I noticed with my morning coffee that Tom Nelson had a Google Trends graph that piqued my interest, so I decided to expand upon it a bit before getting back to work. After looking at my results, the title of this post could just as easily be “off the radar”. Have a look:
Source: Google Trends
You can clearly see when An Inconvenient Truth was released, the 2007 IPCC report and subsequent Nobel prize, and when Climategate occurred. That Gore blip in the summer of 2010 was the “Sex Poodle” episode.
Here’s a similar graph with the maximum number of relevant phrases plotted, along with some news items that mark the timeline:
Source: Google Trends
 |
Head of UN panel blasts ‘Climategate’ affair
Ottawa Citizen – Dec 7 2009 |
 |
‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data
Vancouver Sun – Feb 3 2010 |
 |
‘Climategate’ inquiry mostly vindicates scientists
Huffington Post – Jul 7 2010 |
 |
British academics win right to temperature data held by university at center of ‘Climategate’
Washington Post – Jul 1 2011 |
 |
More ‘Climategate’ emails leaked
TheChronicleHerald.ca – Nov 23 2011 |
 |
UK police close ‘Climategate’ investigation
Hindustan Times – Jul 18 2012 |
Here’s one I found amusing. Like an EKG heartbeat (in red), we have the yearly heatwaves in the NH summer garnering more interest. But most interestingly, when the seasonal interest turns to heat waves, global warming takes a dip each time.
Source: Google Trends
This suggests to me that the global searching public isn’t connecting heat waves to “global warming” as some journalists, bloggers, and activists would like you to do.
Messaging FAIL.
When climate becomes just weather…yawn.
But as soon as they find a link they like related to heat wave and click on it, they are likely to go to an article that includes global warming, climate change, etc. many times in the heat wave story. Until journalists stop being fooled, the association will constantly be brought up.
This kind of analysis will miss various aspects of the debate when terms and meaning of terms change, such as global warming, climate change, disruption, etc. Such reframing of terms is probably detrimental to the argument from the side promoting those changes.
OT, sort of. In hot weather I get more hits on my Blizzard of ’78 web page http://wermenh.com/blizz78.html . I’m not sure if it’s interest in any sort of extreme weather peaks in extreme weather, or if interest in cold weather relief is the attraction. Or perhaps people are just hiding inside and reading weather stuff in general.
Bill says~ ‘When journalists stop being fooled’…
——-
Oj, I agree that some of them are fooled. But I (might) bet that Most of them have a pretty good idea what the real story is, and don’t really give a hydro dam.
As to algor, I hate to say it but an entire generation has been raised to be fooled and fools, andit may well be the 2030s before even a large minority of people come to regard his ilk as the *swindlers that they are, let alone get people into power who will DO something to put these *bastards away. In the meantime, things are going to get a lot worse for everyone, thanks to algor and Co.
*Mods, feel free to snip / replace those two words, if you feel that was a bit too much.
We haven’t had a heat wave in Western Washington for 4 years.
“Here’s one I found amusing. Like an EKG heartbeat (in red), we have the yearly heatwaves in the NH summer garnering more interest. But most interestingly, when the seasonal interest turns to heat waves, global warming takes a dip each time.”
Just recently I looked at google trends for “socialism”, “capitalism” etc… I noticed similar drops in summer. Now, there’s no obvious reason why that should be the case. I think that Google does not normalize or seasonally detrend its search volume, and the drop in midsummer simply correlates to people spending less time in front of their computers and more time outdoors.
It looks like the Australian capital is the number one ranked city for climate alarmism based on search volume for “climate change”:
1. Canberra, Australia
2. Adelaide, Australia
3. Sydney, Australia
4. Brisbane, Australia
5. Perth, Australia
6. Manila, Philippines
7. Melbourne, Australia
8. Washington, DC, USA
9. Auckland, New Zealand
10. Edinburgh, United Kingdom
But why? Searching on the term “carbon trading” could shed some light:
1. Canberra, Australia
2. Nairobi, Kenya
3. Sydney, Australia
4. Adelaide, Australia
5. Perth, Australia
6. Brisbane, Australia
7. Melbourne, Australia
8. Mumbai, India
9. New Delhi, India
10. Singapore, Singapore
Huh? Why did the people of Nairobi suddenly become so interested in carbon trading? This could be why:
http://thecitizen.co.tz/magazines/31-business-week/9512-kenya-opens-carbon-exchange-for-africans-to-earn-dividends.html
Hmmm, interesting. So which cities are the most interested in the search term “carbon credits”?
1. Mahape, India
2. Mumbai, India
3. Auckland, New Zealand
4. Johannesburg, South Africa
5. New Delhi, India
6. Chennai, India
7. Sydney, Australia
8. Brisbane, Australia
9. Vancouver, Canada
10. Melbourne, Australia
Okay. So why are Indians so interested in carbon credits? Oh yeah…
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110927/full/477517a.html
I think we’ve gone far enough down the climate change rabbit hole… for now.
“This suggests to me that the global searching public isn’t connecting heat waves to “global warming””.
Well, there will be no “global search public” because there is no global heatwave. It has been raining more or less continously all spring, and all summer, here in Norway, in 2012. On the contrary. And when there are clouds, it is cold. Like right now.
Journalists are all left wing. Why? They like big government. In Canada that is because they are paid by the government (CBC) I am sure the same in the UK, not sure about the US or Australia but the world over, most national papers are left wing.
I noticed that every year from 2004 – 2012 there is an up tick in the “heat wave” graph during the Norhern Hemisphere’s summer. I wonder if I could get a grant to study this anomaly.
The Washington Post link is dead.
