Guest essay by Leo Goldstein
As WUWT readers have probably noticed, using Google or other general search engines to find reliable information on anything related to climate change has become almost impossible. The search results are dominated by alarmist sites and blogs, while dissenting voices are simply drowned out.
The main reason for this imbalance is simple: a huge amount of money is pumped into alarmist research and propaganda by the US and other Western governments. Tens of billions of dollars in research grants, state mandates and loan guarantees to “clean energy” companies, substantial percentage of universities’ budgets, direct government grants to environmental NGOs, and tax deductions for “charitable” donations feed this frenzy. Certain pension funds also explore “noble ways to lose money“ (of their members, not their directors) to benefit the cause. The NASA website became a purveyor of the alarmist stories. Large corporations, including maligned “fossil fuels interests,” are totally under the government’s heel, and not only refuse to support realist research, but actively contribute to the alarmism in various ways. Unprecedentedly, FEMA now wants states to include an “assessment of climate risk” in their five year preparedness plans as a condition for funding.
A large part of this money finds its way to formerly mainstream publications and Internet bloggers, creating a huge interlinked network, many nodes of which are highly ranked by Google and other general search engines. Some of the websites and pages in this network have misleading names or titles, including words and phrases that are expected from the right side of the debate. The skeptical science is an example. Thus, alarmist pages come out on top in almost every climate search.
Google effectively has a web search monopoly. Usually, I do not give much weight to claims that Google Search unfairly discriminates against X or Y. These complaints sound like sour grapes, and Google has too much to lose and too little to gain from such actions. But the case of climate change seems totally different. Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt, talks like a fanatical alarmist. He really believes that the orthodox alarmist position is the scientific truth. In 2014, he said: “… we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people–they’re just, they’re just literally lying” (as quoted by Paul Driessen and Chris Skates) [1].
The Google PageRank of the WUWT homepage is only 3 out of 10. I would expect it to be 6-7, and no less than 5, based on WUWT’s popularity and comparing it to unrelated websites on other subjects. It is hard to say whether Google’s “truthiness” algorithm is already involved, or it will be the proverbial other shoe. In any case, I do not see an explanation for this ridiculously low ranking other than foul play on Google’s behalf. To be fair, the climate-related results from Bing are no better than those from Google.
What can we do about it? The Climate Search page allows you to search WUWT and other good resources, which are currently drowned out in the ocean of formerly mainstream media and alarmist blogs. In fact, I used it extensively to write this article. It should be useful for both novices and experienced participants in the climate dispute.
[1] Note this expression of condemning “people who oppose it [climate change]”. Eric Schmidt is an extremely smart man. But he repeats this ritual formula, and does not notice that it is he, together with Obama and Al Gore, who try to oppose climate change, sea rise, and other natural phenomena.
Google tax perks for foreign earnings and associated quid pro quo on campaign finance are maintained in DC, not Chico.
Google cooks the rankings in many ways, this is how they MAKE MONEY.
For Google it’s not just about advertising twerking of the results. They have put cold hard cash into ‘renewable energy’ businesses. They call us denierrs because they have to defend their investments to the hilt. Do not be surprised. It is all about the money as usual. Yawn, so boring.
@ jimbo
Google Green
Investing in a clean energy future
…..To date, we’ve made agreements to fund over $2 billion in clean energy wind and solar projects. …..
” made agreements”
Didn’t some of their own people say after that date (Feb 26 ) that the whole solar thingy was a pipe dream? And would never cover the investments? Oh right, the taxpayers are covering that little detail.
Whenever anyone says there is a clear and present danger, I pay attention. When the solution to that clear and present danger involves immediately ponying up some money, I disregard it unless it is an armed robbery. I have found this solution to work quite well for me over the years.
To paraphrase Glenn Reynolds – “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when Eric Schmidt acts likes it’s a crisis.”
http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/11/googles-3-top-executives-have-8-private-jets/
Schmidt, just another fascist who wants the government to tell you how to live.
Seen, as through a google darkly.
===============
z#svwkbbz
Indeed kim that’s right, because this defyccc “search engine” is merely a customized Google Search, as any Chrome Browser User will know, just by inspecting the code on that page, with a “right click” and choose “Inspect Element”. The code revealed shows this.
The technique is described here …
https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/element
So then this defyccc still uses Google Spider Database as it’s basis, and so this is no better than simply including a few boolean parameters, such as -nasa -denier, and so on. It’s a bit rich to spend the entire article castigating Google, and then use a Google custom search, and then claim that your “engine” is somehow more pure than Google.
Here is an idea : Use brain before searching to think of the correct question ?
Google is just a word search engine really, and though search results may be “ranked” by some fiddling about for cash, by Google, if you make a search just a little more specific, you will find what you look for near the top of page 1.
