Google Doesn’t Like It

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [SEE UPDATE AT THE END]

For some reason, I couldn’t find my post entitled “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“. I wanted to track it down, in part because I think it’s one of my better posts. But when I looked on Google, it wasn’t there. Instead, I found an oddity. Here’s the top of the list of results from Google:

The list goes on below what’s shown above. I was glad to see that there are about twenty complete copies of my post floating around on various websites. And another fifteen or so links to my post.

But nowhere in that Google list was there a link to my actual post here on Watts Up With That. I looked through every Google result. No link to the Watts Up With That original version of my post.

Puzzled, I looked on Bing … where the post here on WUWT was first on the list, as you’d expect.

Below that, as with Google, are links to a bunch of other copies of my post on various skeptical websites.

Moving on, here’s DuckDuckGo … again, WUWT is first on the list, with the copies on other websites listed below it.

Hmmm … I moved on to more obscure search engines …

Same thing in all of them except Google. Google shows everything all the other sites show, all the copies, but it doesn’t show the original.

Computer “glitch”? Deliberate censorship? Unintended consequence of artificial intelligence? Cosmic ray damage? Sergei Brin found out about me and his wife? Accidental invocation of artificial stupidity? God decided to squash me like a bug for my insufferable arrogance in challenging the climate status quo? Some pinche tiranito chiquito has it in for this website?

No idea, but I certainly have seen enough ugly censorship and strangely unidirectional “accidents” and “computer glitches” to have a healthy and well-justified suspicion of the motives and actions of the social media robber barons …


[UPDATE] Friday November 20 11:30AM Just tried it again, and magically Google has found it … top of the list now.

I suspect that the change might have been all of the searches from folks who read about it … without that it might have sunk into Google oblivion.

243 thoughts on “Google Doesn’t Like It

      • I switched to Duck Duck Go when Google started having a hissy fit every time I switched to my VPN. (Microsoft did much the same, blocking my Outlook email account until they could confirm who I was. They sent the email demanding this confirmation to the account they had blocked!)

        • I survived just three months on Outlook email until I was locked out of my account for three months. No idea why. Abandoned it although it was a considersble nuisance.
          At no point in trying to get the ban lifted could I interact with a human being.

      • I switched to DuckDuckGo on Firefox years ago (advice from this site) +ad-away & ghost… no problems.
        Going to look at the new ‘Avast Secure Browser’ anyone know anything about it ?

        • I use the Tor Browser, which is quite secure. It can be slow, however, and it can also exclude content censored in other countries – quite benign content in the US, but politically suppressed even in Western-style nations. That’s because it sets up your home server to appear to be in one of those countries.

          It used to circumvent the “free” article limit from places like the Washington Post, because it never presents the same identity to a destination site. But it does always operate in “private” mode, and WaPo and others began denying free articles to such hits.

          Tor also has some interesting peripheral software, such as a light operating system. You can have it on a thumb drive, and put it in any computer anywhere. You boot the computer into this O/S, and can run Tor and do any kind of internet search. None of your keystrokes are logged, and no one ever knows you were on that computer – even if a malware keylogger has been installed on the machine. The Tor O/S bypasses the installed O/S, and everything associated with it.

          If you’re interested in on-line anonymity, Tor is the place to go.

          • “If you’re interested in on-line anonymity…”

            Ha, ha, ha…

            Also, have you heard the one about the duck that walked into the bar? Ouch!

          • To be serious about retaining anonymity, use a VM and chain at least two VPNs. Ideally, the server for the first VPN you connect to should be in a location where your home country has no jurisdiction. So even if they figure out where your traffic is going, they can’t legally get hold of the server logs.

          • Pro-tip: If you’re going to use Tor, run an exit node. That way, your traffic to the Tor network is buried in traffic transiting through to other Tor nodes, and you have plausible deniability if the government attempts to hang any “you visited such and such a site which is illegal” charge on you… you can just claim that it wasn’t you visiting that site, it was traffic exiting your Tor exit node.

            Back in the day, I ran a Tor exit node using software I’d customized. It allowed more than the standard 3 hops to an exit node.

            State-level interception of that traffic would (since it was Tor) assume the third hop was the destination node, but not so… the software randomly picked anywhere from 3 to 12 hops before it hit a randomly-chosen exit node.

            The extra hops slowed things down a bit, but the extra security was a benefit, considering that I was going up against an international organized crime outfit at the time. Ran them out of 3 countries (US, Canada, Britain), shut down their operations in 4 countries (US, Canada, Britain, Ukraine), got a $37.5 million court judgement against them in the US, and the ringleader was thrown in the klink in Russia for 40 years for renting little girls from orphanages and starring in CP films with them. If he ever gets out alive, he’s wanted in three other countries. Taunted them the whole while via Tor, had them running scared.

            At the time, they had servers they’d co-located in China… I sent an anonymous email via the remailer network to all the Chinese government officials, and I’d altered the email headers to make it seem as though the email was from that crime outfit, and I was a ‘concerned Chinese citizen’ reporting it by forwarding it. In the email, I intimated that they were funding an insurrection. The Chinese government seized all their servers.

            Ah, good times. LOL

        • About 2 years ago, in an effort to de-Google-ify my life, I began using the Brave browser instead of Chrome. I absolutely love it.

          Recently I also switched my default search over to DuckDuckGo.

          Anyone have suggestions on a good free replacement for gmail?

      • I switched to DuckDuckGo 6 years ago to not be tracked everywhere I go on the internet. I used Chrome until 4 years ago when I finally go feed-up with losing 1/3 rd of my desktop to ads pushed to me. Switched to Firefox & IE.

        • If you like Chrome but don’t like all the Google-added corporate spyware cruft, check out SRWare Iron. It’s Chrome, with all that cruft stripped out. I’ve been using it for years.

          Being a paranoiac, I monitored the traffic of the browser for weeks as I browsed news websites, before I used it in earnest, just to be sure it wasn’t connecting to some server somewhere and spying on me. It wasn’t.

