign blank cheques for trillions of pounds for desperate causes or that he uses to sign unacceptable treaties taking away democracy from the people.”
    Nor even, “Do nothing, we don’t believe in AGW nor that we can or should do anything about it and we want and end to these stupid wind farms.”

    It seems that Climategate hasn’t happened in the airy stratosphere of politics or that it is irrelevant. That has always been the problem of course, AGW was the primer for a whole raft of useless political shenanigans that once started is self-sustaining like one of those reactions you need to provide with heat to get them going but once started rapidly go exothermic.
    So once started, this is a process that no longer requires AGW to be true. Of course, it helps that we now talk about Abrupt Climate Change (I’m sorry, I’ve forgotten what term John Holdren wanted to use, it was even more emotive still but evidently eminently forgettable.) and not about Man’s causing it or even if it is going up or down.
    Strange, we started with AGW and then moved to Climate change so we could adopt any weather condition as a symptom of climate change (and among the things being blamed on climate change is an increase in prostitution in the Philippines) but we still have policy which is exclusively concerned with combating warming. Be very sad if we actually succeed in cooling the planet only to find it was actually cooling anyway and pass one of those magical tipping points and enter runaway global cooling. Be that as it may, we will get a world government with its own fiscal control over everyone and its own policy making independent of democratic processes and its own enforcement and once they have that they have the whole ball of string.

  191. Squidly,

    “Perhaps someone in Russia should educate that guy eh?”

    Come on Squidly, didn’t you know he is employed by WWF?

  192. Vern,

    “Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia….

    If there is a phrase that the lamestream has adopted that wants to make me hurl it’s this one (at least the lamestream that does stoop to report on this mess).”

    Well, I would say, that drawing attention to their prominence is a bad move on their part, because othewise people would take less notice. For example, when I sent an email link to a friend about this, he didn’t know who Hadley are and recognised only the UEA bit. Not surprisingly, his reaction was “so what? This just sounds like some obscure group of academics – what relevance do they have on climate science?”

    Unbelievable reaction? But that’s what 99% of the population would think: who are these guys and what’s the big deal. But now, the damage controllers come along, and what do they do? They tell everyone that these are prominent scientists, global scientists of the highest order. Now people sit up and take notice: What, you mean these are the guys have been telling us that we’re overheating the planet? You mean it’s those guys?

  193. Email Ed Milliband (http://www.edmilibandmp.com/) at milibande@parliament.uk and tell him what you think!!!!

    e.g.


    Dear Ed,

    Are you aware of the breaking ClimateGate scandal?

    Don’t you think we need to postpone signing any treaties at Copenhagen until we have investigated fully whether or not the true science actually suggests that Anthropogenic Global Warming is occurring and is caused by CO2 emissions?

    Please be aware that despite what you may think, there is not a scientific consensus on Climate Change, there is only an unscientific nodding-dog consensus amongst scientists. By this I mean to say that it appears that there are many scientists who have read the conclusions of a small group of other scientists, who peer review each others work without external scrutiny, and have taken what they say as fact without reproducing the results (and how could they since the data upon which the results are based are kept secret despite multiple Freedom of Information Act requests?). This is the source of the so-called “scientific consensus”, but as you will be aware, science is not a democracy! Science is the study of facts, of empirical evidence.

    The scientific method *requires*, this bit is not optional despite any excuses of proprietary data being involved in a study, the reproduction of results by other independent scientists. This has not been done in the so-called field of Climate “Science” and it is therefore not a field of science at this time and we ought not base policy on its results until all of the data and methods have been released into the public domain and independent scientists have successfully reproduced the results and reached similar conclusions.

    Please push for a full and public inquiry into the ClimateGate affair.

    Kind Regards,
    Ph.D.

  194. Joe (04:50:27) :

    > HERE IS PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF OF GOOGLE’S TAMPERING:

    > http://i48.tinypic.com/2qjhms6.jpg

    DON’T SHOUT, WE CAN HEAR YOU!

    How is this proof?

    Tampering, at least to me, implies willful changing of data by a human.

    Consider this a peer review, please address these questions/observations/requests:

    Google’s systems are distributed. You seem to be assuming a search you do will exactly match a search someone else does at the same time yet you provide nothing to support that.