So then I add a unique identifier ( or nearly unique? ) at the top of this comment, just to see if searching for that will turn up this webpage and this comment. after the various web search spiders have been weaving about for a few hours or days. It will be interesting to see how that goes. I tried searching for the above identifier just now, and zero results appeared at Google.
so try climate z#svwkbbz, and see what you get ?
This is a good argument for why government should run search engines. Sarc/
I just searched for
on duckduckgo.com. The first thing at the top of the page was a definition of “Climate change denial”.
On the other hand, the first page results actually contained some skeptical links. Google had no such links on its first page.
Given the full court press, I am amazed that the public is as skeptical as it is.
Some of us know that the truth doesn’t come to find you, you must search it out.
“The Truth is Out There”
it just ain’t easy to find.
Thanks, Ari Halperin.
I have noticed the dominance of alarmist results from Google and Bing and other search engines.
I think that it reflects a reality of much more alarmist websites than “naturalist” pages. But also the reticence of factual presenters to link to other factual pages. These webmasters should link more.
I use duck.duck.go.
Sorry. It is duckduckgo.com
Thanks, JimB.
I think DuckDuckGo.com does a better job than Google and Bing.
But still, we need the text links. Counting these is the main work of search engines, then come the adjustments.
DuckDuckGo is my search default.
I find the problem with duckduckgo is that I can’t seem to set timelines in my search parameters.
Google doesn’t really “cook” the rankings, the process is pretty transparent, anyone with deep pockets can buy a good search position. The reality of Google’s own revenue generation process is that a large plurality of search users know that the pages that are returned at the top of the list are biased, and/or blatantly commercial. I’ve seen a lot more depth in the mid rankings in the number of pages that either lean away from the hardcore AGW meme, or are walk-backs. So I really see this as a bad situation that is improving rather than a dire conspiracy that’s too big to overcome.
Has Google revealed to YOU their SECRET algorithm? Do you have evidence for your assertion? Please show me the transparency? Are you sure it’s ‘transparent’???
?
Google Green investments
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/09/exclusive-search-page-for-realist-side-of-the-climate-change-debate-2/#comment-2023953
It’s true. Search Google for “climate change sceptics”.
And the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change, which has won best science blog numerous times, comes out on page three. It should be far higher up the list.
There’s something wrong with Google’s algorithm here.
But instead of just pointing out that Google is broken, why not email them directly and ask what’s happened?
It may be politicisation of Google’s search results by a policy of Google themselves.
Or they may have been hacked or corrupted by a jaded employee.
The first two pages are nearly all sites devoted to debunking skeptics, actually.
Did Google recruit William Connoley from Wikipedia?
Totally off subject but in the last 24 hours
1) Popular Science Fiction, the magazine that used to be a handy go-to reference for all aspiring lab-rats, had a scare article about melting arctic ice and the release of ancient and sinister viruses. I forwarded a copy to a pathologist who works for a major pharma, her response was “horse-s..t.”
2) A conservative group within the College of Cardinals appears to firing a few warning shots across Pope Comrade’s bow. Seems like they’re tired of his attempts to remake the Church in the image of Mao.
You mean St. Mao.
It is no accident that climate skepticism/realism has been strongest in countries still valuing democracy, despite the best efforts of the vast army and vast funding of those arrayed against it.
try ixquick.com
Thanks, Glenn999.
The Ixquick search engine is very good; Total privacy.
Tried getting there from yahoo, Microsoft shut down my computer! How do I get there?
@asybot – I got there from DuckDuckGo.
Thank you, Glenn999, I didn’t know of ixquick. I have it now as my default search engine. Much obliged to you. 🙂
To get some background on Ixquick and it’s commitment to their accessors’ privacy, see HERE (clickable link, if I can get past the “moderation” here).
I’ve made Ixquick my homepage. Consider doing so yourself, and strike a blow against Google.
just doing some comparative searches against duckduckgo and it seems duckduckgo suffers from a similar problem to google. ixquick will be my new home page.
Google searches are refined based on the type of device used, the age of the device, the operating system used and the geographical region. This has been the case for many years. I was introduced to this by someone researching for his PhD in electronic communications. He had numerous cell phones and recorded what search results were for each. Google estimates your income and age, and tracks your previous searches. It delivers in return information it wants you to see, first in order so show you targeted ads and second, to manipulate the public towards certain states of knowledge.
It should be obvious by now that if you search for ‘jihad, bombs, training’ you will be served fake sites (sandboxes) that pretend to be ISIL contact points leading directly to your local FBI office. Google is as compromised as the rest of the internet and software services when it comes to tracking and reporting all your do via forwarding ‘metadata’ and retaining everything you ever do. The ability of software to understand how you think and will probably behave is far beyond all common expectation.
