Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics

We must understand how Google does it, why it is wrong and how it hurts America

David Wojick

Several months ago, Google quietly released a 32-page white paper, “How Google Fights Disinformation.” That sound good. The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches. It is a decidedly left-wing outfit, which views things like skepticism of climate alarmism, and conservative views generally, as “disinformation.” The white paper explains how Google’s search and news algorithms operate, to suppress what Google considers disinformation and wants to keep out of educational and public discussions.

The algorithms clearly favor liberal content when displaying search results. Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.” The problem is, these sources are mostly “mainstream” media, which are almost entirely liberal.

Google’s algorithmic definition of “authoritative” makes liberals the voice of authority. Bigger is better, and the liberals have the most and biggest news outlets. The algorithms are very complex, but the basic idea is that the more other websites link to you, the greater your authority.

It is like saying a newspaper with more subscribers is more trustworthy than one with fewer subscribers. This actually makes no sense, but that is how it works with the news and in other domains. Popularity is not authority, but the algorithm is designed to see it that way.

This explains why the first page of search results for breaking news almost always consists of links to liberal outlets. There is absolutely no balance with conservative news sources. Given that roughly half of Americans are conservatives, Google’s liberal news bias is truly reprehensible.

In the realm of public policies affecting our energy, economy, jobs, national security, living standards and other critical issues, the suppression of alternative or skeptical voices, evidence and perspectives becomes positively dangerous for our nation and world

Last year, I documented an extreme case of this bias the arena of “dangerous manmade global warming” alarmism. My individual searches on prominent skeptics of alarmist claims revealed that Google’s “authoritative source” was an obscure website called DeSmogBlog, whose claim to fame is posting nasty negative dossiers on skeptics, including me and several colleagues.

In each search, several things immediately happened. First, Google linked to DeSmogBlog’s dossier on the skeptic, even though it might be a decade old and/or wildly inaccurate. Indeed, sometimes this was the first entry in the search results. Second, roughly half of the results were negative attacks – which should not be surprising, since the liberal press often attacks us skeptics.

Third, skeptics are often labeled as “funded by big oil,” whereas funding of alarmists by self-interested government agencies, renewable energy companies, far-left foundations or Tom Steyer (who became a billionaire by financing Asian coal mines) was generally ignored.

In stark contrast, searching for information about prominent climate alarmists yielded nothing but praise. This too is not surprising, since Google’s liberal “authoritative” sources love alarmists.

This algorithm’s bias against skeptics is breathtaking – and it extends to the climate change debate itself. Search results on nearly all climate issues are dominated by alarmist content.

In fact, climate change seems to get special algorithmic attention. Goggle’s special category of climate webpages, hyperbolically called “Your Money or Your Life,” requires even greater “authoritative” control in searches. No matter how well reasoned, articles questioning the dominance of human factors in climate change, the near-apocalyptic effects of predicted climate change, or the value and validity of climate models are routinely ignored by Google’s algorithms.

The algorithm also ignores the fact that our jobs, economy, financial wellbeing, living standards, and freedom to travel and heat or cool our homes would be severely and negatively affected by energy proposals justified in the name of preventing human-caused cataclysmic climate change. The monumental mining and raw material demands of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and batteries likewise merit little mention in Google searches. Ditto for the extensive impacts of these supposed “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” technologies on lands, habitats and wildlife.

It’s safe to say that climate change is now the world’s biggest single public policy issue. And yet Google simply downgrades and thus “shadow bans” any pages that contain “demonstrably inaccurate content or debunked conspiracy theories.” That is how alarmists describe skepticism about any climate alarm or renewable energy claims. Google does not explain how its algorithm makes these intrinsically subjective determinations as to whether an article is accurate, authoritative and thus posted – or incorrect, questionable and thus consigned to oblivion.

Google’s authority-based search algorithm is also rigged to favor liberal content over virtually all conservative content; it may be especially true for climate and energy topics. This deep liberal bias is fundamentally wrong and un-American, given Google’s central role in our lives.

Google’s creators get wealthy by controlling access to information – and thus thinking, debate, public policy decisions and our future – by using a public internet system that was built by defense and other government agencies, using taxpayer dollars, for the purpose of ensuring the free flow of information and open, robust discussion of vital policy issues. It was never meant to impose liberal-progressive-leftist police state restrictions on who gets to be heard.

According to its “How we fight disinformation” white paper, Google’s separate news search feature gets special algorithmic treatment – meaning that almost all links returned on the first page are to liberal news sources. This blatant bias stands out like a sore thumb in multiple tests. In no case involving the first ten links did I get more than one link to a conservative news source. Sometimes I got none.

For example, my news search on “Biden 2020” returned the following top ten search results, in this order: CNN, the New York Times, Vice, Politico, CNN again, Fortune, Vox, Fox News, The Hill and Politico. The only actual conservative source was Fox News, in eighth position.

Of course conservative content would not be friendly to Mr. Biden. But if Google can prominently post attacks on skeptics and conservatives, why can’t it do so for attacks on Democrats?

The highest conservative content I found was one link in eight or 12 percent. About a third of my sample cases had no conservative sources whatsoever. The average of around 7% measures Google’s dramatic bias in favor of liberal sources, greatly compounding its 92.2% dominance.

The lonely conservative sources are more middle of the road, like Fox News and the Washington Examiner. Google never found or highlighted a truly conservative (what it would call “right wing”) source, like Brietbart, Townhall or the Daily Caller. It just doesn’t happen, and the algorithm clearly knows that, as does Google. As do other information and social media sites.

Of course, I’m not alone in finding or encountering this blatant viewpoint discrimination.