          • Oh, and if you don’t like ads… uBlock Origin and AdBlock Plus.

            I haven’t seen an ad in years. It even blocks Youtube ads in the videos.

            I especially like uBlock Origin… you can block any element on a web page. So those pop-ups which block you from reading a web page until you sign up? Yeah, those are gone.

            The big blue bar across the bottom of Disqus comments (on the Disqus site) pleading with you to sign up or sign in via Twitter, Facebook, etc? Gone.

            Don’t like that big graphic ad on your favorite website? Right click, select ‘Block Element’, ensure the big graphic ad is highlighted, click the ‘Create’ button, and that big graphic ad is gone and that screen real estate is recovered like that big graphic ad was never there.

      • That’s it for me. Finally switching to Duck Duck Go.

        The little animated falling leaf and “carbon neutral since 2009” by Google got me to make the switch to ddg.

      • I switched a couple of years ago!

        Willis, happy to see you are being read widely! Check a random selection of your other pieces.

    • The only way to pressure the GooFaced Twits and Yahoos to be honest is to write their sponsors and theaten to boycott unless they stop sponsoring dishonest censorship.

      • I have never had to ‘try’ Google’. Everything I need to look up I find on DuckDuckGo. The problem is that Google keeps slithering it’s way back into my browser, (Brave) so I have to watch it and make SURE I’m using Duckduck!

    • The Kraken has been released.

      This type of censorship can only last so long.
      The system is breaking before our eyes.
      Donald Trump will be president.

      • Dan – As you place THE Kraken statement into your post, ala’ DONALD Duck, it may look like a DOT in the ocean, but you are still a WINner!

        See if you can decipher the ‘hidden’ message!

        See ya,


        • get some decent politics & politicians.

          that goes for both parties. Dementia Joe and Crooked Hillary were the best the Dems could put forth the last two elections? Really?

        • CW2 is coming for YOU! Over one-third of Dems say Trump election was stolen. 70% of Republicans agreed 10 days ago, now it is 75% and growing. We need a guillotine style elimination of the Ruling Class to Take Our Country Back. Bloody revenge is coming

      • I want Trump to get un-cheated as much as anyone, but we are getting late in the innings now.
        I have wondered all along if this whole effort is mostly for show.
        Nothing like this many votes has ever been reversed, although it is probably also true that nothing like this level of cheating has ever occurred.
        The problem comes down to particulars.
        Fraudsters go to great lengths to conceal their acts, and unravelling even a mediocre level con has taken the FBI years, even after they know someone is a con artist.
        And of course there is no such luxury of time in this case.
        And the FBI is almost certainly MIA and part of the deep state at this point in time.
        I know they have affidavits, dozens of them, and more than enough statistical and circumstantial evidence to at least open an investigation.
        But even the language in these affidavits is usually less than declarative of fraud. They say things like “irregularities” were observed. Or that a batch of ballots appear different than others.
        Many of them are compelling, but almost none of them seem to prove a damn thing.
        Why are there no videos or photographs from any of these people?

        It may be they are not allowed to use them, and if that is the case, that is one place to start to fix this broken and corrupt process.
        They should be counting ballots in elections like a bank teller counts out money.
        Imagine if they took your deposit into a back room when you put it on the counter, and every once in a while someone opened the door a crack and peeked out, and after a while they came back and told you you did not have as much money as you thought, hereisyourrecieptthankyoubye!
        Who would aceppt that?

        Recounts only recount fake votes for the most part, and the same people that cheated to begin with are the ones in charge of any recounting, as we have seen in Georgia now.
        In the past when evidence of voter fraud on a large scale has been uncovered, it has almost always been quickly brushed aside.
        I can think of lots of reason for this, and not all of them are sinister in motivation.

        Example: A revelation of the actual true extent of voter and election fraud and dishonestly could only serve to undermine the ability of anyone to believe their vote matters.
        And votes and ballots are anonymous by design. Even with mail in votes, once separated from the envelopes, verification is impossible.
        Bad votes cannot be unsorted from the good ones.
        And no court has ever been willing to assume every bad vote is for one candidate in particular.

        The details of the 2016 recount that Jill Stein demanded, and what was revealed about how such recounts work when they got to Detroit, makes me very dubious that anything can be done to reverse the results of an election when the amount of votes separating the two is this large.

        But there is always the electoral college.
        The state legislatures are the ultimate deciders of what slate of electors to send to vote on who will be President.
        And even if none of the legislatures can find the political will to pick electors that are not the ones the election went to, individual electors, so called “faithless” electors, can in the end vote for whom they want. The thing is, these people are typically party stalwarts, and few ever vote contrary to the way it is expected they will vote.

        • I don’t really care about reversing the outcome, though it wouldn’t bother me if Trump won.

          Getting the count RIGHT is more important than getting an anonymous vote. If the election cannot be properly verified it is meaningless.

          I expect the Biden(as long as it is Biden’s) Administration is very likely to get very little done, much like Obama. Everything will be held up in the Senate.

          It will be very bad for the Dems if the 2022 election resets both House and Senate to Republican, a usual outcome in the past.

          But actually, very unproductive law producing is good. There are too MANY LAWS already.
          It may be time for an amendment that all laws have to be written by the legislators on the floor at the time. No Show, No imput.

        • If the poll watchers didn’t observe for reason beyond their control, the vote is illegal and should be rendered null and void.

          “And no court has ever been willing to assume every bad vote is for one candidate in particular.” True. If you cannot determine who got the most votes, which this case seems to imply, then you cannot give the elctoral votes of given state to any candidate, not Biden not Trump.
          Maybe the Trump team will tell you that a phony truck pulled up at 4:30 am and dunped hundred thousand phony ballots. Then they will refer to count tallies before 4:30 am…

  1. The same things seem to happen on You Tube to similar content. And, blow me down, You Tube is owned by Google. Obviously a corporate wide ‘glitch’!