    Google has become quite sensitive to “Googlebombing” as described in other posts. Is it possible that the sudden increase in the appearance of the new term climategate and apparent interest in searching for it has triggered defensive software at Google?

    Google is also very sensitive to people trying to boost the page rank of their website. In my experience, Google changes their ranking algorithms frequently, does not document them outside of generic details. By now I believe they are fairly complex, but I don’t know the details. I think you need stronger evidence of tampering before I would recommend publication of your results.

    It is well known that the hit estimates offered by Google is far from reality. My assumption has been that they are trying to reduce load on the search computers. I have documented that in previous posts. Why are ignoring my evidence and prior research to blind accept hit counts as anything significant?

    I show above that Google may only have found 758 pages referring to “climategate”. Is this enough to warrant including that their autosuggest software?

    What do you know about how the autosuggest algorithm and heuristics work? Please include references to research papers, white papers, and other resources on the that provide a starting point to support whether or not climategate should be included.

    What do you believe Google’s interest is in tampering? What evidence do you have to support that?

  195. Well, we had that ‘black google’ crap which clearly shows google is bought and paid for. I’m deleting google from my computer and using another search engine now. Incidentally, no climategate coming up when I start typing it in.

  196. What is even more weird is that currently Google only offers ClimateGate when you enter cli, however Bing offers ClimateGate, clip art, climate change and many others starting with cli.

    Surely, no algorithm is doing that. Well, expect one that has a hit list, and override list, you know what I mean.

  197. As of this morning, the climategate autosearch is missing from Google, once again. This conspiracy runs deep and wide, these are very dangerous games they are playing, and we are watching.

  198. Patrick Davis (19:30:12) :

    Patrick, I understand your point. I was commenting on the thinking that in January of 2000 most rational thinking people looked back at Y2K “bug” with a different perspective (as “poppycock” – your term).

    I think that the same will occur here with Climategate. Six months from now the perspective on AGW will be fundamentally different than it was before this event occurred.

    Does that mean the AGW crowd will go away ? ..or will the left leaning MSM suddenly do stories on the polar bear population growing ? ..or the IPCC issue a revised position ?

    Doubt it. There are still those who believe Y2K was legitimate. Ut the playing field is in the process of changing…

  199. Richard Sharpe (08:34:01) wrote:

    What is even more weird is that currently Google only offers ClimateGate when you enter cli, however Bing offers ClimateGate, clip art, climate change and many others starting with cli.

    Surely, no algorithm is doing that. Well, expect one that has a hit list, and override list, you know what I mean.

    OK, on further checking, they are only offering up things I have searched for before and selecting from among those. So the climategate autosuggest feature is actually off and they have not hardwired the result to climategate.

  200. mkurbo,

    “There are still those who believe Y2K was legitimate.”

    Y2K was legitimate. I made a nice living for a few years correcting for this. To put the problem in perspective, many legacy applications allowed only a 2 digit year, so that you get problems doing date comparisons. Is 001031 (October 10 2000) greater or earlier than 991031 (October 10 1999)? Any computer program would have said earlier than 1999 and this would cause all sorts of incorrect logic pathways to be activated in the code.

    There were 2 methods for fixing: 1) doing a data conversion to use the 4 digit year, or 2) more commonly apply date windowing. In the second case I would have added code so that if the year was say > 30, then century 19 would be assumed, else century 20. Obviously, the cutoff you chose had to relate to the meaning of the date.

    Eventually, the Y2K problem did not manifest itself in the way hyped by the media because it was vastly over hyped and it was fixed anyway. Yep, we sure did a good job on that old Y2K bug.

  201. As of nov 29 1:00pm EST Google is showing me about 10,600,000 hits for climategate
    about 34,200,000 hits for global warming

    Looks like a lot more on gw than were being reported yesterday

    Using quotes has almost no effect on gw numbers, but cuts cg numbers by about a factor of 10

    Adding quotes to global wa

  202. This is disgusting. There is no legitimate reason for climategate to have been left of of Google’s auto-suggest. I have just switched all of my browsers’ home pages from Google to Bing.