Speaking of Gore, I have really been looking hard at both Paul Ehrlich and John Holdren’s 70s and 80s work since I wrote this piece on the Julian Simon/Ehrlich wager: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/learning-to-learn-or-how-to-replace-old-minds-with-sustainable-new-ones/
It explains how Ehrlich and Gore are consistently wrong on the facts but it is their desire for new minds and a new way of thinking and view of science being implemented via US DoED policies, National Research Council edicts, and National Science Foundation. Holdren is certainly making the most of his post as Science Czar.
As part of the research into that post I read Stuart Hart’s Capitalism at the Crossroads which turned out not to pass my smell test of accurate facts for its view of an economy rebuilt around sustainability.
Guess who wrote the Preface for the June 2010 Third Edition? Gore. He says he and his partners at “Generation Investment Management believe that sustainability will be a key driver of global economic change over the next 50 years.”
So he’s really confessing to wanting 50 years of the certain revenue from a politically directed and managed economy. The ultimate confession that this sustainability nonsense is really Crony Capitalism and a desire to make most of us malleable and subservient and incapable of genuine innovation that would upset all this planned Corporatism.
Your graph is incomplete the correct version can be found here:
http://tinypic.com/r/zjjcdv/6
Bill said:
July 22, 2012 at 8:45 am
Until journalists stop being fooled, the association will constantly be brought up.
———————————————–
They are not being fooled, they are complicit.
From the “Sex Poodle” link:
Suspecting that the stains were Gore bodily fluids, the woman made sure not to clean them.
———————————————-
“Gore bodily fluids” – EEWWWWWWWW!!!
Hear Robin, hear.
=============
Global warming is not cool any more? or is Global warming just cooling?
I realize I’ve been making a little mistake lately, just out of sucumbing to a misplaced sense that that is now the correct terminology, I’ve started to refer to global warming as climate change. That’s a mistake because the warmists are trying to say that it’s not about warming. Well, lets not help them out with that goal. If there’s no warming, their theory is bogus. (Even if there is warming, their theory is still bogus. But that’s another matter.) So lets keep calling it “global warming,” not climate change.
Anthony, Can you not see? Now they can retreat into the shadows because they have won the battle. The hearts and minds have been captured by Gore and his allies. The MSM and all the Official Bodies, such as AAS AGU Royal Soc,,,, are carrying on the battlle for “The Cause”. Pachauri still reigns. Algor can retire in comfort, knowing that he has succeeded.
Although I do not have graphs, for several years I have the impression that (besides sales figures of ice cream) the number of global warming articles in my newspaper is a good proxy for temperature.
Eric Simpson wrote:
“the warmists are trying to say that it’s not about warming … lets keep calling it “global warming,” not climate change.”
Agreed.
The change in language was deliberate and orchestrated.
Words are weapons. David Fenton, chief spin-meister of global warming and much else, claims to have established the use of “progressive” to describe the left. So that if you are against “progressive” policies it makes you look as if you are against progress. This is one of his claims that I actually believe.
I have been using “warmist” in my posts but have begun to reconsider.
If we call them “warmists” then it implies that we believe that there has been no warming. This is how skeptics are portrayed. The issue is not whether the earth has warmed, it has, or whether it will warm more, it very possibly will. The issues are how much will it warm, what effect it will have, how much is man responsible and are any efforts to mitigate warming necessary or cost-effective.
The one thing that is consistent about the “warmist” camp’s use of the terms “global warming” and “climate change” is their prophecy of catastrophe. I think we should call them “catastrophists” same as we use CAGW. It is more accurate and better counters their propaganda word games.
To David Ross,
Very good point. We should not let the left define the language in this existential contest. Another label for them might be “Climate Alarmists”.
@David Ross. I get your point on the downside to using “warmist.” Perhaps alarmist then is a better all-purpose synonym. Here is some synonyms for alarmists. But, of course, depending on the situation, they should be used with discretion and only when appropriate [as “fascists” only when referring to demonstrated fascist inclinations as in the notorious exploding heads video, or use synonyms that imply deception only when it is clear that that is what they are doing (and the Climategate evidence shows that the fear-mongering Chicken Littles do in fact often deliberately lie or be at best disingenuous)], here’s a short “thesaurus style” list (for reference) of synonyms for alarmists:
Well, first a disclaimer: sometimes these “harsh” epithets all together at once seems fulsome, but we use these individually without issue, and remember the Alinsky tactics of “ridicule the opposition” employed by Obama & leftists, and the incredible disrespect that they show to us daily by continuing, despite our objections, to call us Deniers (associated with Holocaust, in case we forget) …
David Ross says:
July 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Eric Simpson wrote:
“the warmists are trying to say that it’s not about warming … lets keep calling it “global warming,” not climate change.”
Agreed.
=======================================================
With “Global Warming” they planted the idea that it’s somehow Man’s fault and we need to give power to men who say they know how to fix it. (I almost made a typo “fox it”. Maybe I should have left it?)
Hansen’s predictions and Mann’s musings were it’s foundation.
People were noticing Hansen’s predictions weren’t happening. McIntyre and others defused Mann’s musings. Those who were gaining authority (Hi, UN!) and money (Hi, Al!) from the scare needed to keep it alive. Hence the multiple changes in terminology.
The changes can be compared to fishing. Any fisherman knows that once you’ve hooked a fish, you raise or lower the rod, reel in or let the drag do its thing; whatever is needed to keep the fish on the hook. When and if CAGW no longer works, in other words, we get off that hook, the ones who lust for power will just switch baits.
(Whatever happened to Al Gore’s ozone hole?)