When coupled with the nearly complete takeover of UN, IPCC, World Bank and other global governance institutions by environmentalist and socialist forces – and their near-total exclusion of manmade climate chaos skeptics, free market-oriented economists and anyone who questions the role or impact of renewable energy – the effect on discussion, debate, education and informed decision-making is dictatorial and devastating.

No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.

David Wojick is an independent analyst specializing in science, logic and human rights in public policy, and author of numerous articles on these topics.

Advertisements

134 thoughts on “Google discriminates against conservatives and climate skeptics

  1. It’s not only Google that are part of the liberal left wing radical establishment..It’s also Facebook,Hollywood,CNN,MSNBC,ABC,the NY Times,the Washington Post,The guardian,etc.

    • Most of those are shrinking as far as their sphere of influence is concerned but Google’s is not.

      I understand that the government uses all of these outlets for propaganda purposes but shouldn’t the government provide disclaimers and explanations for what is behind these messages?

      • Repeal section 230 of the 1996 communications decency act. They’re acting as publishers now, so they don’t deserve a shield of liability immunity that publishers don’t get. Senator Josh Hawley is trying to do something about it.

        • So now they are publishers they no longer benefit from section 230, where is the need to repeal it , they simply need to apply it.

        • “Senator Josh Hawley is trying to do something about it.”

          It would be a popular move for Trump (and the WSJ) to call for public control over Google’s algorithm.

          • Sounds pretty socialist.

            Well sure but I don’t think you understand the severity of the situation, Mr. Stokes. You’ve heard of DEFCON 5? Well we’re approaching 6 here. The very existence of the United States is being directly threatened by the very existence of the Google:

            “No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions.”
            – Arthor Itarian

            No one is capable of escaping the Google’s grasp of Truth. Well, no one except those who can anyway. You can read all about them right here in this thread.

          • “Sounds pretty socialist.”

            The Internet is today’s “public square” and its navigation must not be effectively biased. This is liberal constitutionalism.

            Jacques Barzun said that statesmanship requires a mix of socialism, classical liberalism (individualism), and conservatism. I think that’s right.

      • The government will never tell you when is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. If you want a rabbit hole to go down, have a look into the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. That basically legalized the use of propaganda on US citizens by their own government.

        “Mother, should I trust the government?” – Pink Floyd

      • Left and right are false concepts of the authoritarian groupthink socialists who see the world as “them and us” and it is one of the biggest lies of the fake media era of the past century.

        This one dimensional concept of politics was created in order to lump everyone who does not support their groupthink view into one enormous “right” who are then falsely stated as being one single group and therefore you get “right” creationists being labelled as the same as “right” climate sceptics and scientists.

        In truth, if there is any left-right “dimension” of politics it is between groupthink and diversity of views. It is between those like Google who demand or carry out censorship in order to enforce their groupthink and those who value free-speech even of those they strongly disagree with, because we value diversity.

        And to show just how ingrained this left-right nonsense is, let’s see how almost all the language used in this left-right false characterisation of politics is false.

        The Fascists are on the left
        The people who value diversity are on the right
        The science is with those who value free and open discussion
        And the biggest deception of all the real mass murderers, the people who murdered the jews both in Germany and elsewhere, were socialists like the National Socialist party in Germany and likewise those communists who did the same.
        etc.

    • We are starting to see plentiful competition with most of these. Instead of Google use DuckDuckGo or even Bing; instead of Youtube use bitchute; instead of reddit use minds; instead of the fake news outlets use blazetv and oann; instead of twitter use gab; instead of Kickstarter use freestartr; instead of patreon use SubscribeStar.

      But there are still no good substitutes to enable deplatforming victims to avoid Facebook or google groups (Yahoo is rumored to be just as bad). And what’s worse, upstream services that are much more regulated (Mastercard, Chase Bank, Paypal, Stripe, GoDaddy) are starting to deplatform people too, which threatens the ability of all the alternatives I discussed above to exist. If Trump doesn’t shut that effort down then nobody can. I hope I’m wrong about that.

      • FWIW I use Startpage as my primary engind (Google without the final tweaks), Google for Maps, advanced searching and Scholar, and DDG more for privacy tools – it isn’t a very comprehensive search engine.

        Now I just stuck “David Wojick” in quotes into each of them to see what the differences were.

        SP had 10, DeSmog at 1 and SourceWatch the other negative at 5. The rest were links to articles including WUWT 10, David’s Twitter feed was at 2 and one link to another David Wojick.

        Google had DS top, but had inserted Skeptical Science at 2 (I went through SP to about 80 results and it hadn’t appeared in the results, so Google’s post search fiddling had inserted a page that had no external links to it using Google’s own ‘linked to:’ function), promoted Twitter over Heartland, dropped the bottom 3 links to David’s articles including WUWT, and the other David, but inserted his Linkedin page.

        DDG eliminated Twitter promoted both Heartland and SourceWatch, and included 3 links to David’s blogger account, dropping the links to articles.

        So the curious thing in all that is the DeSmog rating even in DDG, and the cheeky insertion of SS into Google’s final results. I think the issue with DeSmog is that they have been very good at getting inbound links >1000. Unlike jd and those below I don’t think DDG is the solution.

        Finally Google knows I live in NZ so others might find different results, although the results look pretty country neutral.

        • ixquick is good BUT seems to have issues with firefox , firefox removes it from the tabs since a few updates back;-(

    • When the radical leftists were in the minority, they cried for “alternative” news sources, but now they are in the vast majority of ALL the “institutions” … they insist on “traditional” news sources. What this tells you is that this is ALL about POWER. All the other arguments are nonsense. The information MUST preserve the POWER. Information? … it’s irrelevant to “the cause”.