The diminution of the ranking of WUWT (which used to show about 150th on common climate search terms) is real but complicated. If WUWT serves ads that get clicked on, the ranking will rise because above all, money comes first at Google.
I avoid the use of Google as much as possible. I also set my browsers to delete all private data when closed. Unfortunately this causes UK-based sites to keep on showing those damn EU cookie notices on every visit. Talk about stupid legislation; this cookie directive which is supposed to protect your privacy actually makes it more or less mandatory to accept cookies permanently or be nag, nag, nagged. Or, was that the intention all along?
Would be nice to have this in the WUWT Reference Pages.
I searched Dogpile.com for Climate change skeptic and after the adds it was the first result returned.
I just did the same, and WUWT was on page 4; page 1 was almost all alarmist stuff, and every page had about 2/3 ads (top and bottom of every page!) to 1/3 web results. Not a very happy visit, I’m afraid.
So do the results of Googling “Climate Fraud” appear differently depending on who searches?
I get this. What about you?
About 60,000,000 results (0.40 seconds)
Search Results
Global Climate Scam
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
By Jim Acosta, CNN Anchorage, Alaska (CNN)To hear the White House describe Alaska, the state has become the canary in the climate change coal mine, …
IPCC Ignores its Own Findings … – Study Predicts Decades Of … – About – Ice
Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Tracking Climate Fraud. NASA Rewriting US History | Real Science. GISSGlobalTamperingSince2005. 30% Of GISS Warming Is Due To Data Tampering Since …
‘Global warming the greatest scam in history’ claims founder of
http://www.express.co.uk › News › Clarifications and Corrections
Daily Express
Jun 9, 2015 – THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s best known climate …
C3: Climate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, Fakegate
http://www.c3headlines.com/climategate-climate-liars/
Jul 24, 2015 – Climate Fraud: NASA’s Recent Global Warming “Corrections” Equal A … How much has NASA’s GISS climate research unit increased global …
Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam”
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/…climate…/11/…/607827/
Newsmax Media
Nov 17, 2014 – Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam” …. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and …
Climate Change Dispatch – Home
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/
We provide climate change news through sound science, opposing viewpoints, … 52, of Colorado were charged with wire and securities fraud and conspiracy.
In the news
Image for the news result
UN climate change body suffers mammoth European carbon fraud
Fox News – 1 day ago
U.N. climate talks are plodding ahead toward a worldwide deal to fight global warming.
Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years | Real Science
Real Science – WordPress.com – 4 hours ago
More news for climate fraud
Climate Change Fraud | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/ccdispatch
Climate Change Fraud. 1336 likes · 477 talking about this. Debating the theory of climate change/global warming and the overwhelmi
Try this search also….
“google zero tax rates from foreign earnings”
The first few match. I might try from home tonight.
About 60,000,000 results (0.40 seconds)
Search Results
Global Climate Scam
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/
By Jim Acosta, CNN Anchorage, Alaska (CNN)To hear the White House describe Alaska, the state has become the canary in the climate change coal mine, …
IPCC Ignores its Own Findings … – Study Predicts Decades Of … – About – Ice
Tracking Climate Fraud | Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/tracking-us-temperature-fraud/
Tracking Climate Fraud. NASA Rewriting US History | Real Science. GISSGlobalTamperingSince2005. 30% Of GISS Warming Is Due To Data Tampering Since …
‘Global warming the greatest scam in history’ claims founder of
http://www.express.co.uk › News › Clarifications and Corrections
Daily Express
Jun 9, 2015 – THE debate about climate change is finished – because it has been categorically proved NOT to exist, one of the world’s best known climate …
C3: Climate Fraud/Lies, Climategate, Fakegate
http://www.c3headlines.com/climategate-climate-liars/
Jul 24, 2015 – Climate Fraud: NASA’s Recent Global Warming “Corrections” Equal A … How much has NASA’s GISS climate research unit increased global …
Climate Change Dispatch – Home
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/
We provide climate change news through sound science, opposing viewpoints, … 52, of Colorado were charged with wire and securities fraud and conspiracy.
Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam”
http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/…climate…/11/…/607827/
Newsmax Media
Nov 17, 2014 – Scientist Confesses: “Global Warming a $22 Billion Scam” …. He is now one of America’s most successful climate change researchers and …
In the news
Image for the news result
UN climate change body suffers mammoth European carbon fraud
Fox News – 1 day ago
U.N. climate talks are plodding ahead toward a worldwide deal to fight global warming.