    • Thanks for raising these important issues relating to google and youtube. I have a similar experience with my materials on those two platforms. Probably it is another secret policy to hide important, contrary thoughts.

    • Now you are being paranoid. If coincidence didn’t ever happen there wouldn’t be a word for them. Ergo, this is nothing more than a deeply suspicious mind examining a deeply suspicious circumstance. Wait, I don’t think I said that quite right.

  2. We have to keep pointing out these “accidents” as loudly as we can. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and they can’t disappear everything out there in today’s times.

  3. Just out of curiosity, would this query have success on Google: “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“

    Yes, WUWT comes up

    • That’s the trick I use when looking for specific WUWT articles. In fact all I add is “WUWT ” and it usually does the job.

      I wrote a number of articles for WUWT several years ago. After my divorce, I started dating again, and one of the comments I got was “I googled you and couldn’t find anything”. Well I’m not on social media, but I thought that was odd. The only thing I could find was Sour Sue belittling something I wrote for WUWT. So I started googling myself . Sure enough, I couldn’t find me unless I added WUWT to the search and then, voila! I’m not exactly at Willis’ level when it comes to notoriety in the climate debate, I’m several orders of magnitude less important , yet still they suppress searches on my name lest someone find out something about climate change that Google doesn’t like.

    • Chris, you’re right, you can devise a search string to find anything.

      My point was that the same search string found the original post everywhere but Google.


      • Even Carl’s string isn’t directly finding that article on Google (at least when I try it on my laptop). It find several WUWT articles which themselves contain a related article link to the WUWT “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science“ article, but no actual google link to the article itself.

    • WUWT links come up, but none of them are for the specific article. Normally site: should bring up the specific article, but for some reason Google has placed it in the memory hole.

      • Same here. Even with the site specifier that article does not come up in the results, just few other posts that themselves have links to the original post. Clearly something in their algorithms, scoring, indexing, etc., have caused that article to not be returned.

    • Same here. The original link didn’t give direct links to WUWT, but your extended link does. Right at the top there were direct links to Willis’ article and to other WUWT articles.
      I’m in the UK, using Firefox.

      Having said that, overall, what I’m seeing in the media and in big tech companies such as FaceTwit is truly terrifying. The amount of power they have and the way they use it to censor stuff they don’t like is, well, terrifying.
      I passionately hope that Donald Trump is president for the next four years, despite his (relatively trivial) failings. He’s probably our best hope. I hope he will be able to take robust action against this attack against freedom and democracy. Seeing many election officials going to jail for massive election fraud (if proven) would be a good start.

  4. Well, we know Google is thoroughly corrupted/biased, so I don’t think it’s at all surprising. What’s a bit surprising is your WUWT post showing up so quickly on the other engines….

  5. They call it the information age, it seems that’s true as long as the information has passed censorship. We live in a free world comrade,

  6. Just another arrow in the “like to see Google explain this to Congress while maintaining that it is NOT a publisher…” quiver.

  7. “Tiranito” is already a diminuitive, so “chiquito” is redundant, besides itself also being the diminuitive of “chico”, so is triply redundant. Thus “little, little, little tyrant”. Maybe that’s what you meant. Google is loaded with little tyrants, and is itself one big one.

  8. Apparently it was fixed in Google Search. Now it shows the correct result with WUWT site first.
    Perhaps a problem with WordPress, who knows ?

  9. Willis please allow me to set your mind at ease. Here’s the real issue.

    Google gets millions and millions of searches. Because GOOGLE is so damn important it goes on 24/7/365.

    Of course, this torrent needs moderation, or it would quickly fall to the lowest level, and allow people to see what they shouldn’t be allowed to see. At this volume, unmoderated search engines just simply won’t be up to that task. Fortunately, GOOGLE is a big highly important deal and has moderators coming out of their ears. Which leads me to the key point. All of the Moderators are well paid and know exactly what it is that they are supposed to find and censor.

    So yes, your posts are carefully scrutinized and dispatched as GOOGLE sees fit being the big deal that it is. I hope this clarifies your concerns.

    My best to you, and thanks your great posts here at WUWT


  10. The world’s most viewed site on global … – Watts Up With That? › page
    Diese Seite übersetzen
    Gavin’s Falsifiable Science. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Gavin Schmidt is a computer programmer with the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (GISS) and …

    On page one last item

    The world’s most viewed site on global … – Watts Up With That? › page
    Diese Seite übersetzen
    Gavin’s Falsifiable Science. Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Gavin Schmidt is a computer programmer with the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences (GISS) and …

    on page two, third item

    I searched on gooogle for:

    Gavin’s Falsifiable Science

  11. I’m thinking that the editorial vigilantes who infest Wikipedia have also infiltrated the ranks of Google, Twitter, Facebook etc in order to stamp out “wrongspeak”

    I suspect that even the number “1984” is soon to be banished from text on those platforms.

    • “1984” (old calendar) will be rebranded as a textbook on how the world should work since the year 0 (new calendar, starting from 1988, when Google was launched).

  12. Interesting. When I searched simply for “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” I replicated your results. When I searched “Willis Eischenbach Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” – the original WUWT location came up #3.
    I am not sure what to make of it. It certainly seems odd.

    • Not for me. When I cut and paste exactly hat you typed (including the quotes) I get exactly 1 results, and it’s to › climate-change (which itself contains a link to the WUWT article).

      without the quotes I get lots more “hits”, none to the original article, though a few are to WUWT pages that contain a link to the original article.

  13. Willis, did you try it in another browser? What about in private mode or incognito mode? Sometimes that top search result can be driven by your prior search history. Also, try it on a different device (and in a different browser and private/incognito mode on said device).

        • Results might be varying by location. I’m in the US and not getting a direct link. Upthread someone from New Zealand reported finding it on the 2nd page of results, and Nick (who is also outside the US) claims to see the link when in incognito mode.