    • Don’t ignore WIKI. WIKI considers WUWT a whackadoodle site. No editing or additions can get by to the contrary. I have tried to get others, smart people, to follow WUWT but they often check out Google, WIKI and others regarding the site. We are considered flat-earthers.

  2. Given Google’s ubiquitous role in internet search world wide, it is not only un-American, but un-Global in the suppression of climate skeptics across the board. Suppression which is used for policy input, taxation and restrictions on normal human activities or what we should eat.

    In the case of Greta Thunberg, as an example, the suppression of diverging views, science and media is used for outright scaremongering, where young in particular only is served up with a completely one-sided view.

    • China’s solution is to block Google as a search engine altogether. As for another prolific source of dis-and-mis-information, YouTube, that is blocked too. WUWT is not, however. The only think not showing are YouTube videos which are often linked by posters in their messages.

  3. The answer is to stop using Google. When I wrote my book Embryogenesis Explained, which required a wide review of a vast field across multiple disciplines, I became more and more frustrated with Google. I would search for certain items I knew for certain existed and they did not appear. Now that was data relating to biochemistry and genetics and one would expect nothing biased in those. I really don’t think Google was deliberately trying to bias my research into a multi disciplinary scientific book. However the algorithms they use try to predict what you might be interested in and provide them and so if you search one topic, they provide you with information slanted from what you clicked in during your previous search. I found myself locked into the dreaded Google bubble where I kept getting the same set of hits over and over again. I switched to Duck Duck Go and my problem was immediately solved. Google is a second rate search engine of very poor quality even if you are not looking for something political or controversial. Just don’t use Google.

    • I’ve been told that DuckDuckGo uses Google’s search engine with the only difference being the amount of personal information that is stored/disseminated.
      However, like you, I’ve found that DDG seems to use a different algorithm for ranking results.

      • IIRC Duck Duck Go doesn’t actually have any special ranking algorithm. It just returns results based on a simple context + most clicked.

    • An outside audit of their algorithms and search methods should be done on Google.

      If that doesn’t correct the problem, then Google should be broken up, including its associated properties using anti-trust laws. They are getting too big for their britches, as the old saying goes..

      More speech is the solution, not censorship. We shouldn’t give these censors the authority to censor a free dialogue.

      This censorship threat is an ongoing threat to all our personal freedoms, and we should resist it with every ounce of energy we have. Censorship is the heart of the strategy of the Left/Socialists to control the way we live. The Left/Socialists want to control our lives and if you object they will try to shut you up. That’s what all these leftwing media groups are trying to do now.

      Places like WUWT are where freedom of thought is still practiced.

      Btw, there are books available on how to do sophisticated Google searches, that can pretty much pull up anything on the internet, and since you are being specific, I don’t think algorithm censorship would be involved. Of course, the average person won’t be doing this so they are still afflicted with Google censorship.

      • “…Google should be broken up, including its associated properties using anti-trust laws.” Agreed, but that could take a decade or more. In which time the technology may have radically changed. Moreover, (and I speak from a position of nearly a decade at DOJ and specifically Antitrust) the overwhelming majority of bureaucrats there are decidedly liberal with the ones at and nearest the top extremely and overtly liberal. They have no problem, whatsoever, with suppression of conservative view points. That’s not an assertion. That’s a fact. If you’re pinning your hopes on ATR or CFTC fixing your Google problem, you’ll be disappointed.

      • Tom,
        In the USA the supreme court has decided that software counts as free speech and hence google is perfectly free to rank websites according to whatever algorithm it likes. Just as you are as well. Furthermore google is a publicly listed company in the USA and thus has a duty to maximise shareholder profits which means adjusting the algorithm to maximise revenue. It does not have a duty to rank websites according to how you think they should be ranked.

        Currently surprisingly enough the only people trying to censor google by stopping their free speech rights are the conservatives in the US and these are meant to be the very people who are all in favour of it.

        Google as I understand it is not censoring anyone. You can go direct to any website you like and read any material you like on it. Google is offering a free service to rank websites according to an unknown algorithm and you are free whether or not you choose to use it.

    • Here, here. I switched to Duckduckgo in lieu of Google on the PC (and switched browser from Internet Explorer to Firefox) and on the iPhone switched Safari’s search engine to the Duck. The search results are definately less one sided and the targetted advertising is absent. I disable the autocomplete options on broswers regardless of search engine anyway because they usually haven’t the faintest idea what I’m looking for anyway.
      As a rule, when searching for news, I search for news directly from preferred outlets (those I trust to report without the distortion of political correctness), those I visit now and then for local news (from where I live and from where I’m from) and those I check in order to ‘know thyne enemy’; although even in that last category I’m no longer prepared to waste time boiling my urine wading through the insufferable codswallop published by the Grauniad, life is too short.
      For a search not relating to news, it helps to search for fairly specific keywords, including the name of the source of the information if you already know that. And when I find an online resource genuinely worthwhile, I save the link for future reference.
      …One can also visit a blog like this one, or those listed in the bookmarks in the right hand column and find links to further reliable information :0)

  4. My Iphone does the same thing
    When I type in Skeptical Science, or Real climate, the entire address pops up with just the first two letters (often when I only type the first letter)

    Wattsupwiththat requires the entire name, Powerlineblog requires the entire name.

    Its not just google, Apple Iphones do it also

    • The default search engine on iPhone is Google. You can easily change it from Settings -> Safari -> Search Engine

      • i am using safari on the Iphone – Safari / apple had similar search engine algorims

        • Apple does not have a search engine. Safari and basically everything else on iPhone use Google unless you change it for Safari.

          Siri will use something different which used to be Bing++, but it might have been switched to Google behind the scenes. You can turn off Siri recommendation to avoid these search results.