  203. Finally!! Global Warming and all of their zombie followers are being shown for who they are…Frauds and Socialists! We are bombarded every hour of every day on all of the things that are going to kill us and what a holes we all are. Even my wife who si dumber than a post hole digger knows it is all B.S.

    Of course Google is on it!

    You dont need the government to force you to recycle or to stop making cows fart including my wife.

    Anyways I hope any of the blind followers and their wacko leaders enjoy reading the climate gate e-mails.

    Long live the sun!!

  204. Google receievd criticism of their censoring climate skepticism. Suddenly there is a big story about Michelle Obama and a controversial picture. Google claim they are such supporters of Freedom of Speech that they won’t delete from their web searches. All hail google.
    The story ‘broke’ just after climategate and their censoring even though the picture had been around for A LONG time beforehand.
    It was a created story to make Google look good and help cover up ‘climategate’.
    Fight the power.

    REPLY: seems like a reach to me, more likely coincidence -A

  205. Those lovely folks at Twitter — you know, the people who are going to “replace the traditional search engine” with their “up-to-the-minute Tweets of all the latest news” — have barely heard of it. I haven’t seen it in the “trend” list at all over the past few days (although to be fair, I spend almost no time on Twitter and had to keep reminding myself to check), but such important topics as “New Moon,” “omgfacts,” and “Chelsea” are doing fine, thank you very much.

    That’s not to say, of course, that nobody is Tweeting about it. A search turns up a respectable number of comments; but for a community that bills itself as cutting-edge for global communications, it’s pretty lame.

  206. Y2K was ILLEGITIMATE.

    The claims were CONTINUOUSLY made that DISASTER WOULD STRIKE.

    A bunch of ARCHAIC (now mostly replaced) financial mainframes in COBOL had a potential Y2K problem.

    Yeah, thanks scare mongers, I got some EXTRA $$$ too, “fixing” a trivial problem.

    But I still mention it at “confession” (old fashioned Catholic).

  207. Last comment for the DAY..

    Search Global Warming (15,000,000 hits), Climategate (49,000,000 hits, and
    Climate Change (50,000,000) hits, on BING.

    I think BING gets the BINGO on this!

  208. Check this update to the Censorship by Google wiki page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

    Google also censors its search suggestions in the United States. “Dirty” search suggestions end in an apostrophe, period, or hyphen. Suggestions containing the words “teen” or “teenager” are forbidden. “Child abuse” is notoriously blocked as well, but not “abused children”. Suggestions for “physical neglect” and “emotional neglect” are used as code words for “physical abuse” and “emotional abuse”. All queries containing “hate” are censored as well. For example, instead of “Why did Hitler hate Jews?”, a suggested query is “Why did Hitler hated Jews?”. More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change, i.e. “Climategate” is forbidden, but “climate change” is ok. Also both “climategate” and “climate gate” search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both. “climate gate” should always yield more than “climategate” as teh Google search algorithm should find all sites containing “climategate” and sites containing both “climate” and “gate”, but “climate gate” yields less results than “climategate”. This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of tampering since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm.

    We should start a betting pool to see how long this information is allowed to stay on that page. I bet it will be removed within 12 hours.

  209. Comparison between Google and Bing on three key terms. Search carried out within the last ten minutes:

    climategate (single word; needs no quotation marks),

    “global warming” (phrase; needs quotation marks)

    “global cooling” (phrase; needs quotation marks)
    ************************

    Google searches engine:

    Climategate 13,200,000

    “global warming” 9,730,000

    “global cooling” 603,000
    *****************

    Bing searches in the last few minutes:

    climategate 50,100,000

    “global warming” 13,300,000

    “global cooling” 48,100,000
    ***************

    Conclusion: Google is probably a better search engine than Bing. No need to get upset. Facts and figures speak for themselves.

  210. Now entering “clim” on google turns up “climategate” as the first suggestion, right above “climate change”

    Maybe it just takes a while?

  211. yonason (12:07:03) :

    Now entering “clim” on google turns up “climategate” as the first suggestion, right above “climate change”

    Maybe it just takes a while?

    It first appeared in their autocomplete suggestion list about a week ago when the hits got up to about 20,000 if I recall correctly. It was in the list until three days ago when they censored it. Then the news broke all over the web (many thanks to Anthony!) and they put it back in for a while yesterday. Then they removed it again but now it is back in for me, though I have received reports from other countries that it is still mission.