      • Nick, was it a link to the specific article or was it a link to a different WUWT article that happens to contain a mention of the article Willis was looking for? because, so far in all my attempts, the closest Google will give me is the later. The former doesn’t show up on Google no matter what I try.

      • With a browser open, you can usually open another copy of the browser in a special mode that does not keep history, cookies and other site data, and form data. In Chrome, it’s called an “Incognito window”. In Firefox, Brave, and Safari, it’s called “private window”. In Edge, it’s called “InPrivate window”, I believe.

    • I tried it on Firefox, Chrome, and Chrome in incognito mode. Same result everytime: no direct link to the article in question.

  14. “Falsifiable” in the headline was probably the word that kicked you out. We have found you need to be careful constructing titles and definitely keep certain words out of the document. In today’s search environment keywords can make or break you.

    • Oh, man, I suppose I gotta self-censor but really? This is not the 21st century I was promised in the fifties …

      Thanks, rbabcock,


      • I’ve found you cannot use the correctly spelled word “gen o ci de” on this blog comments. The comment just disappears, not even sent to in moderation. I think there are other terms/words.

        I once found “Si li con Val ley” did it too. Haven’t tired that one in a while though and the list of banned words probably changes with time. These are disappearing comments are different from words like “k1ll” that send the comment to moderation.
        There’s probably a lot of “shenanigans” that goes on under the hood at the webhost filtering and metering that Anthony has no control or even any owner awareness of.

  15. I have no use for Google search, although I have heard that it is better at locating porn than the other search engines, once you diddle with the settings.

  16. Anybody want to copy the what’s her name Senator from Hawaii on this? She was saying there’s no bias against conservative thought on Google at a hearing the other day. Probably go farther if a Hawaiian resident sent it.

  17. Congratulations! You have been Googlefied. This is a high honor for any skeptic. It means they consider you a threat.

    I stopped using Google years ago because of their attitudes and censorship – I would recommend everyone else dump them as well.

  18. I’ve been using DDG for a long time. I also use Brave for my server. Nothing is perfect but they are both better than anything Google.

  19. Just for kicks, Google “google censorship”. The top hit for this search on DDG is from Breitbart. I’m not seeing that near the top of the Google hits. It would be most informative to see which sites are used in each search. My offhand guess is that Google rates each site for Google-truthiness and shuffles the “deplorables” to the bottom of the pile. If it doesn’t just ignore them totally.

  20. Facebook – I don’t use it and never will

    Twitter – I don’t use it and never will
    I avoid it about 95 percent of the time (it is better than Duck Duck Go
    My three blogs are on, owned by Google and provided to me for free, so I do business with them, I guess you could say.

    I make a strong effort to shop locally, but some things are not available. I ordered something on Amazon many years ago and when I tried to order something else this year, I could not place an order, and I have no idea why.

    My point, and I have one, is we can live without Google, Facebook, Twitter and Amazon if we want to.

  21. Take heart Willis, it is not you that Google deems bad. It’s this site it doesn’t like. If this site would back off of the politics, and garbage posts about HCQ, it might get a better ranking.

        • HCQ is widely and safely prescribed and has been for decades by doctors treating Lupus patients. Your claim of “dangerous” is demonstrably false, i.e. a lie. I’m not decided on HCQ as COVID prophylactic, but it clearly isn’t “dangerous” as you claim unless the Rx dosage goes too high and the Dr is not monitoring new patients on it.

          Gov Nuisance is drunk with power, or DWP as Senator Rand Paul likes to refer to him along with some of the other Dem governors’ draconian orders on COVID Lockdowns that don’t work.
          This DWP goes directly to their edicts on the Climate Scam and things like Nuisance’s recent order on ICE cars after 2035.

          To wit:
          “Executive order directs state to require that, by 2035, all new cars and passenger trucks sold in California be zero-emission vehicles ”

          Bethan456, You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

          • 1) Promoting a drug that is ineffective against the SARS-COVID virus is dangerous.
            2) The link I provided you regarding Newsome is a smear.
            3) Your link about Newsome is a classic case of “whataboutism.”

          • Joel, here’s a quiz for you on DWP:

            Who said: “Then I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

          • The evidence that HCQ is ineffective against COVID-19 is like evidence for climate science. It exists in the eye of the beholder. For every study that says it’s worthless, there is another that says it’s effective. Most of the studies that I have looked into that say it is ineffective, have suffered from serious methodological issues.

          • MARKW, please get real. Doctors don’t like their patients to die. If HCQ worked, it would be used. As of right now over 2000 people in the USA are dying from this virus per day. A clear example of some thing that WORKS is turning patients to the prone position to enhance their breathing. This example was discovered by doctors treating patients and rapidly spread among doctors via their professional contacts. It needed no “study” or article in some journal to become a standard treatment. The same can be said for HCQ. Doctors tried it and it failed. If it worked, doctors would be using it. It failed in double blind studies. It doesn’t work.

          • bethan,

            You claimed HCQ was dangerous. It simply is not, your claim is a lie. And even a healthy person taking HCQ still would not be dangerous given that it was used for decades as a safe effective anti-Malarial drug and prophylaxis in tropical regions of the world.

            You clearly do NOT know what a smear is. A smear is when something that is not true or unsubstantiated is claimed about someone. The Steele Dossier was smear on Trump because there has never been any evidence of any those wild claims, and many where proven lies.
            On the other hand, everything about the Gov Nuisance-French Laundry Story has turned out to be true. The truth is noit a smear. It is what it is. And Gavin tried at first to lie about being outside then confessed that too was a lie when pictures showed them inside. Really he was just confessing his disappointment in getting caught.

            Pretty credible guy Mike Wallace today called Gov Nuisance the poster boy for hypocrisy. He said tongue-in-cheek on the air, “If you look up hypocrisy in the dictionary, you’ll find a picture of Gov Newsom.” The fact that the Rules, whether climate or COVID, don’t apply to Nuisance and his elitist friends. When the time comes for the gas car ban, they’ll offer very expensive “exemptions” that wealthy Californians who have connections and will be able to buy and keep their gas powered cars and trucks.