Arctic Has Gained Hundreds Of Miles Of Ice The Last Three Years | Real Science
Real Science – WordPress.com – 6 hours ago
More news for Climate Fraud
Climate Change Fraud | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/ccdispatch
Climate Change Fraud. 1336 likes · 477 talking about this. Debating the theory of climate change/global warming and the overwhelming fraud it’s become….
Global warming conspiracy theory – Wikipedia, the free …
https://en.wikipedia.org/…/Global_warming_conspiracy_theor…
Wikipedia
It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to legitimise political … Climate change has also been called the “greatest scam in history” by John …
climate fraud | JunkScience.com
junkscience.com/tag/climate-fraud/
Junk science
Posts about climate fraud written by wy300, Bob Greene, dennisambler, and Editor.
@Steve Oregon
Searching for “Climate Fraud”, I have the same result as you (just item 3 moved lower).
So the claim that Google tracks your location, revenues… to give differents responses is balloney. I found it smells not good at the outset and I now have evidence it stinks.
“Large corporations, including maligned “fossil fuels interests,” are totally under the government’s heel, and not only refuse to support realist research, but actively contribute to the alarmism in various ways.”
Nike, Ikea, Shell, and Starbucks all believe that AGW is occurring. How exactly are they “under the government’s heel”? And they “actively contribute to alarmism” because they believe AGW is real. Here is a list of companies calling for action: http://www.ceres.org/declaration/sign/who-has-signed
It’s not the government’s heel that’s the problem for them. It is instead the alarmist organizations that demand to know where the company stands on the climate threat and what it is doing about it. Companies that drag their heels will be vilified on the Internet and elsewhere. It’s a PR problem.
Or maybe the companies believe that AGW is real. How do you know their position is due to being pushed into that corner rather than having made up their own mind? Do you really think Shell, one of the world’s largest oil companies, would be cajoled into saying AGW is real when doing so goes against their very business?
How does it go “against their very business”? They know good and well wind and solar will never amount to significant competition.
The aim of business is profit, the amount remaining after expenses.There are two ways to increase profit: 1) increase sales volume, or 2) increase margins. #2 is always preferable – more money with less effort is better than more money with more effort. And, contrary to what you might suppose, they earn more per unit of effort when supply is artificially suppressed, causing prices to rise in the face of ever increasing demand.
It’s win-win for them. They get the good PR, and their product becomes increasingly valuable. And, that is why Anthony et al. do not actually, as the alarmists allege, get any income from oil and gas firms. That would risk bad PR, with no improvement to the bottom line.
Chris, rogerknights is correct. The oil companies all have firmly embraced global warming. Check out their web pages. Everyone in business has to be seen as concerned or risk losing customers:
http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
“Population growth and economic development are driving up energy demand. All energy sources will be needed, with fossil fuels meeting the bulk of demand. At the same time CO2 emissions must be reduced to avoid serious climate change. To manage CO2, governments and industry must work together. Government action is needed and we support an international framework that puts a price on CO2, encouraging the use of all CO2-reducing technologies. Shell is taking action across four areas to help secure a sustainable energy future : natural gas, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, and energy efficiency.”
I doubt they really risk losing customers. They risk becoming the focus of activist ire, and that could turn away customers who just don’t want to get involved, regardless of the reason. But, the activists have so beclowned themselves that I think their protests might well boomerang, and boost sales for the targeted company.
Bartemis said: “And, contrary to what you might suppose, they earn more per unit of effort when supply is artificially suppressed, causing prices to rise in the face of ever increasing demand.”
First, the only supply suppression that has occurred is a delay on approving Arctic drilling (but it was approved) and Keystone delays (but Alberta tar sands is nowhere near break even with oil at $39/bbl). If the AGW community was having any success whatsoever in suppressing supply, oil would not be at the price point it is. Because, as you noted, demand is increasing, primarily due to Africa and China.
“If the AGW community was having any success whatsoever in suppressing supply, oil would not be at the price point it is.”
Precisely the point. And, who does that plummeting price benefit? Not Big Oil, I can tell you. It benefits you, the consumer. But, crazily, you think that by serving the interests of Big Oil, you are opposing them.
Life is complex. Look below the surface, Grasshopper. Things are not always as they seem.
Gary said: “Chris, rogerknights is correct. The oil companies all have firmly embraced global warming. Check out their web pages. Everyone in business has to be seen as concerned or risk losing customers:”
How do you know they did it strictly for PR reasons, and not also because they believe it? Walmart believes that AGW is real – and their customer demographic is much more conservative than liberal. So for Walmart the opposite is true – they run the risk of alienating their customers who may boycott them because they don’t want Walmart spending money on solar panels and other RE projects.
“How do you know they did it strictly for PR reasons, and not also because they believe it?”