  212. “A bunch of ARCHAIC (now mostly replaced) financial mainframes in COBOL had a potential Y2K problem.”

    Really, I’m glad you are an expert on the mainframes having been replaced at financial institutions.

    Further the problems with date handling started to show up in the 1970’s at financial institutions. In the United States every bank was required to certify their software could handle the century change prior to the event happening.

    How would I have a clue, you ask, well I have the sweatshirt, t shirt, and even a millennium countdown clock because I cleaned up several very large systems and there would have been hell to pay if they hadn’t been attended to. The financial institution wasn’t small either. Likely you have done business with it.

  213. cba (04:23:08) :Thanks a lot for the advice! Yes, I think it is smart to read a little about critical remarks of the papers first too. Seems to me that this is typically the kind of physics which is somehow easy to absorb for me, but then there is always the danger that it may be too easy reading if you know what I mean, implying that in reality things are not that elegant.

    Cheers,

    Invariant

  214. Results 1 – 100 of about 118,000,000 for Climategate.
    ——————————————–
    The problem is that MSM is still completely ignoring this MAJOR event.

  215. ” Peter (12:53:11) :

    ——————————————–
    The problem is that MSM is still completely ignoring this MAJOR event.”

    Apparently in Europe, as well, according to some bloggers from there whom I’ve asked what their outlets are disseminating.

  216. Climategate still fails to auto fill in http://Yahoo.com

    Yet another reason to change my home page to http://bing.com

    I am sick of the Yahoo editorializing their content. They will run a headline if a polarbear farts on a melting ice pack, but refuse to run any Climategate headlines.

    I am done with Yahoo.

  217. For me in Australia, climategate is not in google autocomplete, it instead suggestes climate guatamala, which has 4,140,000 results compared to climategate’s 13,100,000. That’s just not right. I also wonder why it isn’t a trending topic on Twitter…

  218. I’ve been watching the Twitter topics, and climategate hasn’t even cropped up. Some football player is way up there, as is a topic called #isitme. I did a Twitter search on “#isitme” and within 30 seconds of getting the results there was a message saying that 30 more Tweets on that subject had been posted. I did a Twitter search on “climategate” and within three minutes only six more Tweets were posted.

    So much for Twitter being the go-to place for the latest breaking news.

  219. sHx (12:02:08) :

    Comparison between Google and Bing on three key terms. Search carried out within the last ten minutes:

    climategate (single word; needs no quotation marks),

    “global warming” (phrase; needs quotation marks)

    “global cooling” (phrase; needs quotation marks)
    ************************

    Please read the rest of this thread, especially:

    Quotes around a single word (especially a compound word) impact the search numbers:

    “climategate” -> 874,000

    climategate -> 13,400,000

    And also read my repeated desk thumping about those numbers grossly inflated. Don’t believe me? Give me the URL for the 1,234,567th match. Can’t be done.

    Fie!

  220. if you go to nocapandtrade.com there is a list of companies to boycott.

    Google is on the list.

    It is a list of multinationals who intend to make money at the expense of their nation’s sovereignty.

  221. Kathryn U (19:01:18) :

    There are quite a few posts calling them on their deceit. Your comment is probably there, just on page 2 or 3.

    Heck, if they delete all the negative comments, they won’t have many left.

  222. OK now this is getting a bit spooky… do a Google of Bulldust and Climategate, and this thing seems to be getting out of control :D What am I? The chick chick boom girl (ummm boy) of climate change now?

    I think I will have to wear my Bulldust shirt on casual dress Friday…

  223. Still no auto-suggest for climategate, climategat, etc. here in Indonesia google.co.id (13,4 million hits though if you insist on searching for the “non-existing” word).

    It suggests Climate Guatemala instead, with 4,1 million hits.

  224. Here’s my quote for you:

    “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of Google functionality at the moment and it’s a travesty that we can’t.”

    –Ahrvid Engholm

  225. This is stupid, I don’t think the people the who did this should even have jobs. And how they got away with it just floors me :/

  226. Yesterday, I quoted the wiki page about Censorship by Google which mentioned the censorship of “climategate.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google

    Then I said we should start a betting pool to see how long this information is allowed to stay on that page, and I bet it would be removed within 12 hours.