          • bethan,

            The DWP reference is not a whataboutism. It is directly relavent to Nuisances attitude of Screw the Little People. So the link to Governor’s edict with Legislative approval that will ban fossil fuel cars in less than 15 years is certainly relative. An order like that will drastically affect almost every Californian and every business. Yet Gov Nuisance e didn’t go through the Sacramento Cal Assembly to get the authority to do it. He just ordered it by EO. Classic case of a Little Napoleon, Drunk With Power, who knows the State Assembly won’t give him want he wants so he orders it anyway. The COVID lockdowns are the same. He orders people around and then ignores them for himself.

            Bethan, You seem to think you are smarter than you are. You obviously are not.

          • “over 2000 people in the USA are dying from this virus per day.”

            Actually, no. Not arguing with the 2,000 people per day, but more than 2,000 people die in America every day of the year. Just labelling them as being Covid positive doesn’t mean that they actually died of Covid. More people are dying from suicide (or for that matter, car accidents) than genuinely from Covid.

          • Bethan456 dribbled:
            “A clear example of some thing that WORKS is turning patients to the prone position to enhance their breathing.”

            Oh, sure… because putting the entire upper-body weight on the rib cage is a well-known way of enhancing the ability to breathe. Isn’t that what killed George Floyd? He took so many opiates (he had ~5 times the amount considered potentially lethal) that his breathing was impaired, he stated several times while on his feet that he couldn’t breathe, he was placed in a prone position, and he strangled to death because his diaphragm muscles were drug-impaired.

            He had Cov19, too… and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s what his COD was marked as. LOL

            Prone position for patients with ARDS is only indicated when mechanical ventilation fails to reverse severe hypoxemia, and only if it’s done properly such that the weight of the upper-body isn’t resting on the rib cage. You can’t just roll a hypoxemic patient onto their stomach and expect them to start breathing better, especially if they’re obese.

            Your dim-witted blather would strangle CoV19 sufferers just as Floyd strangled. Stop spreading misinformation that you know nothing about in a desperate attempt to gain points in a pointless online argument, idiot.

        • How progressive of you. Telling other people how to behave. For their own good of course.
          A little research would inform you (assuming you are both capable of and interested in learning) that this site is not and never has been a purely climate related site.

          If discussions regarding topics you don’t deem worthy of your exalted self are not to your like, do what everyone else does. Don’t read them.

        • Bethany
          You statement “promoting HCQ is not political it is dangerous”
          is the result of the thought process of a ding=bat with low blood sugar.

          HCQ is not dangerous, and has been around for enough decades to know that. Small doses are used in many nations to prevent malaria. Small regular doses might make the immune system more resistant to COVID-19 infections.

          The only question is whether the doctors who have prescribed it are getting worthwhile results.

          I’ll wait here while you check your patient files.

          You must be a doctor, to be such a HCQ “expert”, right?
          At least an expert in your own mind?

        • HCQ’s efficacy was in contention only because the CoV19 virus was able to use more than one enzymatic pathway to infect cells. HCQ only blocks one pathway, the ACE2 pathway.

          Using a second enzymatic blocker (such as camostat mesylate) for the TMPRSS2 enzymatic pathway shows that the two in combination are highly effective at stopping CoV19 from infecting cells.

          HCQ is one of the most widely-prescribed drugs in the world, and is used by, for instance, rheumatoid arthritis sufferers and those in malaria-prone geographical regions. Some of them have been taking it for decades. It’s one of the most-researched and safest drugs in the world.

          The reason HCQ was denigrated recently is because the drug companies, in order to get emergency approval of their treatments, needed to claim that there were no effective treatments available.

          The reason the drug companies wanted emergency approval is because that removes any legal liability if their drug proves to be dangerous at any time in the future.

          It’s the same with the vaccines… we don’t need a vaccine if HCQ and camostate mesylate are effective (and they are highly effective at commonly-used dosages)… but the drug companies need that emergency approval for their vaccines to remove any legal liability should their vaccine turn out to be dangerous.

          You’re just a sheeple who’ll gulp down any leftist shite-sandwich that’s waved in front of your face, because you’re either not sufficiently intellectually endowed or you’re simply too intellectually lazy to discover the truth for yourself. Thinking is hard work, isn’t it? LOL

          • Great response to someone that probably will not appreciate it one iota but of course we can always hope I am wrong.

        • Bethan,
          There is almost nothing as purely political as “climate science”.
          So your suggestion falls flat right there.

      • Yes, bethan, just did admit it’s all political.
        CAGW (now called “Climate Change”) has always been just a lever (among others) to an end.
        Claiming HCQ (hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine – as in quine) is “dangerous” is just an excuse to “justify” all of Google’s censorship (“ranking”) of all things WUWT in a Google Search as was done long before Covid.

        • What is “dangerous” is a site dedicated to climate science promoting drugs that have no proven effectiveness. It would be the same thing is if WUWT promoted colloidal silver for health. It would be different if the articles were written by qualified MDs.

          • Bethany :
            You have provided the usual leftist appeal to authority logical fallacy.
            If you didn’t hear it from a doctor, then it can’t be true.
            Also, the government climate bureaucrats know all about the climate in 100 years –I’m sure YOU believe them They have to be right because they … are … experts.

            Leftists like you don’t do independent thinking — you simply believe what the leftist “experts” have told you to believe.

            Like a trained parrot.
            Bethany wants a cracker?
            squawk squawk
            Bethany wants a cracker?

          • If you stop misspelling your email address, you will stop being automatically moderated.

            It’s a pain to fix.

          • You are seriously comparing a drug that has been safely used for decades to colloidal silver? Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

            Sister, I say you just destroyed your own credibility, but you never had any to begin with. Go crawl back under your bridge you useless concern troll.

          • “What is “dangerous” is a site dedicated to climate science promoting drugs that have no proven effectiveness.”

