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”:
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.
Google is probably using it’s “sort by relevance” algorithm, which filters out older stuff.
Try this sort by date 20-29/11/2009 in english and see if the 40,800,000 hits is the same for you as it is for me:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=climategate&hl=en&rlz=1C1_____en-GBGB341GB341&tbo=1&tbs=sbd:1,cdr:1,cd_min:20/11/2009,cd_max:29/11/2009
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.
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
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?
Not working here, neither climategate in google, nor hide the decline in youtube.
Google has learned a lot in China market. Suckers.
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’.
I had read of Bing, but had paid it no attention. It now has a spot right above Google in my favourites.
at 10.31 UK time on the 27th November 2009 from google:
Climate Gate 10,700,000 hits
global warming 10,500,000 hits
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.
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.
YOU SAY THEY ADDED IT? IT DOESN’T COME UP FOR ME AT ALL STILL!
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!
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.
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
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
“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.
Fintan Dunne (19:37:47) :
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
HERE IS PHOTOGRAPHIC PROOF OF GOOGLE’S TAMPERING:
http://i48.tinypic.com/2qjhms6.jpg
[IMG]http://i48.tinypic.com/2qjhms6.jpg[/IMG]
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)
Results 1 – 10 of about 26,300,000 for climate fraud. (0.26 seconds)
Nope, not here in the US as of 8 am EST. Bing autosuggests fine, though.
If anyone is interested…the auto complete is now not working on google.
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.
Instead of BING, why not try startpage. It is one of the few (maybe the only) search engine that does NOT record your searches.
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.