    Well, now it is GONE.

    Wikipedia has CENSORED the info about Google CENSORING climategate.

    Not a big surprise.

  227. This is a good one.

    I’m a librarian with access to newspaper databases. I only found this one single article in all the newspapers in my huge database. But it is a Newswire release. And look at the courageous author.

    ***”Polar Bear is Out of the Bag’ on Global Warming with Hacked Emails From Climatologists Says Matt Harrison of the Prometheus Institute” by
    ******Anonymous. *****PR Newswire. New York: Nov 30, 2009.

    Abstract (Summary)
    (Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, from email October 2009) “There’s plenty more but the point is that we’re about to turn our nation’s economy and world’s economy upside down based upon faulty and questionable science with the cap-and-trade bill now before Congress and measures to be debated in Copenhagen next week,” says Harrison.

    Full Text (388 words)

    Copyright PR Newswire Association LLC Nov 30, 2009

    LOS ANGELES, Nov. 30 /PRNewswire/ — Someone hacked into the climate research unit at East Anglia University in England and divulged emails between scientists about their doubts about climate change. “They ‘let the polar bear out of the bag’ on their questionable tactics used in gathering and analyzing the data,” says Matt Harrison, author of The American Evolution and founder of the Prometheus Institute a public policy think tank. http://www.ThePrometheusInstitute.org

    “While the global warming science was already cloaked in uncertainty, the current controversy only further undermines the authority of the scientific ‘consensus’ that dominates the debate. While that hacking and distribution worldwide is illegal, this information is out there now being discussed and cannot be ignored,” adds Harrison.

    Here’s a sample:

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” (Phillip Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia in Norwich, from email November 1999)

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” (Kevin Trenberth, Head of the Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, from email October 2009)

    “There’s plenty more but the point is that we’re about to turn our nation’s economy and world’s economy upside down based upon faulty and questionable science with the cap-and-trade bill now before Congress and measures to be debated in Copenhagen next week,” says Harrison. “Furthermore, the bill is a foreboding thousand-page monster and is inscrutably complex. It calls for government to determine the total cost of pollution annually, spread that cost evenly amongst all business and industry in the form of credits or allowances, and those who pollute more will buy (trade) credits from firms that pollute less and don’t need their full allowance.”

    Harrison contends that the bill not only fails to solve climate change, but “it’s a thinly-disguised tax on young Americans who’ll spend the rest their lives struggling under oppressive taxes thrust upon them by unscrupulously opportunistic scientists and their unthinking supporters.

    “Yes, ‘the polar bear is out of the bag’ on global warming and Americans need to stop this bill from endangering the world’s greatest economy.”

    SOURCE Matt Harrison

    Credit: Matt Harrison

  228. The auto suggest feature still doesn’t work on the google.co.uk site. But then why would we in the UK be concerned with pesky scandals ?

  229. Bizarrely, when I type my own name, Ralph Tittley, the auto suggest kicks in when I get to the ‘i’ – I only merit 170,000 possible pages, ‘climategate’ has over 12.2 million.

    Go figure.

  230. #1 WHEN I LAST CHECKED WAS

    “FOLLOW THE MONEY”

    The author concludes with, “This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.”

  231. I don’t know where Carlo is getting his #’s. My search gave Results 1 – 10 of about 12,500,000 for climategate. (0.25 seconds)

    Also, “climategate” is once again among the selections. Go figure.

  232. Rajan (18:24:25) :

    Wow, it’s double!
    Results 1 – 10 of about 26,400,000 for climate-gate. (0.24 seconds)

    Also, “climategate” is now being auto-suggested, as is “climate depot,” which yields
    Results 1 – 10 of about 5,520,000 for climate depot. (0.19 seconds)

    Thanks, Rajan

  233. Google as a search engine, in my opinion, has been sub-par. About two weeks ago I stumbled upon what I believe is the best search engine since the Internet met Google: http://duckduckgo.com

    Sure, at first you’ll notice the oddly unique and kind of goofy name. But I’ve been using it all week and from day one the first page results have been pretty darn accurate for what I’m searching for. You’ll see. :-)

  234. I told google that I was using Bing now because ClimateGate was not in their auto suggestions but was in Bings for just “cli”. But now Bing has removed ClimateGate from their auto suggestions. I guess I’m going to Yahoo.