            A better example of moving the goal posts has rarely been seen.

            Although as a troll your entire game is moving goal posts, I get it.

          • Scary. A brainwashed person who is a perfect example of where despotism begins. A person who not only thinks it’s okay, but laudable to hide and bury facts that their groupthink people disagree with.
            There are studies. There is history. There are even personal anecdotes. Regardless of the subject matter, I have a right to view and weigh them. You want to take away that right.
            How dare you.

      • Once again MARKW sticks his nose into a conversation he wasn’t invited into . He tells everyone he knows better than anyone else because he disagrees with them.

        How typical.

        • Beth dear, this is an open forum. You make a comment you are inviting everyone here who reads it to reply. That includes people, like MarkW, who disagree with you. So crawl back under the bridge you came from if you don’t like people replying in disagreement to the garbage you post.

        • Actually bethan456 it is rather easy to disagree with you. Of course this does not make you a bad person. However, some of your opinions raise doubts in my mind about the depth of your knowledge and your abilities concerning logical thought. Of course I could be quite wrong on both counts. Have a nice day. Regards Peter

    • Anyone who claims a long standing, well established medicine of the world is bad, is just a chi-com bot to me.
      LOL the sky is falling eh?

      • Statement of Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health

        “So what did I find about hydroxychloroquine in early use among high-risk outpatients?

        The first thing is that hydroxychloroquine is exceedingly safe.

        Common sense tells us this, that a medication safely used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses worldwide, prescribed without routine screening EKGs, given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers, must be safe when used in the initial viral-replication phase of an illness that is similar at that point to colds or flu.

        In fact, a study by researchers at the University of Oxford showed that in 14 large international medical-records databases of older rheumatoid arthritis patients, no significant differences were seen in all-cause mortality for patients who did or did not use hydroxychloroquine. ”

        As I’ve said, if Trump said “water is wet” there would be a 500 signature letter tomorrow from chemists that would say “there is no science behind the statement”.

        People’s minds are broken, truly.

  22. Sergei Brin found out about me and his wife?”

    And what did your ex- fiancé have to say about that?

    On-topic: This kind of suppression and search burial of things not approved by science-hating Libtards when the science doesn’t agree with them as occurring on Google searches is well documented all over the internet.

  23. We called our site “climate scepticism” with the simple aim of picking up hits on Google. It worked for the first few months. Last time I looked we’re somewhere around page three or four on Google, but number one on Duck Duck Go, second to Wiki on Bing. Google’s number one was the Wiki article on climate change denial, followed by similar articles at the Guardian, SkepticalScience, Grist etc.

  24. If it is wrong for a foreign country like Russia to interfere in America’s or another country’s internal affairs, why is it OK for an international company like Google to censor or otherwise interfere in the free flow of information in any country? It doesn’t make sense. Would we put up with an international phone company listening to our phone calls and disconnecting the call whenever we mention something they don’t like? Would we be content with international mail being opened and not delivered if the content offends the delivery service? I would hope not.

  25. This article prompted me to do a Duck Duck Go search for my name. I have had 10 guest articles published by WUWT. My search only returned two of those ten, and they were from 2016 and 2017. Strangely, one of them included a criticism by Bindidon calling my remarks arrogant, even though the link was for the main article and not any particular comment. One could easily get paranoid about someone or some organization trying to denigrate WUWT and its authors.

  26. Of course Google doesn’t like your very enjoyable posts Willis…they (your posts) don’t support the “narrative”.

    Just Google “Climate change-Wikipedia” and scroll down to “Nature and wildlife” where you will see a photo of an emaciated polar bear…suggesting its condition is the result of our emissions. The “evidence” they have for their nonsense amounts to extrapolations of selected short-term trends apparent in the instrumental record, numerical model projections, comparing the mush of proxy data with instrumental data and treating a “consensus” as a scientific case for CO2 climate…in other words science by vote.

    How stupid are these people to think we are that stupid? Emissions are the result of energy production and energy production is the primary cause of human wealth and prosperity.

    • But emissions clearly demonstrate that we have inappropriately taken something from the earth, used it for our own benefit, and not shared it with other creatures. You have to understand, this is why that asteroid was made to hit the earth and bury all that carbon. The dinosaurs had grown too big, were stripping too much to feed themselves, and by not sharing, preventing other creatures from getting their share. A recent study on the age of coal clearly showed that a majority of the coal deposits date from the time of the extinction! And here we are, undoing all of that hard work by burning coal and putting all that carbon back into circulation. Shame on us!

  27. Google is more interested in propagating Leftist Propaganda than doing what they CLAIM to do… i.e. Web Searches. Censorship by lying… it’s what Leftists always do… lie.

    I only use Google Search for finding products on Amazon or at Lowes or Home Depot.

    Google returns links that open up the correct Apps and displays the results. Amazon and Lowes and Home Depot have terrible search engines.

  28. Many people are unaware Google “personalizes” search results. How that could possibly hide some results for Willis but not others is a mystery. Btw: It does not show results on WUWT for me, either.

    I switched from Google search months ago. The reasons include privacy concerns and Google’s manipulation and censorship of web search.

    • What was the original motto (or one of them) of GOOGLE? “Don’t be evil.” This where the “You had ONE JOB!” meme applies.

  29. we live in a google matrix.
    4 pages of google results and no right link!
    yandex pops it at the very top.
    15 years ago google was among the good.
    The force went dark side.

  30. I switched to DuckDuckGo years ago and it’s all I need. Along with “missing” things, Google search pages are usually filled with SEO junk that interests me not.

    Now this is odd. On a whim I searched for “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” on and low and behold, the WUWT link is the third in the results list.

  31. I was recently asked to fill out a form for a project I was considering taking on.
    The provided link took me to a Google Doc. I needed to set up a Google account before I could enter any info.
    So…I told the person who’d sent the link that I refuse to have a Google account and he’d have to send me the form in another format. He asked why, so I gave him my list of reasons. I couldn’t figure out why he seemed to take offense.
    Then I found out he was a Google employee! I walked away from the project.