  5. Five years ago, I put up a YouTube video, “Climate Change and Watermelons” — that has a whopping 65 views…! — and even _I_ got that insulting, unremovable “correction” added to my video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkA3-Ufty0w

    “Global warming”
    “Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.”
    Wikipedia

    Apparently, Google/YouTube will leave no stone unturned — no matter how small — to push their propaganda down our throats…

    • Same here (for videos I’ve posted) as regarding the “correction.” My video has received over 13K views — I think because of the popular #WalkAway hashtag: “Climate Alarmism made me #WalkAway” https://youtu.be/5KFcAPsAXRI

      We have to find ways to outsmart these algorithms. I’ve noticed that whenever I’ve posted a link to my video on some other site, my viewership jumps. And, let’s not let our natural bias against big government get in the way here: I do think that we need government proscriptions against this blatant bias against conservative sites and opinions on Google and other social media. IMHO, they are now simply too big — and their market penetration too deep — to be fought only by the tactic of using other, less well-known sites.

    • ““Global warming is the long-term rise in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system. It is a major aspect of current climate change, and has been demonstrated by direct temperature measurements and by measurements of various effects of the warming.”
      Wikipedia”

      It ought to be criminally liable for Wikipedia to make a blatantly false statement like that, and Google ought to be included in the complaint. Think of the uncounted billions of dollars that have been wasted over this lie about CO2. Someone ought to be responsible for misleading people into doing really stupid things.

      Wikinpedia and Google are promoting a Big Lie. They should be required to prove they are not promoting a Big Lie. They can do this by providing some evidence for those statements above. And when they cannot do that, they should stop lying.

      • Remove the words “Climate Change” and it’s basically correct.

        The text doesn’t say that it’s harmful, but everybody will read that subtext anyway.

    • Nearly 3 months ago I added a new website called “climatecraze.com” When you Google the words separately (climate craze) it eventually shows far down the results listing. However, it always comes up #1 when using DuckDuckGo, Bing, DogPile, and others. Google is obviously suppressing of free speech.

    • Russell – haven’t heard from you in a while. I used to frequent another forum where you were a prominent member. You always wrote about Freedom, as if it mattered. 🙂

      :hello:

  6. You can also reset your PC (win 10) it may take an hour or so but when in restarted all the google stuff was gone but kept all the links excpet that they were MS BING which appears to be less biased, although I would not bet my life on it

  7. I saw the bias in googly search long ago, try duckduckgo or bing. I have done searches side by side using all three and the exact same search terms and the differences are quite obvious.

    America broke up MaBell, so cracking googly/apple/msn/farcebook should be no problem.

    • It was glaringly obvious when their searches went from highly functional to highly politicized. It’s past time for some trust busting.

  8. In an earlier age the Roman Catholic church was busy suppressing dissent, and afterward various Protestant sects had their go at it. Monarchs and governments have been in the suppression business from day one. Somehow, and with the help of certain religious sects in fact, people, many of them among the wealthy elite, largely began to understand the value of skepticism and free inquiry. Nevertheless viewpoint discrimination is and always has been the default position of groups. The growth of skepticism helped make the modern world, while groupthink can certainly hold back progress (this is not to say that social traditions are necessarily bad).

    The irony is that the internet provides a limited view into human knowledge in the best of circumstances and as a tool meant to aid free inquiry it is now being used to suppress it in the crudest, and most reactionary ways. I am generally against government involvement in business, as it can only make decisions using politics. The many common rules that try to prevent one loud voice from dominating debate, such as limiting debating time, or limiting money to buy advertising, are quickly gamed.

    Thus I see no substitutes for careful, deliberate decision making using as much evidence as time allows. Skepticism and free inquiry are integral to this. Big tech seems to be against it all.

    • Google = 6 letters forward, 6 letters backward, first 3 letters plus second 3 letters = 6; 666 mark of the beast.

  9. Google promptly links to Wikipedia, which is operated by the same unscrupulous culture – as a platform of disinformation:

    https://anonhq.com/beware-wikipedia-never-trust/

    https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/whats-wrong-with-wikipedia

    If Trump and the impotent GOP don’t become proactive to correct the situation, then it’s just a matter of time before the public’s perception comes entirely under the manipulative control of this culture. The West will then fall victim to what was prophesied by Momar Khadafi:

    “We will beat you without firing a single bullet.”

  10. Folks, you must use DUCK DUCK GO for searches. Spread the word. In addition, understand that the iPhone Safari web browser isn’t neutral either. You must pick the search engine. Control your information yourself.

    I strongly suggest that everyone use Brave as your default browser. It will block much of the stalking software that Google brings to the party. DuckDuckGo doesn’t stalk so using it as the search engine is almost a life changing experience.

  11. David:

    Some corrections for your review?

    “That sound good.”

    “The problem is that Google not only controls a whopping 92.2% of all online searches.”

    No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.

    Thank you, David, for finally putting to rest my befuddlement with the state of modern man. I’ve had it all wrong until now.

    Before, I’d lamented the collapse of nations as a function of a philosophical failure. The former Soviet Union, for example. For all these years it would appear I’ve errantly believed that Statism was surely the cause for the collapse of that society. It seems it must’ve been some Russian corporation instead.

    Certainly the horrible plight of the citizenry in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, New York, New Jersey and other large cities governed voluntarily by liberals can now be relieved of their respective responsibilities as well. It’s not that their political philosophy is founded in conceptual failure. It’s not the abandonment of individual responsibility in favor of a nanny-state as god that’s at the root of their particular evil.

    In other words, it isn’t that they’re voting for the wrong people to govern them. Nay rather, it was that evil Alphabet Corp the whole time.

    I guess the Progressives have been right all along. It’s all the corp’s fault. We really do need our Mommy-State to ensure we’re making the right choices.

  12. If you’re looking for specific information, Google honestly reports what it finds.

    When I searched for:

    dust glaciation

    with the time set for the last 24 hours, WUWT came up as the second hit.

    Similarly, when I search for:

    judith curry stadium wave

    her website is the first hit.

    If you’re searching for something specific, Google won’t censor you.

    • This is true, but it misses the point. Specific searches only work for you if you already know what you’re looking for. If you’re doing a general search to learn more, that’s where the censorship is and that’s where the problem lies. People trying to learn more on a topic are only getting one view on it, and while that’s fine for some things (data driving facts) it’s not okay for things like climate change where nothing is really hammered out other than the earth has gotten warmer. The why and how are all still up in the air.

  13. This is why I keep a written list of sites that provide me with information I”m looking for.

    I don’t refer to it as Google. While I DO like this: Goggle’s special category, I usually refer to it as “giggles”, because it’s frequently as ridiculous as watching ants trying to rip off a sugar cube. However, I have yet to have any difficulty finding what I’m looking for if I am specific enough, but keeping a printed list of ‘fave” sites is always a good idea.

  14. I just tried DuckDuckgo it certainly seems to find stuff faster than google and has more skeptical climate returned in the News section.

  15. Google even has their own brand of eyewear designed such that you can only see the real truth (theirs). Just imagine, no more arguments with friends, neighbors, and family of the “Liberal” persuasion. You will even be able to “see” CO2 with these things, that is how amazing they are.
    They are called, of course, “GoogleGoggles”. $19.95, void where prohibited, while supplies last so hurry, get yours today!

    • If millions of people would go out and purchase some Google products, open the packages, find something wrong and return it for a full refund, then perhaps a message would be sent.

  16. Not helping the situation is antics such as the following in the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change:

    In https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/17/inside-the-acceleration-factory/ the author derives a sea level rise acceleration of .76 mm/year, from the sea level rise rate of the 1972-1992 period to the sea level rise rate of the 1993-2013 period. (As opposed to a higher figure of 2.1 mm/year increase in sea level rise rate that he thereby disputes.) Then he writes this closing statement: “And this makes it very likely that Church and White are manufacturing sea level acceleration where none exists … bad scientists, no cookies.” That is easy to read as a claim that sea level rise had no acceleration instead of an acceleration smaller than claimed by Church and White.

  17. Everyone needs to go Harry Potter on the “G” company. The search engine that must not be named. There is no doubt Gargle gargles for the word Gargle. Probably for similar words too but they can’t track them all. Me? I expect a when they catch on to Gargle I will switch to “bafflegab” which is so apropos.

  18. I’m sure there is no connection with Sergey Brin’s (one of the founders of Google and current head of Alphabet, Google’s parent) having been born in the USSR, to parents who were born, raised, and educated in the USSR, for the leftward-totalitarian drift of Google. I’m also sure that the educations and professions of Brin’s parents had no influence on their attitudes towards socialism as practiced in the USSR, and that none of these attitudes affected Brin.

  19. Recalling an earlier post here on WUWT regarding YouTube placing a disclaimer at the bottom of anti-CAGW videos, I just pulled up the following one and noticed that it also has the definition from Wikipedia about “Global Warming.” Providers of videos should file a complaint with whatever agency has oversight that YouTube is modifying the content of their videos without their consent.

    Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom
    Independent Institute
    Published on Aug 16, 2019

  20. I installed DuckDuckGo just now and compared the results with those from Chrome for a search on Climategate. The Chrome search had about 7 or 8 “consensus” sites such as Wikipedia and skeptical science in the first 10, but also included Christopher Booker and Forbes.

    The DuckDuckgo search was more representative of useful sites such as Wattsupwiththat. However, a box appeared to the right of the actual returns. This box consisted of a quote from Wikipedia with a lie about “external hackers” and a report from the Penn State “investigation” with a summation of Exoneration (see below).

    Who put this box there? Did Google do that? Can somwone without Chrome repeat that search and see if this misleading box shows up?

    Climatic Research Unit email controversy
    The Climatic Research Unit email controversy began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.Wikipedia
    Date:
    17 November 2009
    Inquiries:
    House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK), Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK), International Science Assessment Panel (UK), Pennsylvania State University (US), United States
    Environmental Protection Agency (US), Department of Commerce (US)
    Verdict:
    Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges

    • Using Opera, the first listing is for Conservapedia, but that Wikipedia box is prominently displayed to the right of the search results.

      Climategate – Conservapedia
      Search domain http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategatehttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Climategate

      https://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate

      The Climategate scandal erupted on November 19, 2009, when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

      Remember this article?
      Global Cooling and Wikipedia Fake News
      Andy May / December 25, 2016
      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/

      I can personally attest to the fact that Conservatives and Climate REALISTS cannot successfully post items at Wikipedia and expect them to remain as entered. They will be edited and/or removed and replaced.

      [PERSONAL CONFIRMATION of WIKIPEDIA UNAUTHORIZED EDITING]: I was asked by a non-political organization to enter peer-reviewed information into Wikipedia regarding their organization and facts it wished to be entered into the online information repository. They asked for outside assistance because every time they entered it themselves, someone edited it and changed it dramatically, often making it say exactly the opposite from what they had entered or simply inserting outrageous lies. I was given source data as well as external links to authorities I was invited to contact who confirmed the entries to be made and to publications that also confirmed the information I was entering. Each time I entered information, within hours, often within MINUTES, it was gone and/or had been highly edited to say things I had not entered and that contradicted the verified information I had entered. Often even the external links had been removed or edited to create dead links or redirected to links with opposing views to those to which I had linked. Lesson learned: Do not trust Wikipedia at face value. Verify everything you find there….or use Conservapedia… ( https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Main_Page )

    • If my comment comes out of moderation, I meant to include that I used Opera and DuckDuckGo. The first listing was Conservapedia, but the Wikipedia box was prominently displayed to the right of the search results. The search results included a mixture of “left” and “right” sources.

      • I have tried several more searches using DuckDuckGo on climate-related topics, such as “global warming,” “sea level rise” etc. In all cases, the Wikipedia quote is prominently displayed to the right of the search results. It may be the case that DuckDuckGo produces better (more balanced) search results, but the unwanted Wikipedia reference is evidence of some sort of editorial decision. It appears that DuckDuckGo, at least from my Chrome operating system, is subservient to Google.

  21. About the few conservative sources favored by Google being middle of the road rather than truly conservative sources such as Breitbart and Daily Caller: The liberal sources favored by Google for top right or ten hits are middle of the road left-leaning ones such as CNN and the New York Times, as opposed to Mother Jones or The Atlantic. The NYT is comparable to the Wall Street Journal, not Breitbart or Daily Caller.

    • CNN and MSNBC are not “middle of the road”. They are both solidly left-wing, and much more comparable to Breitbart and WaPO than Forbes/WSJ. Hell, half of CNN’s staff and all of their anchors either worked directly with/for or strongly supported the DNC. Fox, Forbes, and WSJ are legitimately the only major news outlets that could honestly make a claim of being middle of the road.

    • I had Google Maps leading me around a circle in an industrial park one night while the hotel I was looking for was about a quarter of a mile from the industrial park. My new car came without a nav system but allows me to use Android Auto for navigation. What a piece of junk that is, it always crashes within an hour. Along with the Android operating system, I’ve never seen such bad software. The reason Google makes all it’s money from ads is that it’s products never work.

      • Trying to Play Nice: I had Google Maps leading me around a circle in an industrial park one night while the hotel I was looking for was about a quarter of a mile from the industrial park.

        In a case like that, if you are alone, you have to get off the road and study the map to find the route from “here” to “there”. When I have been driving with my wife, she has gotten excellent spoken directions from Google Maps through her Android phone — sometimes alerting us to traffic jams and construction to avoid — even when the only appropriate routes have been indirect.

        Collectively, my extended family and I have had hundreds, maybe thousands, of successful interactions with Google Maps.

  22. I prefer news that says the New York Yankees are a better baseball team than the Red Sox. Is it possible that the Red Sox are really in first place and Google is only showing me what I want to see?

  23. Classic liberalism is ‘live and let live’; new liberalism is its opposite: fascism, an Orwellian whopper. Nobody likes a fascist so they use psychological projection to stay in disguise and call the rest of us ‘Fascists!’ while we keep calling them ‘Liberals!’ It’s just a game of smoke & mirrors, but they can win the world if we don’t get wise as serpents and shatter it.

      • No Nick – in every other field society recognises that with power comes responsibility. eg:- Financial advisors have power and society rightly sets rules to ensure they behave responsibly. We put regulations on food shops to ensure the weight stated on the container is correct, the goods have a use by date, the checkout price cannot be higher than the marked shelf price and so on. We impose statuary warrantee requirements on goods sold to ensure purchasers of defective goods have a redress. We certainly do NOT accept the buyer beware approach because we recognise that in many cases buyers have no way of realistically identifying shady practices.

        Recognise that suppliers of information have great power and therefore we similarly need to ensure they act ethically and responsibly. Gross bias masquerading as no bias is not responsible because it seeks to deceive. Thus it is imminently reasonable to set requirements to ensure gross bias does not occur . If google states openly they impose a strong leftwing bias and are in fact a supplier of leftwing information then that is OK and your comment is reasonable just as it is reasonable for a not quite right shop to sell goods close to their use by date – the title not quite right makes it clear. However Google do NOT state that, on the contrary they seek to give the impression that the provide unbiased information and that is unacceptable.

        • “We put regulations on food shops to ensure the weight stated on the container is correct”
          But we don’t regulate to require that you’ll like the food. That is left to customers to decide. And that is the complaint here, that Google doesn’t return the listing priority that locals would like. But a lot of people do like it – hence the 92%. And folks here want to vary that by government enforcement. Imagine if someone wanted to require Fox News to change its bias?

          • No, Nick, the customer asks for potatoes and Google returns ONLY Sweet potatoes, PURE RED inside, and says that is ALL that exists.

          • That is a matter of whether Google is giving people what they want. If they don’t get it, they will go elsewhere. In fact, they go to Google. You’re saying that the government should step in to say that Google can’t give them what they want; they’ll get what you want.

          • Nick, that reply is not worthy of you. The problem is NOT that people who know what they are looking for cannot find it on Google. The problem is that Google presents itself as an unbiased source of data which leads people to assume that the data provided via Google searches is representative of both sides of the issue under debate. Except it isn’t and thereby people who do not know better are being misled. By not presenting the opposing points of view it suggests there is no opposing point of view. That is the very basis of indoctrination. You say 92% of people like the Google point of view. That is clearly rubbish, 92+% of people don’t know that Google is biased and assume Google to fairly represent the whole issue.

            The problem could be completely solved by Google putting out a prominent disclaimer stating that they aim to give predominantly the left wing view of any issue. If they do that and 92% of people still go to Google for their data then no complaint but they don’t.
            Fox news makes no secret of the fact that they have a right wing bias which means they are not misleading people. But by Google not issuing such a disclaimer they are deliberately misrepresenting issues which amounts to propaganda.

            Your analogy about regulating that you’ll like the food is absurd. If the container states what is in the food then you have the data and it is indeed your decision. A better analogy would be if the container stated some of the ingredients but conveniently omitted other – maybe more controversial – ingredients. Imagine they omitted to mention that the food contained peanuts because they thought it might put people off buying it and then someone with an acute peanut allergy ate it and died. Do you really think an adequate defense would be to claim – well no one said you had to buy it, if you don’t like it dont buy it.

            The point is Google claim to provide all the data (or at least a representative cross section) yet they actually only provide that data which supports their point of view while suppressing data that may contradict with their point of view. That is deceitful and governments are not only justified but even morally obligated to address deceitful business practices.

          • “Google presents itself as an unbiased source of data “
            Does it? The complaint here is that they say
            “Generally speaking, they rank and present search results based on the use of so-called “authoritative sources.””
            And they choose what they regard as authoritative sources, and folks here don’t like that. But most people do, and they agree with Google’s definition. You call that a bias, but it isn’t unstated. It’s Google’s core business; discriminating among sources on the internet to figure out what people want. And a lot of people freely choose what they offer.

        • A regulator can measure the lead content in paint, the number of calories in “zero-calories” drinks, etc. You can measure those things a hundred times and the result will be almost exactly the same regardless of who’s doing the measuring.

          But nobody can provide a universal measure of bias because the issue is inherently subjective. Least of all politicians, who have a conflict of interest so obvious it’s almost unnecessary to mention.

          (Even in cases in which objective measures exist, it’s not clear that regulation or certification should be the task of government. Just consider the USB standard, or Underwriters Laboratories, or any other example of private regulation)

  24. The irony for Google could be that they help get Pocahontas Elizabeth Warren elected as President… and she has said she believes Alphabet (Googles parent parent company) is too big and should be broken up.

    “Be careful what you wish for Libtards.”
    – me

  25. Thank you David Wojick for a good essay.

    No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.

    Past eras gave us the Sedition Act and other restrictions on the free press. Past eras gave us W.R. Hearst, H. Luce and other biased news purveyors with great influence. (The effect of Luce’s influence on US China Policy post WWII was disastrous.) Breaking up Google’s near monopoly may be a good idea, but the only effective antidotes to Google’s bias are persistent attention to that bias, and dedication to alternatives, not some sort of control.

    • “the only effective antidotes to Google’s bias are persistent attention to that bias”
      No, the effective antidote is to find something with a bias that you like. Or create it. Do something positive.

      Google has no natural monopoly. The reason people complain about it here is that it provides a service that a lot of people want, and does it very well. Breaking up Google wouldn’t help; the demand will still exist, and new entities would meet it. People actually like information.

          • Defending Google’s use of bait and switch to hook users to depend on their services as a trustworthy search engine then completely changing their product to be a political propaganda machine without notifying the public and then LYING to Congress when they were called to answer for their actions says a lot about your values, and it isn’t good.

            Their dishonesty and misuse of the public trust should be investigated by a regulatory agency. They should be required to place a large disclaimer on every page they create stating that they are a biased LEFT propaganda service that only returns Leftist sources for items requested in searches and not an objective search engine. The fact that you support Leftist censorship of what has become a virtual public utility the way the old telephone companies became public utilities says a lot about you. I would be equally against Google if they censored any other content.

      • “Google has no natural monopoly.”

        It has patents on its revolutionary search algorithms. And it has fine-tuned its system over the past years, sparing no expense, to the point that no start-up could compete. Bing is not nearly the equal of Google. (I remember reading an article three years ago about how comparatively feeble it was.)

  26. Whatever Google or any other organisations with huge influence do, climate change sceptics will still prevail just by virtue of being right. No amount of censorship can hide the truth forever, in the internet age this is even more true. Reality is catching up with the alarmists, not a single one of their doomsday predictions has come true and people are starting to notice.

  27. My experience of search engines now is that 95% of all listings are MSM, rapidly having very little to do with your search terms. This is not how things were 15 years ago, when the internet was truly a learning medium and search engines were at its forefront.

    Now all the internet search functions are brainwashing operations.

    This teaches yoû that DJ30 corporations do not deliver consumer value when they earn monopoly profits, something capitalists are entirely comfortable trying to achieve.

    It might make right wingers ask whether capitalism as it occurs in real life actually delivers value to consumers outside the small window when markets are unconsolidated and consumer choice truly exists.

    This is not about socialism, it is about neoliberalism…

  28. The statement that Google “controls” 92.2% of online searches is absurd. It’s like saying Toyota controls 10% of car purchases. More accurate statement: users freely choose Google when carrying out 92.2% of online searches. They could just as well use Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, Bing, and others; for many searches there is also the option of bypassing search engines and heading straight to Wikipedia, Craigslist, etc.

    Users who dislike Google have other options; if they don’t, it must be because the issues mentioned by Wojick are unimportant to them. So, even if his allegations regarding Google’s bias are true, it doesn’t matter to the people who matter – consumers. To quote David French, this isn’t a market failure; it’s a market verdict.

    “When coupled with the nearly complete takeover of UN, IPCC, World Bank and other global governance institutions by environmentalist and socialist forces – and their near-total exclusion of manmade climate chaos skeptics, free market-oriented economists and anyone who questions the role or impact of renewable energy – the effect on discussion, debate, education and informed decision-making is dictatorial and devastating.”

    This is just hyperbole and cannot be taken seriously. Of course the aforementioned institutions are biased, but the idea that this has “dictatorial and devastating” effects on debate is ridiculous. And the same applies to “capitalist” “biases”. As an example, nearly all global institutions are overwhelmingly in favor of free (or at least freer) trade, yet that doesn’t stop commentators, citizens and politicians pretty much everywhere from calling for trade protections and restrictions of all kind.

    Now, read a bit below for some irony…

    “No free, prosperous, modern society can survive under such conditions and restrictions. It’s time for citizens, legislators, regulators and judges to rein in and break up this imperious monopoly.”

    So, the UN and other global governance bodies had a dictatorial effect on (global?) debate. But just leave it to legislators, regulators and judges; they’ll know how to handle online content and debate!

    Yes, I realize Wojick also mentioned “citizens” but guess what, consumers are citizens too! Citizens are already exerting their rights – and they’re mostly fine with Google.

    Addendum: the above shouldn’t be taken as defending free speech at all costs. There is one obvious case of speech the law should’t (and doesn’t) allow: threats of violence, including speech that is intended to provoke violence (i.e. the speaker does not threaten to carry out a violent act himself but incites others to do it).

    A more blurry issue is slander / defamation; however, this issue doesn’t relate to Google either, as the company itself publishes and says almost nothing (it simply links to content creators). By the way, I consider Europe’s “right to be forgotten” decision not a disaster, but certainly a step in the wrong direction. Google is being asked – and in some sense forced – to remove content that has not been proven defamatory. In any case, if the content were proven defamatory then judges would force *the defamer* to remove it from the internet.

    • “They could just as well use Duck Duck Go, Yahoo, Bing, and others;”

      No they can’t “just as well”—those engines are considerably inferior to Google. See my longer comment a bit upthread.

  29. “That sound good…..” Please fix to:
    That sounds good.
    It turned me off right away.
    Maybe a question mark rather than a period would work….
    I’ll still read the rest of the article…..
    JPP

    • Censorship might work 99% of the time and for the 99% of the time people may be happily deluded, but when it fails and people discover that they’re being lied to, their reaction is all the more hostile and you get a backswing against the censors.

      Indeed, the more Google censors, the quicker alternatives will spring up. So, e.g.I I’m writing this using a new browser called dissenter … and so I can and … just for fun, I will make the same comment on this article without any censorship at all.

  30. The way to address this legislatively is to mandate that any social media network that serves more than 10% of the American population needs to adhere to a new set of rules. (1) Clear and concise user rules with a process for appeals, (2) Open up the algorithms to public scrutiny and most important, (3) allow anyone, anywhere, to write their own user interface & search algorithm. And allow people to share, sell, or otherwise market their own search algorithm. For youtube, for twitter, for linked in, for facebook, etc.

  31. This article popped up right at the top of my Google newsfeed…the algorithm has discerned that i am interested in articles about climate warming skeptism.

  32. Did the Google Divorce on all my devices recently, including my Google-enslaved Samsung Galaxy tablet, because of their bias. Uninstalled any app related to Google and changed all my homepages and default search engines. Good search engine, terrible politics. And I loathe monopoly anyway.

  33. The Google bias is so bad, I’ve blocked google from searching my own website (Scottishsceptic.uk).

    If everyone being downrated did the same, everyone who moans about the bias, would be forced to stop using google to find their favourite sites and google would stop being a credible search engine (even alarmists sometimes want to find our sites if only to attack them).

  34. Leaked audio, via Allum Bokhari at Breitbart:

    https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/03/07/leaked-audio-google-discusses-steering-the-conservative-movement/

    “Google’s senior director of U.S. public policy, Adam Kovacevich appeared to describe the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) as a “sideshow Circus,” in a leaked audio recording in which he also argued that Google should remain a sponsor of the conference to “steer” the conservative movement “away from nationalistic and incendiary comments.””

  35. My wife had a very strange thing happen with her gmail account. I have a Yahoo email account, and received an important email from my church 2 days ago. My wife should have received it the same day. She did not. She checked trash and spam folders and could not find it. I forwarded it to her. She received my forward, and then moments later received the original email from the church.

    This makes me suspect that Google is filtering email from religious organizations, particularly Christian organizations. If this sounds like a conspiracy theory, so be it. I have no other explanation for this really strange, coincidental behavior.

    • Hi Dan,
      the explanation for “really strange coincidental behavior” is probably just a really strange coincidence.
      After all while the odds of you winning the lottery might be millions to one the chance of someone winning the lottery is fairly close to one. Really strange coincidences happen all the time.

  36. “The algorithm also ignores the fact that our jobs, economy, financial wellbeing, living standards, and freedom to travel and heat or cool our homes would be severely and negatively affected by energy proposals justified in the name of preventing human-caused cataclysmic climate change. The monumental mining and raw material demands of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels and batteries likewise merit little mention in Google searches. Ditto for the extensive impacts of these supposed “clean, green, renewable, sustainable” technologies on lands, habitats and wildlife.”

    Sounds like disinformation to me!

  37. It’s almost as if Google have a blacklist with David Wojick on it.

    Try a google search for “heartland Wojick google“, and compare it to the same search with duckduckgo.com

    In Google, the top 6 hits are activist journalism. Which is essentially: opinion dominated character assassination. These are from:
    newscientist.com
    desmogblog.com
    sourcewatch.org
    theguardian.com
    phylogenomics.blogspot.com
    washingtonpost.com

    With duckduckgo.com, the first activist article is 8th inline. David’s CFACT article was entirely filtered out from the google.com search results.

    This is more than just weighing the search results. It actual censorship by google.

  38. Catastrophic Climate Change Skepticism is NOT “CONSERVATIVE.” It is an issue of SCIENCE, not politics. Please don’t fall into that trap. Science is a “winnable” discussion. Politics is not.

Comments are closed.