  235. I can confirm that Bing is now censoring “climategate” from their autocomplete suggestion list.

    I guess this should not be a big surprise – Microsoft is part of the Establishment that has invested untold billions in the AGW scam. And it has always been a bit behind the curve on things relating to the internet. So I guess they were just asleep at the wheel when the scandal broke. Now they are inline with Google and Al Gore and the MSM.

  236. There are now 132,000,000 hits for “Climategate” on google

    Results 1 – 10 of about 132,000,000 for CLIMATEGATE. (0.36 seconds)

  237. Just searched “bing” as shown above and you don’t get “climategate” at all in the suggested search…
    Who changed that I wonder…….
    Dec. 2, 2009

  238. lol Al Gore on the board of google and now climategate shows up on none of the autocompletes there is a massive cover up here.

  239. I just tried it now on Google (I’m in Toronto, Canada) and for “climategate” it insisted, right to the end, that I really wanted “climate guatemala” or “climate guatemala city.” Splitting the words in two (“climate gate”) it tried palming off “climate gatlinburg tn” or — and this is priceless — “climate gates.”

  240. Google is very inconsistent. This morning they allowed “climate gate scandal” to appear in the autocomplete list on their home page. Now it is gone. But they now allow climategate to appear in the list on their news page. The odd thing is that Bing is following exactly the same policy. They censor climategate from the list on their homepage, but allow it on their news page.

    This is an obvious attempt by our Big Green Brother to suppress the free flow of information. I have a page discussing this:

    http://biblewheel.com/politics/climategate/Censorship_by_Google.asp

  241. Climategate is a news story not a website. Search on Google news for climategate and it still is at the top of the autosuggest list. Debunkers hear this. Pollution is bad, OK. I don’t agree with the carbon tax but a few questionable emails does not mean there is no trouble in River City. We all still need to unhook from the sources of pollution. Don’t be smug, be smart.

  242. Al Cidmore (14:42:27)

    Thanks for the clarification, Al. I didn’t know that Google separated things like that. I guess “Climate Gates” is a website, since it’s one of the suggestions Google gives when typing “climate gate.” Admittedly, I can’t find a website by that name, however I would never question your information since you’re obviously right and can prove it by saying that you’re obviously right.

    Going by your reasoning, let’s see what other “web sites” we can find.

    Apparently “frankel d. us surgeon general forced to resign” is also a website, since that’s the first suggestion when you type “fr.” Likewise, “tiger woods fart” is also a website, since that’s one of the suggestions which appear when you type “tig.”

    On the other hand, when I typed “climateg” a moment ago, Google suggested “climategate” (finally) — so perhaps it’s now become a website as well as a news story.

    Given the quality of your information on the workings of Google, I’d be interested to know if you happen to run a website on Global Warming. Or perhaps I can find it in Google by typing “ninc”?

  243. ABSOLUTE UNDENIABLE PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF:

    MORE PROOF (needs proof reading):

    ABSOLUTE PROOF. These are posts I put on another website

    [below is regarding an article discussing the lack of "climategate"
    and "climate gate" in auto suggest despite the fact that both terms
    were searched for more than "climate change" in the past week]
    29 11 2009
    Joe (04:03:54) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    After I type in all of these letters: “CLIMATE GATE” it suggests
    “climate gates” something different.

    when i type “climateg” all the way to “climategate” IT SUGGESTS
    NOTHING!
    29 11 2009
    Joe (04:08:20) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    BTW the results on google for “climategate” have GONE DOWN to
    6,690,000. IT USED TO GIVE >12,000,000.

    When a story breaks the reuslts normally INCREASE for at least hte
    first month. But in under a weak the numbers have decreased by over
    half.

    I wish them edia covered things. It disgusts me.
    29 11 2009
    Joe (04:11:53) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    OMG “climate gate” (two words) gives even less.

    RUNDOWN:

    “climategate” and “climate gate” both gave over 12 million results at
    first.