    • Someone took a look at all the non-Google labelled products that are still owned by Google.

      Things like Waze and Captha, for instance.

      You can delete all the browsers, search engines, etc., yet still give them information.

  32. I use from the Netherlands. It uses Google search but provides anonimity through redirection. The article “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” on WUWT is second and third from the top. This current article is fourth. Interesting test.

  33. I tried it on and searched for: Gavin’s Falsifiable Science

    It came out as the nr 1 result:

    Ongeveer 62.700 resultaten (0,47 seconden) › 2020/01/18· Vertaal deze pagina
    Gavin’s Falsifiable Science – Watts Up With That?

    (screenshot is available)

    But, if I search for: “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” (so, with ” “) as you apparantly did
    then it comes as nr. 4, after this current post ‘Google Doesn’t Like It’ which is 3rd!

    (sreenshot also available)

    WUWT?????????????????? Using the quote marks alter the results???

    Willis, could you try searching for Gavin’s Falsifiable Science without the quote marks too?

    Would really like to hear the result and maybe solve the mystery?!

    • Double quote marks in Google searches tells it to look for that actual string. Without quote marks it will match those words scattered throughout the post, though it rank matches higher if the search terms are found close together.

      I’m not sure how Google handles punctuation, e.g. I don’t know if |”| match double quote, left quote, right quote, or all of them (and maybe the European variants too.

      Punctuation in the title may be part of the problem.

    • Where in the world did you try it from, as It appears to vary by geo-location. I just tried (with and without the quotes) from here in the US using both and, I’ve tried it from 3 different browsers on two different PCs (a laptop and a desktop each connected to the net from different internet access points) and get the same result every time: No link to the original WUWT article.

  34. One thing I’ve suspected is that the long length of many posts here may knock down the “importance” of a search string, even when it’s in the title. has 288 comments – a lot, but many posts have a lot more.

    I did a search for |”Gavin’s Falsifiable Science”| and the first hit was not the primary URL for the post, but went to one of our “category pages” – which just has the synopsis of your post.

    Another post there has the title “Saturday silliness – Gavin loses it” UTF punctuation may cause funniness in searches and may be involved in your search, to keep that at bay, I tried Googling |”Saturday silliness” “Gavin loses it”|. The first hit was page 908 down from the home page, next was (similar to the category page). The post itself has only 62 comments, so perhaps my thoughts about total size are not on track. Note I did not include the term.

    Pretty weird. Time to make dinner, I’ll think about it more.

    • LOL. yeah the article complaining able google not showing the previous article shows up at #1 when searching for the previous article.

  35. Willis:

    Welcome to The Link.

    Once information moves into the cloud, it’s just as easy to change or erase as it is to create.

    As much as I’ve come to regard my excessive collection of physical books as a burden, I increasingly regard their immutability as an asset.

  36. Each search engine has it’s own bias. On my laptop and phone I have 3 at any one time. There is a definite trend for loss of reliability with Google.
    Example, I live off grid in retirement (lifestyle, it’s not cost effective). I use an atypical battery chemistry, Chinese made Edison cells, out of patent decades ago. Search Google, and I get inaccurate articles on why I shouldn’t use them. I use any other search engine to get information. I have noticed the same on climate science, Medicine (I was a doctor), and other technical fields.

    People, don’t trust Google. Use a variety of search engines. Even Google’s technical search results are becoming politicised.

  37. I know it’s worst on political issues, but it’s not limited to that. I’ve become convinced that some powerful interests can get some subject matter blocked, even just for their own financial advantage. Case in point, Gilead Sciences.

    Specifically, five+ years ago I went back looking for an article about the coming availability of certain generic medicines from India, Bangladesh and/or China. I knew I had read it on the Fierce Pharma website, but google refused to find it for me. Took me several weeks to find it again, and for a while google seemed to start treating the entire Fierce Pharma website almost as invisible.

    I suspect that with the proper influence or financial incentive google can and will bury a site or subject just as easily as they move a paid Adwords campaign to the top of a search.

  38. Related but with FaceBook. I posted a write up on the supply chain mentioning Apple and Nike. It highlighted the low wages and working conditions at the Foxconn iPhone assembly plant. The post zipped right down the newsfeed like a falling rock.

  39. @Willis,

    Thanks for the post. I just switched my PC and phone to DuckDuckGo.


    (actual name redacted due to easy web location finding)

  40. I use Yahoo! It got the right answer.
    I find that Yahoo! works better for me. (When you click on a Yahoo! search result it opens it in a new window. Now, maybe I’m using Google wrongly, but when I click on a Google search result, it opens it in the same window – thus losing the search results – which is infuriating.)

    • “when I click on a Google search result, it opens it in the same window – thus losing the search results – which is infuriating.”

      You can fix that in its Settings page.

  41. I use Google Earth Pro and Street View when encountering a place-name in an article. I wonder what info they collect of me, and how they use it?
    Example: A UK book publisher says congestion at Felixstowe Port has left it with no books to sell in the lead up to Christmas.

    Years ago I used “google” — now I use “search-up” – – or similar. I just did a “search-up” of Felixstowe Port and spent 10 minutes ingesting information I really don’t need. [I searched with Duck Duck Go.]

  42. @Willis

    The view from the UK (or at least this UK citizen) using Brave or Google shows your post on the front page in 6th position, although the link is to Gavin’s category page on WUWT.

    • If it’s to Gavin’s category page on WUWT instead of the actual article, then the actual article link is not on google at the 6th or any other position. By putting in the title of his article, Willis should be able to get a direct link to it from the google search results, ideally as the first hit. That wasn’t happening at the time he posted (or apparently at the time you tried it in the UK).

      Now, however, a direct link to the article is showing up for me in the search results as the number 1 option. All of us searching for it must have clued google (or it’s AI) in and they “fixed” their results (at least for this one case).