Oh, no, no, no, dear boy. Companies are interested in the bottom line, only. They have to be. Company leaders have a fiduciary responsibility, enshrined in law, to their shareholders, to maximize profits. Any deviation from that mission for purely altruistic means risks shareholder lawsuits and summary defenestration of the management team.
You may be sure that, if a major corporation comes out on the side of something, they have analyzed it and gamed possible outcomes to the maximum level possible, and determined that the action is in the best interests of the shareholders and the bottom line.
Google’s algorithms are undoubtedly aligned with Jeff Schmidt’s ideological predilections, but as commenters have already observed – there’s the money to consider. Using Google to get unbiased information is a frustrating game of trying to outsmart its search string programming, but it can be done. Limiting searches to PDFs and research papers helps, but you sure have to weed out a lot of trash… and reincarnations of that trash in second-generation trash.
Lately, for me, it’s been searching for information about intraocular lenses for cataract surgery (presumably an ideology-free topic). The most common intra-ocular lens implant during cataract surgery is a monofocal lens. The 20-minute procedure (with the mono lens) is covered by insurance companies and pays surgeons around $200. “…one of the most common outpatient surgeries performed in America.” But even though the monofocal lens is the most commonly implanted lens by surgeons, it’s actually pretty hard to find information about its effectiveness online. “Google” any combination of words relevant to cataract surgery, iols, patient satisfaction, and one is bombarded with the latest sales pitches for MULTI-focal lenses, which cost two to three times as much, are not covered by insurance, and seem to plague patients with “dysphotopsias” – unwanted halos and shadows. The vision care market is around 35 billion dollars in the U.S. and every lens maker (and every surgeon) is trying to capitalize on the more expensive implants to serve us aging baby boomers desperate to reclaim a bit of our fading vision.
How often do we find ourselves being routed to a particular display in a department store? Fortunate the savvy computer programmer who can avoid such traps on the web.
Present company excepted… the people planting cookies on our computers, and “helping” us to “auto-complete” our searches do us no favors: may God give them back some of the same grief the’ve given us!
Google is both a product and beneficiary of a capitalist system – their claims of non-bias notwithstanding.
If anyone has a website tgey coukd inckude links to wuwt and other skeptical pages. From what i understand google bases rankings on incoming links.
A blogger informed me that this is no longer done by those in the know. Links from content work, but a static link raises a flag. That’s what I was told, anyway. Not sure it’s right.
So, how does http://www.defyccc.com/search filter things? Are the number of hits it reports any closer to reality than the inflated numbers that come back from the major engines?
I tried searching for |werme climate| – Google claimed 50K results, and the first three were variations on http://wermenh.com/climate/ . The others in the first 10 were pages at WUWT, stevengoddard, notrickszone, and disqus. Defyccc reported pages from WUWT and notrickszone.
Next I tried |john daly climate| because I sort of am the caretaker of his web site these days (and do a pretty lousy job of it other than keeping it intact). The results from both engines were all for the right John Daly, and the first result from both was http://www.john-daly.com/ as it should be. Defyccc had two from other sites, Google had seven from other sites. Two of those, from SkS and Wikipedia, would count as corrupt sources, the rest look like they’d be part of a bigger web.
I’ve never had problems using Google for searching for climate stuff I was looking for, but a lot of that comes from having a good idea what results are crud and perhaps some are from Google learning about me. Defyccc is certainly useful for larval skeptics, so I hope it does well and learns about more sources to check.
In addition to people searching for climate skeptic stuff, it’s worth considering finding people who haven’t discovered the topic yet. My very first web page after deciding it was time to get obsessed about climate matters is http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html . It has a little comic about Galileo and also mentions Aristotle. I was surprised to see in my web stats that a number of people found my by searching for one or both of them.
Catching people like that is well outside of defyccc’s domain, but it’s something worth keeping in mind when writing new web pages.
Hmm, I should add some notes to my Blizzard of ’78 web page about how storm intensity has not been increasing and link to my WUWT post about the Great Atlantic Storm of 1962.
Oh, that’s cool – https://www.google.com/#q=great+atlantic+storm+1962 gives my WUWT post #3 billing, that’s really high given how many other pages there are on that historic storm.
‘Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place.’
So the people who oppose climate change are hurting children. Nice to see Schmidt tell the truth for a change, even if somewhat clumsily.
Use Bing! Use Bing! Use Bing!
First, the Google engine has been charged [ alleged ] with favoring its sponsors as well. Nothing came of it.
Second, you can do a side by side search with both engines and see different results. Bing supports all of the usual Boolean limiters. Last, the photos at the log in page are worth my suggested trial.
Full disclosure: I have no affiliation with Microsoft personally or financially.
Regards,
I work with Google often and with Google employees, and I have been an SEO professional for 15 years. Google search results are manipulated constantly. The PageRank of WUWT shouldn’t be 3, it should be at least 8 or 9. It is part of Google workers’ jobs, and it is trivial to manipulate search rankings manually, both objectively and subjectively.
There are countless other reports of manipulation of conservative sites and blogs. With Google’s longstanding policy of favoring inbound links from .edu and .gov blogs, they’ve effectively created their own hard-Left political search engine.
Excellent Information!
A little over a year ago, I put the following search terms into Google: “united states” “air pollution” graph +improving. The result was just 6 pages. The same search from Bing netted close to 64,000.
…I just tried it now and got 5 from Google and 164,000 from Bing.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=climate+change+skeptic+web+sites&gbv=2&oq=climate+change+skeptic+web+sites&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3…1629.10620.0.10771.38.24.3.11.6.0.171.2326.17j7.24.0….0…1ac.1.34.heirloom-hp..6.32.2268.mZ1XNLlioqk
I googled ‘climate change skeptic sites and WUWT is #3 and ALL the other sites listed are anti-climate skeptic sites making fun of us! None of the well-known other sites show up at all on the first page and I am amazed that WUWT shows up at all.
Well, there is one search result they can’t hide:
https://www.google.com/search?q=climate+predictions+that+have+come+true&oe=utf-8&hl=en&sa=X&as_q=&nfpr=&spell=1&ved=0CAoQvwVqFQoTCLyjj4Xq6scCFYePPgodg_cD9A#newwindow=1&safe=off&hl=en&q=climate+change+predictions+that+didn%27t+come+true
What’s interesting is that other search engines, like yahoo, pile all of the lies at the top….
Google has been moving towards being your Intellectual Nanny. They admittedly will change rankings of sites based on what they believe is the “truth”. Read their published Knowledge Based Trust: Estimating the Trustworthiness of Web Sources http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.03519
I have witnessed high rankings given to skeptic bashing sites that are filled with lies. I think now Google realizes it power it wants the public to see the truth according to Google. Searchers beware.
Excellent source for those looking for some confirmation bias
Thanks Ari, I have bookmarked defyccc.com for my climate related searches – I don’t trust google or yahoo. Thanks to Glenn999, I have also found ixquick which I will use as my default search engine. I’m more than happy to move away from google.
I quit using Google some time ago, and switched to Yahoo. Did this when they started the CAPTCHA and the error:
“Our systems have detected unusual traffic from your computer network”
Which happens without unusual traffic if you repeat a lot of searches as I do.
If I search climate blog, I get WUWT third on google, and seventh on Bing.
Climate Depot also come up in the first ten for me when searching climate blog.
You wonder why Wikipedia pages rank so highly on Google, though. If Google is all about revenue, why rank a nonprofit site almost continually as No1 result?
“why rank a nonprofit site almost continually as No1 result?”
Probably because there are so many links to and from Wikipedia already. And the site really does have a lot of genuinely useful information. No doubt some have gamed a few political categories but on the whole Wikipedia is decent. All those citations and people linking back to Wikipedia push it quite high.
Rankings are pretty easy to game. All those reputation defender companies just push any bad news about you or your company onto the 3rd or 4th page by putting other things first. Tons of articles on how to improve your rankings.
I would be a little surprised if Google themselves intervened. More likely it is the zealots who are doing the footwork for the alarmists.
I’ve found the bias problem on other topics for years – if it’s environmental, the search can be totally useless. Looking for mineral information on asbestos was an example. I note it’s a bit better now on that topic. I guess if the first couple of hundred on the list are about what people already “know” about asbestos, no one is searching this stuff anymore so mineralogical data appears to have sneaked up into the first page. If some day alarmist climate ceases to be topical, it may shift around to a balance. My searches have evolved a bit using different verbiage to get better results. Maybe you have to put in ‘evil climate denier misinformation’ to get a realistic selection!
I typed in climate change and microwaves, and got 2,110,000 hits . The cite that came up first after the add was globalmicrowave.org/
The search page should have a list of the domains that it searches. Ideally then it would have a form for suggesting others, along with a way for people to comment on the utility of suggested sites (or for that matter the sites that are included). The idea of letting people vote on the inclusion of sites came to mind, but due to the likelihood of alarmists then voting up their sites I figured the site list would need to be manually maintained.
I’m not sure about search results but WUWT is closing in on a ‘half a billion views’. Currently at ~ 244,000,000 (two hundred and forty four million views). Looks like it will reach a ‘half a billion’ prior to the Paris stoned and unhinged.
WUWT clearly represents quality over quantity as is observed by the comments submitted. The rankings may be in part due to ‘networking’ among the better informed/intelligent. Could it be that once at WUWT there is no longer need to use search engine?
Using Google for “global warming” it takes until the 4th page of results to see any sceptic sites.
Wattsupwiththat.com used to be on the very first page, if not the very first link and I have no doubt that it has far more visitors than most of the other sites combined.
Also… On that 4th page, the very first sceptic website is this strange and curious site:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming
Tell me I am wrong, but this site reads like a caricature of what “deniers” believe. It reads just loony enough to convince anyone yet unconvinced that sceptics (or deniers) are nutcases.
This is the first “sceptical” link that any unwary Googlers will come across.
In any event, I believe that the way to win this isn’t with an alternate search engine that is only known to people already enlightened. The way to win is to fight back on Google’s ground. To make sure Watts & others are high in the rankings.
If Google is purposely suppressing and manipulating the rankings then that needs to be pointed out.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
This probably should be fixed, I will work on it.
You have to wonder how someone who is apparently smart enough to become chairman of Google can have such blind spots of idiocy. On the other hand looking at members of Congress and more than a few presidents it seems intelligence is not a prerequisite.
But Eric Schmidt is a business man, and he does not have a blind spot of idiocy. He sees very clearly an opportunity and has put down $2 billion dollars on the table expecting a high rate of return from Climate change.
Google search + climate change = conflict of interest.
So Google is in on the conspiracy as well?
This keeps getting funnier and funnier. Stephan Lewandowsky will be having a field day with this nonsense.
Mike S,
Are you really that credulous? It’s extremely naive to think that a company with the ability to manipulate information wouldn’t do exactly that.
That’s what the mainstream media does all the time. Why wouldn’t Google do the same thing?
[Invalid email address, David. ~mod.]
[Fake email address. ~mod.]
I miss Gopher and Veronica… kinda like a ‘grep’ search through actual research and raw data.
[Invalid email address. ~mod.]
Doing a search for climate predictions that didn’t come true has this as #1.
[Invalid email address. ~mod.]
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Hear, hear!
None of this is complicated or difficult to fix but I am not going to explain how to fix it here. Nor is this a conspiracy. It has to do with inbound links and page formatting.
Poptech,
No need to explain how to fix it. Just explain why WUWT is on page 3, instead of somewhere on the first page. Thanks.
Page 3 for what search term? <— This is what no one here understands. When you search for "WUWT" in Google does it show up on the first page? If so then that answers your question and proves there is no conspiracy. Google does not rank pages based on what you believe they should be ranked using any arbitrary search term.
“The Google PageRank of the WUWT homepage is only 3 out of 10. I would expect it to be 6-7, and no less than 5”
Google page rank is a vanity measure that is not updated by Google anymore. It can because when they last calculated it your site was a 3.
As already noted, sheer volume of links and the ‘domain authority’ of those links determines your ranking. As the most alarmist sites will regularly be collecting links from highly authoritative domains like NASA, various .gov domains, sites like the New York Times etc, you don’t have a chance against them. This is not necessarily conspiracy – anyone doing rocket science linked from NASA would be expected to rank highly, anyone who is linked from IRS.gov would be expected to rank well.
That said, Google does have manual reviewers for search results and they can use their own judgement, as well as following from ‘report’ links. And it’s possible for bad actors to link to a site from a bad neighbourhood in what is called ‘google bowling’ to associate a target site with a bad neighbourhood of spam or scam sites. This is not always easy to detect for the target, and I’m assuming wuwt doesn’t have a full time SEO specialist on board checking these things.
Despite what the CEO says personally, Google is in the business of collecting ad money from companies with deep pockets. As such much of their results are a popularity contest as dictated by the braying online mob. They purposely weight ‘brands’ higher because they see this as sorting out authority on topics. The fact that this also induces brands with deep pockets to bid on ads where their competition is high in organic search is just a happy side effect, or so they say.
If their is bad acting going on, I would more likely suspect alarmist activists and blogs then google itself. As a big public company I would doubt they care very much about sites like this, certainly not enough to engage a staffer to manually intervene in the results on the personal whim of the CEO.
Thanks. I stand corrected about the PageRank. Google public PageRanks were last updated in 2013. I doubt that WUWT was less popular then. The ‘manual reviewers’ and ‘google bowling’ might be the culprits. So, the main thrust and conclusions of the article remain valid.
I searched for
skeptical climate websites
No quotes, just those three words
WUWT came up fourth
A desperate need for something in this space Ari, good luck with it.
On Google or Bing one dreads any climate related non url specific search… ask your question then trawl through three or four pages of alarmist dross before you can hope to find anything relevant to your query.
While you’re at it, you can’t do anything similar for Wikipedia can you?
Al Gore has served as a senior adviser to Google since February 2001, shortly after leaving public office. Google spokesman Jon Murchinson said “We have not provided comment on if or how we compensate Mr. Gore in his role as an advisor to Google.”
After Gore started advising Google, the fix went in and WUWT and every similar site started their continuing decline in every relevant search return.
May I welcome You, on skyfall
http://www.skyfall.fr/
it ‘a french speaking blog, and we have for years, very accute discussion on the “non ^roblem”
We have now to endure a “blitzkrieg” from the warmista crowd, who is very active in all the media.
To attempt to conter this “hysteria”, these people have decide to create a association
You can join us, and let now evrywere of this event , and sign up here
collectifdesclimatorealistes@gmail.com.
anyway, I consult Yoor blog evryday
Thanks ,and we are waiting for You, and Your support
Jo Vander Haegen (Joletaxi)
This site is all in French, by the way.
Nous devrons voir comment des décisions [politiques] autoritaires basées sur la science du consensus pourront être imposées pour contenir les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
(We are going to have to look how authoritarian decisions based on consensus science can be implemented to contain greenhouse emissions.)
If I owned an Oil corp or had bigg intresses attaced to it, and then the Gov comes along with this AGW cargo cult, I would have jumped on board, why, money.
Owning and running Oil corps is done by owners whom have no other philisofy than making More money.
To then acuse anyone form been payed by them because we are sceptics, is an logical fallacy, understandable in an toallitaian state, but not in an open comunety.
The people owning the Oil, is also owning the corps whom is bennefitting from this scam.
Cant you see it, then You have a problem.
I have writen about this scam for two decades, and I havent seen a f… nicle.
I just knew it was a scam all along.
And do you know why.
huh
Education.
BUT this alterings of seach result isnt only confined to clima, its goes to a lott of other issues as well.
Islam
eCONomy
Science in generall
I am probably one of the few whom have read an entire library, almoust.
it took me just minutes to find science contradicting this AGW scam, like the CO2 fulctuations regading temp.
But of course, even I dont deny climate change, hehe, this is so lame it hurts.
I read science this days and I am horrifyed, the level is patheticly low, and the ignorance is skyhigh.
And I know of issues and things the Google dont even have in their seach engines results, can you do that, I can.
huh
Google is nothing more than an propaganda outlett, period.
Use it with care. I NEVER use Wikis or any of this “official” sites whom is basicly rotten to its core.
There is an difference bewteen seeing a bird, and then flipp thrue wikipedia, that is ok, but history, science and religion, its basicly bollocs.
peace
Some page rank info (courtesy of http://www.prchecker.info):
RealClimate (the closest analog of WUWT on the dark side): 7/10
ScepticalScience: 7/10
On the other hand, http://www.climatedepot.com has decent 6/10, and climateaudit.org is 7/10 (may be because it is a hard reading for non-scientists).
So, Google decisions are really shrouded in mystery.
Patrick B
“Schmidt, just another fascist who wants the government to tell you how to live.”
Schmidt, just another fascist who wants Google to tell you how to live.
Fixed it for ya.
Since the late 1990’s I have used the “The Week That Was” links at http://sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm as my primary “search engine” for climate science articles.
Using Google, or Yahoo, or whatever search engine I used back in the 1990’s, gave me too many pro-global warming cult articles — the only thing that has changed since then: Now when you use GOOGLE, you get FAR TOO MANY climate change cult articles, instead of just TOO MANY global warming articles.
Same cult – new name
At SEPP.org you can get an edited list of articles — enough links for most-non-scientists for each week — often sending people to this fine website. My only objection is the editor of the TWTW links has been including more and more of his own opinions, making the column part editorial, and part “bibliography”.
If you still want to use GOOGLE, just search for Earth’s Climate History, or Climate History — the main difference between the coming climate catastrophe cult and we cult deniers, I believe, is that the first group speculates about the future climate, and the second group studies the current and past climate.
Do you really care about wild guess computer game speculation about the future climate?
That’s not science at all — that’s politics
Computer games are not data — with no data there is no real science.
Predicting the future is not science either, especially not when so little is known about what caused climate change in the past.
This problem is easily addressed by optimizing your website for search engine responses. There are many articles regarding this on the net. But the simplest one is to register multiples names that forward to this site and contain the critical search words in the metadata and on the main page. Get them at therir own game. Here are a few examples. skepticalaboutclimatechange.com, truthaboutclimatechange,com, ipccclimatechangeskeptic.com, climatechangerealist.com.
Mr Watts,
regarding your ranking are you aware of thishttp://sputniknews.com/asia/20150901/1026417334/google-results-cci-search.html
All the best.
Steve