    NOW:

    “climategate” : 6,690,000
    “climate gate”: 6,180,000

    TO SHOW THAT THIS IS ABSURD AND DIRECT CENSORSHIP

    “climate wall” yields: 32,600,000 !!!!!!!!!!!!

    WHAT WHAT??? Google you bastards.

    29 11 2009
    Joe (04:14:36) : Your comment is awaiting moderation

    Also more proof of tampering “climate gate” is yielding less than
    “cliamtegate”. climate gate should always yield more as it SHOULD
    result in all sites with the word “climategate” (thaks to google’s
    algorithm) BUT also any websites taht have the words “climate” and
    “gate” in them.

    THIS IS DISGUSTING

    Reply: I got about 80 million for just “wall” and about 23 million for just “gate” so that might have something to do with it. ~ ctm

  244. Criminals – the lot of them.
    They want control over you and your money.
    They will not stop their agenda and will try
    to distract you from the the facts by marching
    on to the tunes of: “Stolen emails”, “Hacked server”, and “Out of context”.
    Folks… either 2 plus 2 equals 4 or it doesn’t.
    To state otherwise – is pure stupidity.
    These people’s actions – to any reasonable man (who knows basic math) – are corrupt and malicious of intent.
    Each and every conspirator should pay.

  245. Google has shown utter contempt for it’s users through censorship. Bing seems to have better results. Is there any search engine that we can use that does not censor the news.? Cuil works but is not good enough at aggregating news.

    So where can we get uncensored news aggregated?

  246. I see there is a website now on the domain name climategate.com that went up last week, When you search in Bing for climategate the site shows up in the results, but not in Google. If you key in climategate.com it will show up, but not if you just key in the keyword. And it’s a real site. Shouldn’t that site come up? Or will it take a little time to move up the index? I thought having the actual domain name of the search term — given it’s a real site — would help.

    Interesting thread, btw.

  247. This is sick.
    i own climategatefacts.com and i was number 1 for almost 1 week. and now i cant even come up for the term “climategatefacts” “climategate facts” .

    i have run seo test on the html and it comes out perfect.
    i have putt online 100s of websites with key domain names, and this is very strange.

  248. As of Wed. Dec. 9 Google (Australia) has NOT added the word “climategate” to autosuggest. Our new Liberal leader should look into this.

  249. If you are using IE8, go to Tools > Internet Options > Search, click on Bing and set it to default. You may also want to remove Google.

    I am done with google as a search engine, and I will be migrating my email as soon as possible away from GMail.

    Google’s new motto: “Don’t not be evil”.

  250. google jumped the gun and rested it’s ladder on a topic that is just not true. If you really look into it, the contrary evidence is overwhelming. It was a mistake and they won’t admit it. They have too much invested. They should be ashamed. Pick a real topic to get behind like world hunger or something useful.

  251. Fixed!
    Google.com and Google.co.uk are suddenly now autosuggesting for “climategate” and “harry_read_me”.

  252. Just checked number of hits on ‘climategate’ on both Google and Startpage, the result is very interesting. Startpages’ results have predictably increased from around 52 million hits on the 6th of December to 67 million hits today on the 15th of December. No surprise there. However, on the 6th of December, Google returned around 31 million hits but has now decreased to 19 million. A rather peculiar algorithm they are using there. Political tampering? I expect so. I have saved dated screenshots of this search over the past 10 days that I will pass along to Lord Monckton when he has finished his work in Copenhagen.

  253. Here it is the end of 2010.

    Funny thing happened when I was reviewing the Top Ten WUWT year end review. I went to the Climategate link, then thought I’d do a Google and Bing search on the word Climategate (www.google.ca). On the google search only one hit appears in the first five search pages that matches a wattsupwiththat.com link (it’s a Lord Monckton hit), NO “wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/” HITS.

    http://www.bing.com has the “wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/” link as the third choice on the first page of a climategate search. Me thinks we are still being web censored by Google.

  254. Interesting, but there are more hits on Google than Bing: 956,000 to 595,000.

    Even more interesting is the fact that in the previous comment by Chris (Dec. 26, 2009) there were 5,420,000 hits on Google for “climategate.” A year later we’re less than a fifth of that.

Comments are closed.