  43. People still use Google search?

    The item was second entry on a StartPage search. Prefer StartPage to DuckDuckGo as I can search just UK sites, and it has an advanced search.

    • ResultHunter is another good one (originally SearchConservative). Started by a conservative, it ranks conservative sites higher so you don’t have to wade through a mile of sewage to find what you want.

  44. Hmmm…

    I always google Stories here before commenting and I often find that the only web references to them are from other Skeptic websites… e.g it might be on GWPF, JoNova, Paul Homewood – but nowhere else in any mainstream or scientific site.

    does that mean only the skeptics have the truth? Or that the stories don’t have any basis in reality?

    • griff
      There is an old saying that there are always two sides to a story. If one side of the story is always missing from “any mainstream or scientific site” then it strongly suggests that they are self-censoring instead of trying to be balanced and objective.

      No, skeptics are not the only ones to have the truth. But, they do possess an alternative to dogma.

    • More likely that google has the same attitude towards truth that both you and the journalistic profession in general have. Exemplified by the excellent Iowahawk’s aphorism, “…covering important stories. With a pillow, until they stop moving.”

  45. Your experience reminded me of this Breitbart article:

    “Even when the exact headline of a Breitbart News article is typed into Google, search results will frequently return results to obscure websites instead of Breitbart itself — sometimes websites that scraped Breitbart’s content without permission.

    “For example, we conducted a Google search for the following Breitbart News original article: “Joe Biden Touts ‘Most Extensive & Inclusive Voter Fraud Organization in History of American Politics,’” by Kyle Olsen.

    “The top search result is from a website called Geopolitics News, which plagiarizes both the headline and the full content of the article — complete with Olson’s bio.”

  46. I searched “pinche tiranito chiquito,” because I wanted a translation. I used Google, and this post was the first link. Interesting choice of words.

  47. Made me check. I typed the name of an old post I’d made at Climate Etc. Myths and Realities of Renewable Energy (no quotes). Way back I remember it being at the top for just myth and renewable, but over time green slanted became more prominent. In the spirit of fair reporting was surprised this search had me at the top over the same title by EURAC (a European renewables group).

  48. I was skeptical of Google as well. In 2014 I wrote a posting at Climate Etc. that was at the top of the list for searches on just the words Myth and Renewables for some time. Seemed like suddenly it was pushed way down by pro green references. So after reading this I tried “Myths and Realities of Renewable” (without the quotes and leaving out the last word “Energy”). Since I would have reported it had they dropped me, I’ll report that it turned out quite the opposite. They had my older posting at the top of the list, before an identically titled “pro green” publication by the EUREC (a European pro renewables group). It may be Google personalized the search for me, because I have used Google to find it before. I am curious how the search might turn out for someone else.

  49. I’m concerned this might be worse.

    I just used DDG on chrome to search for ‘Google doesn’t like it’. The top result is at, which seems to be a shadow of WUWT but with no comments.

    I would guess that someone has arranged for the above site to steal all of your search hits, and it is now creeping out to other browsers and search engines – however the hell that works. I suspect a ‘demonetisation’ attack. I will also email wuwt.

  50. I just searched for gavin’s falsifiable science, using Google, and got Willis’s post on top. I am quite sure Google does bad things of this kind, but in this case, at least for me, it seems to have retained its good manners. I did use lower case though, as stated.

    • About 3 hours before you made this post it started showing up for me as well where as previously it was no where to be found on google. I suspect had you tried yesterday, when Willis first posted about it, your results would have been considerably different, as mine were.

      I’m guessing all of us googling the same thing, and possibly Willis’ post about it trigger someone at google to “fix” the problem. That’s the way these tech companies seem to operate. We’ve seen it in the senate hearing, a Senator points out a situation like this, and they’ll claim we don’t do that/that was a “glitch/mistake” and that the “glitch/mistake” has been fixed. Funny how all their “glitch/mistakes” go in the same direction and only get fixed, if they ever do, once complaints become public enough.

  51. Google found it for me, first time, just for the record. That said, however, I have other grounds for not trusting Google, and have started using DuckDuckGo, largely as a result of reading about it here.

  52. The original “Gavin’s Falsifiable Science” comes up as #1 on my browser: Firefox/Google as installed by the #2 granddaughter aka The Family Nerd.

  53. In Google, Youtube, ResearchGate, Twitter everywhere there is some suppression of contrary views. Would you kindly launch an investigation about how is it possible by the powerful people to suppress useful and important opposite views? Those people already captured media for propaganda.

  54. I stopped using Google years ago, many years ago, when I found out how they filter shopping search results.
    The implication was obvious even then…they are not usable as a source for information, unless you want everything you are able to find to be something those %#@&^%’s want you to read.
    Not much choice on the phone though, or with videos.
    I am strongly considering scrubbing my FB and Twitter accounts.
    Why would I want to be those people’s product?
    Everyone who uses them for anything is enriching them and making them even more powerful.
    This has to stop, or they will own and rule everything and everyone.

  55. When I went to google dot com and did this search, the number one result was your article, Willis.
    I can think of a few reasons why some people get different results, besides the obvious one that google is known to filter search results, and the second most obvious one that google is know to tailor results depending on what someone is expected to want to see.

    I search for WUWT article a lot, specifically typing in WUWT into the query.

    But I think the actual reason may have something to do with a person’s search setting.
    Curious…how many who were not able to find Watts Up With That article on top, have Safe Search turned all the way off?

  56. In the google search settings, there is one for safe search, and another for region preferred, and another for private search results, and then there is a whole page called “advanced search” settings.

    How these are set up can completely alter what shows up when someone searches.

  57. Oh, something else that alters what people see in the first page or first several pages, is what they have clicked on in the past.

  58. Update added to the Head Post:

    Friday November 20 11:30AM Just tried it again, and magically Google has found it … top of the list now.

    I suspect that the change might have been all of the searches from folks who read about it … without that it might have sunk into Google oblivion.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *