Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Register, Google’s advertisers have demanded their ads not be shown on pages which dispute the climate emergency.
Motivated by commerce, not conscience, Google bans ads for climate change consensus contradictors
Publishers won’t get ads, advertisers won’t get a voice, nobody will be spared weeks of tedious culture wars
Simon Sharwood, APAC Editor
Fri 8 Oct 2021 // 02:51 UTCGoogle has decided not to run any ads alongside content that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change”.
The decision impacts YouTube, advertisers, and publishers. It appears to be primarily a matter of commerce, rather than conscience: the adtech strangler vine has framed the decision as a change to its ads and monetization policy.
“In recent years, we’ve heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change,” states Google’s missive. “Advertisers simply don’t want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators don’t want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.”
Hence the new policy, which will bar ads appearing on content that suggests climate change is a hoax, scam, or denies that human activity contributes. Ads suggesting any of the above will also be banned.
…
Read more: https://www.theregister.com/2021/10/08/google_climate_change/
I’m not sure I believe Google’s explanation.
If they were taking care of commercial customers who don’t want their ads to appear next to climate skeptic stories, they could have just added a checkbox to their ad management console, protected clients who were sensitive about appearing next to climate skeptics, while retaining revenue from what are frequently very popular stories.
In my opinion, banning specifically climate skeptic content could be an attempt to commercially coerce Fox News, Breitbart, and other websites to avoid printing stories which Google doesn’t like – an attempt by Google to use their financial leverage to exert editorial influence over websites read by people who are open to skeptic narratives.
Nothing like the iron bar of censorship to make everyone confident they aren’t being lied to. /sarc
Is content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change similar to content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the origin of Covid 19? As I recall, at the start of the pandemic there was a strong tendency on social media to shut down any suggestions that the pandemic started in a Wuhan lab.
And no, please don’t take this as an opportunity to sidetrack into Covid disputes. My point is that censors inhibit true scientific inquiry and the spread of truth; I’m not opining at all on where the disease originated.
Now we know that SARS was first isolated in a lab in 2002 and the outbreak in 2003. Coincidence?
They then studied SARS for years and learned all about the toxicity of the spike protein. Along the line, SARS was patented, possibly 2015, the same year the PCR test patent was filed. Coincidence?
PCR tests for Covid-19, specifically, were being shipped out by the millions by 2017. Coincidence?
The experimental jabs focus on making those jabbed produce spike proteins that are not only the worst known, but have been altered to make it stiffer and break off from cell membranes to wreak havoc in other tissues. Coincidence?
And, China ordered millions of PCR tests over six months BEFORE the virus was even detected, supposedly. Coincidence?
Lab generated, of course. Constructed artificially, most likely, which is why researchers are finding genetic sequences from other virus in this one. It’s a lab chimera.
Put the virus aside, as it is the jabs that are designed to do much more damage than the virus. Of course, they will blame variants on the jab damage and gaslight the public into more fear.
The most evil thing is the PCR test that is crap-squared. It is non-specific for anything and it’s a crap shoot whether one is positive or negative. It is treated like a gold standard test, but even the CDC admits that it is based on general coronavirus sequences. However, that does not stop the politicians and people in power from using the test as a weapon and excuse for hurtful and evil policies.
I hate to disagree, but I worked at Cetus in the 1980’s when Kary Mullis developed an patented PCR. It definitely was not 2015. Cetus later bought out by Chiron sold PCR analyzers.
Enough already; PCR as a technique certainly was developed last century, I know because I was asked by my employer in the 1990’s to looked into producing equipment to carry it out. But I think Higley may be referring to the specific test and protocol which uses PCR to detect corona viruses
It’s unclear what Charles Higley is referring to.
That’s obviously bull since no one would be calling something covid-19 in 2017.
This claim seems to come from an archived page of WCO customs data for 2017, which was in fact archived in Sept 2020. A product code 38220 showed lots of activity in 2017.
In April 2020, due to large amounts of trade in covid related products: pharma and medical like PPE, that catalogue was reviewed and product refs renamed. It seems likely that it was at that time that the label was changed to read “COVID-19 kits” which made sense in 2020.
I do not have direct evidence of a change of that label or what it read before but that archive from Sept 2020 needs to be read in that context, not incorrectly read as being an archive from 2017.
If someone thinks that is a smoking gun of a plandemic, years in advance, they need to dig into the April 2020 WCO renaming and find out what that ref was previous to that date.
This is just nonsense from start to end that will get people killed. Covid vaccines are well tested and reduce people’s chances of dying by more than 95%. There is no evidence that the COVID vaccines are any more harmful than any other vaccine.
VAERS(sp) has reported “harms” orders of magnitude greater than other vaccines.
Which “vaccine” are you referring to? If it’s so damned effective, why are so many “vaccinated” people contracting the infection?
Don’t answer … because you have no idea.
An experiment on humans and their health consists as a crime against humanity, especially when world wide and global… very well orchestrated and organized and forceful also.
Utter nonsense. You need to pay more attention. The manufactures’ ( exaggerated ) claims were about the risk of infection, not death.
Subsequent reality has shown something closer to 50% reduction is the rate of infection.
For example UK ONS reports on delta variant showed 69% of death from delta was in vaccinated individuals. Over the period of data there was an average 67% of the population vaccinated. ie vaccine ( mainly AZ in UK ) gave ZERO benefit against risk of death.
For hospitalisation it was 45% vs 67%, which is something like a 40% reduction in the risk.
If you don’t get infected, you don’t die…
Even with your numbers vaccines are great in reducing harm.
(Snipped the name calling) SUNMOD
Much worse then that. 40 percent monthly reduction in antibodies means that at most 20 percent effective after 5 months.
Numbers are skewered by many things including a 42 day period, with vaccine caused 40 to 100 percent reduced immunity ( in general AND to Covid) has every case count as unvaccinated.
And in other news, unicorns are frolicking in all the green meadows of Ireland, and the Spanish Armada has set sail from the port of Iberia.
Web search (avoid googling) for “Trusted News Initiative”. Started with the BBC and includes the expected cast of other characters (initially Facebook, CBC, Google, Financial Times, WSJ, expanded to more, later) as the global Pravda and Ministry of Truth. Started in early March of 2019. Even the name is Orwellian.
Hoped for a minute that the recent FB outage was caused by their high school “fact checkers” finding the source of “fake news” and shut it down.
I have quite a few progressive friends who have recently come forward and asked me about my objections to CAGW (and even one about peculiarities surrounding the 2020 election)… which has been quite stunning to me. What set it off was the government flip flop over the virus origin and the vaccine mandates (which most prominent democrats opposed before the 2020 election). This is exactly how I want it, a free inquiry, as I had no reason to proselytize an anti-CAGW position.
Political correctness has the connotation of “just being polite” in the United States, but in the USSR, where the term originated it essentially meant that there were two truths (or two correct positions). One was the correct position, which corresponded to reality and the other was the “politically correct” position.
I have a feeling that this censorship will eventually backfire, as the US government and US media has a real credibility problem… so, censoring climate change, at this particular time of low credibility, and where people are “searching for the truth“. it is going to seem suspect. IMHO
Berlin Diary The Journal Of A Foreign Correspondent 1934 1941 ~ William Shirer
And that was from a period when Germany was actually winning the war… interesting to see the United States go down this same well trodden road… assuming that people are stupid.
I agree, Anon!
I have several friends that were against President Trump before the 2020 campaign started, though none of the virulently anti-Trump came around.
Anyway, they’ve lightened up and a couple have vocalized support for Trump and his handling of the Presidency.
The whole election debacle started with no-energy Biden and his completely dead campaign leading up into the corrupt election day shenanigans that only got worse as more and more evidence surfaced.
To top it off, Democrat and RINO governors pushing full despotic tyranny really woke them up.
Now they make statements about the corrupt election, brain dead Biden, the incredible disaster of democrat leadership or rather anti-leadership. It appears that everything democrats touch turns to rancid crap.
Sadly, only a couple of them realize what a disaster elections have become. The others still believe they can simply vote corrupt legislators out.
Censorship is backfiring. As a tyrannical anti-Constitutional orders, anti-Freedom of Speech, anti-2nd-Amendment actions, severely biased justice, COVID total bizarro world of the democrats, news sources descent into moronic obviously fake biased news, etc.etc.
Democrats have morphed the democrat party from the jackass party to the pigpen of total unrepentant asses.
To friends and family on the left, I’ve argued that the party they vote for is no longer the one it used to be. A generation or two ago, they at least thought their policies would help the poor. Since, they’ve outsourced their constituency now ignoring voter demands and needs and serving a Euro-centric socialist global governance. They even deplore the poor.
The stealing of the election
seems almost irrelevant. The neo-left make no bones about where they are going. Its as if elections won’t be necessary in the world they have planned for us, but at the present time it’s the only method available to get into power.
Addressing the changes you have noticed in concerned Democrats. I’m glad to hear it. In some of my rants I’ve thought that surely there must be Democrat business people who value low cost reliable energy, who want their children to have a good education, who value free speech, individual rights, property ownership …
who don’t want a Eurocentric totalitarian global governance dictated by so-called ‘elites’.
I surmised that if Democrats didn’t wake up from their pathogenic “wokeness” in sufficient numbers, Republicans would be taking over for a couple of generations!
I think you may be confusing — the reality of America where elections are no longer a path for the legitimate peaceful transfer of power — — with the fiction that elections matter in enough jurisdictions to actually matter. The Republicans have sold out in great enough numbers that the only remaining path back to a free and just society is likely on the other side of a very ugly conflict. We are in ~ the 3rd or 4th inning of that conflict. The 1st 2nd innings of the conflict were when the left captured and corrupted nearly ALL of the Institutions of Western Civilization. After the institution of fair Elections fell in 2020, only Law Enforcement and “Feet on the Ground Military” remain…and they are under attack.
“assuming that people are stupid.”
But they have demonstrated on so many occasions they are !
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. ” — George Carlin (1937-2008)
GIVE US THE NAMES OF THOSE ADVERTISERS WHO ARE OBJECTING.
I would suggest it is some degree of sucking up to leftist politicians by Google, as with the Hunter Biden laptop suppression.
Of course, Google’s own employees and management are fairly far left themselves, so they see nothing wrong with sucking up.
… extremely far left … outright communist strong man totalitarians
there, I fixed it for you. That bit about Google employees
I certainly agree with a “totalitarian” bent, but I seriously doubt most believe they are working toward a “workers paradise” (unless you mean a virtual paradise for those particular workers ; )
Tactics used by Communists in the past, to get and hold power, tend to be seen by many as indicating those employing them must be communists in the sense of the BS propaganda used by such regimes. But I suggest they are being employed because they have been proven to work, and that any tactics that have proven effective for undermining (and eventually destroying) established social orders, are “on the table”, so to speak, which of course means wolves dressing in various forms of sheep’s clothing (to help win the support/compliance of the sheepish ; )
I find the concept that “employees” are driving this bus somewhat naïve, and suggest it’s just one illusion among many, that serves to forestall the realization that we are up against extremely powerful people. With loads of money to pay the best strategists money can buy, not some sort of “grassroots” movement that just so happens to keep things moving in the direction any totalitarian minded “elites” would naturally like things to move, over and over again.
The so called worker paradise killed a 100,000,000 plus in the twenty century! Are they not educated on that fact, oh sorry me, not since the leftist took over education about forty years ago.
Tech has been sucking up to the progressives since the Clinton administration went after Billy Gates / MSFT. Before then, tech companies were basically happy to be left alone to produce buggy software, while ignoring politicians on both sides of the aisle. However, once tech became financially significant, it was time to choose sides – Either support a) squishy Republicans who are mostly only a threat to their corporate supporters, or b) hard-nosed progressives who think nothing of destroying any company that doesn’t play ball with them. Tough choice. /S
Well-established advocacy science doctrinaire wins again. How far off do climate models need to be to send a wake up call? I fear prediction accuracy is not the point in this social climate. The Climate Taliban are shutting you down–remain in your homes.
Models? models? They don’ need no steenkeen models ; )
You cannot deny the human influence on climate. If I, a human, choose to swim in the ocean, the physics of displacement proves I, all by myself have affected the oceans rise. It is the degree of human influence that is eagerly ignored by those perpetrators engaged in Climate FRAUD.
Just more “the Left always pushes too far.” Google is (inadvertently?) courting government regulation.
Don’t need government regulation, just remove the government protections against private lawsuits.
Ah!………The days of perpetual litigation to pass a single law, good or bad. Feck me, western Democracy crawls along slowly enough without that additional burden.
So you think having government running everything is better?
No, that’s not what I said. Who do you think a policy like that would favour? Yep, bleating leftist minority groups, corrupt politicians, and lawyers who would tie up anything decent which didn’t conform to their narrative. Absolutely everything would come to a grinding halt as every decision was tied up in litigation for years.
How long was Tim Ball tied up by Michael Mann for saying State Pen instead of Penn State? 10 years or so I believe.
I’m pretty sure they want that protection removed now, to make it hard for “independent” sites like this one, and new “social media” platforms to speak up effectively, since virtually anything that can be construed as defamatory against anyone involved in the climate scare, or any other con job, can be used as grounds for a debilitating law suit (think Mark Stein). Also anything that can be construed as threatening, or “endangering” anyone in public jobs by inciting violence against them (think parents challenging curriculum or virus related mandates at schoolboard meetings).
And will make it easy peazy to censor/ban people and organizations from the big social media platforms, since they can just claim they were afraid of being sued by anyone cast in bad light in posts or comments . .
It won’t effect the broadcast/cable mass media mobsters much, since they don’t operate with such protection now . .
Which won’t happen until there is a complete turnover in government control from the current regime.
“Why stop there?!“, AGWers will yell. If it isn’t out already, that mob will scream at the top of their lungs that Google / Youtube should not only prevent ALL searches for anything from the skeptic side of the issue, but also start keeping dossiers on any folks they find who try to do those searches. Green New Deal jobs could arise out of this; startups could make and sell distinctive apparel to AGW-believers, denoting them as smart people who don’t question the government. Just imagine sharp brown shirts with red armbands having a white circle containing 4 “G”s pivoting around the bottom of the letters, symbolizing “Good Guys Google Green.”
When is the next big political fundraising party at Google?
This is FANTASTIC NEWS… now I will finally get to peruse the internet without any of those annoying Google Ads popping up out of nowhere
I don’t mind the ads so much, when applied in reasonable measure, as a tiny portion of the revenue goes to helping the content creator keep the lights on.
Yay! What is not to like?
Mr. Svalgaard: What if google decides your research on the sun is “misinformation”?
Just about every product in history draws customers from every social, religious, cultural, age and economic demographic. I don’t recall too many advertisers explicitly saying they don’t want customers from a particular group before.
This is blatant censorship by Big Tech’.
To put it in their own language, it’s prejudicial discrimination based on legitimate, legally-held opinions. How can this be any different to discrimination based on any other protected characteristic?
Section 230 must go, and fast.
“Section 230 must go, and fast.”
The fastest it can happen is more than 3 years away, IF the Republic survives that long.
This isn’t censorship. And has nothing to do with section 230. As a US corporation, google has free speech rights and so is perfectly entitled to choose which websites on which to sell ads. You cannot force a company or a person to advertise on particular websites since that violates their fundamental rights.
You’re saying that the government can’t tell a company they must offer the same services to all potential customers? Where have you been for the last 50 years?
Except it obviously is, for all practical purposes, censorship. “If it looks like a duck ……..” etc.
The thing is, Google is outright lying. Only a very few, small hopelessly “woke” companies might have pushed for that … but big corporations are not. Most have learned their lesson from Coke and Gillette. “Get woke, go broke”. Besides, if they were gong to make such a revenue sacrifice their virtue signalling would be broadcast everywhere.
Clearly you haven’t a clue about business.
Mr.Walton: Tell it to bakers and florists forced to “violate their fundamental rights.” One can count on progs to contradict themselves, and our press not notice.
Well, what did you expect the monopolists at Google to do once they were comfortable in their monopoly. Too bad their aren’t any other ad service companies around. I am confident they could make a mint just by offering their services where Google refuses to go.
—
Still, n.n,
got to contemplate and consider the premise of mercy given,
even in the case of the Google insane politburo.
Humain, is not it!!!
In the end of the day, it has to be done ..done… as required or demanded!
The call!… still stands, as far as concerned.
Surely this just pushes more people away from Google.
Go Duck Duck Go!!!
And Parler and Rumble.
I always go Duck Duck!
Give ’em every penny they can get.
So a search engine that doesn’t have any ads is going to solve the problem of google not selling ads on particular websites. Using “duck duck go” would just make the problem worse by reducing the number of ads.
I don’t know how long you spent coming up with that attempt a diversion, but even by your standards, that was pathetic.
By using a search engine other than Google, you reduce the amount of money Google earns from web searches. That should be obvious, even to you.
The total number of adds on all web pages and all search engines was never the issue.
Using DDG also keeps you from falling into a “filter bubble”
https://spreadprivacy.com/google-filter-bubble-study/
the problem lies in whether or not they are taking orders from those in power base on the political leanings of the vast majority of google and the fact that the presidents press secretary admitted that they were flagging things as problematic for tech companies that would be censorship and a first amendment violation. Just admit it you have no problems with government censorship if what is censored goes against your very religious beliefs.
I switch my default to Duck Duck Go a few months ago. If 10 or 15% of people did that today Google would know it and reconsider. If 50% changed they would be on thier knees.
I’ve used DDG for over 15 years now.
DDG is not Google, but they have their own foibles. For instance, DDG recently announced their solidarity with Warmunism:
Great for Privacy, Great for the Environment: DuckDuckGo Is Now Carbon Negative
https://spreadprivacy.com/duckduckgo-goes-carbon-negative/
Depends on how determined a person is to find material stashed deep into da interwebs. For what I do at GelbspanFiles, the Goog is still head-and-shoulders above all other search engines, but I have to use an assortment of minor tricks to force Goog to look for very specific results instead of simply relying on superficial search input. If you only put the two words Climate Change into a search window, you get garbage Goog wants you to see. If you put the following string of “Climate change” “kert davies” “gelbspan” into a search window with those words between quote marks, a whole larger world opens up that Goog would prefer the public not to see or question.
Get this book, if you don’t alrady have it:
Google, The Missing Manual
by Sarah Milstein and Rael Dornfest
The book describes all sorts of ways to search Google. Special searches get around Google censors.
thanks
I’ve tried those tricks, especially putting things between quote marks. Google still rips it apart, ignores some of the input, and spits back what it figures I’m really looking for.
That’s discouraging. 🙂
I wonder how they are doing in that alternate reality where the internet was invented in the early 1930s with the America First organization and Lindbergh making their naïve cases online with donations from the Kennedys for peace and support from big tech industrialists.
Does Google really need to advertise? Almost certainly anyone who is not using google is doing so as an informed choice.
It’s not Google that is doing the advertising; it is the revenue from advertisers such as those on Google-owned YouTube that provide literally billions of dollars to Google. Every time you watch a YouTube video, you are providing income to, not just the YouTube creator, but to Google itself.
Wouldn’t surprise me if a small number of advertisers have made such a request.
It is Google who has made the decision to force this change onto all advertisers.
As this continues, advertisers will start deciding that they can’t make money only advertising on those sites that meet Google’s purity standards.
Advertising is not FREE, no company or individual is going to put up with their ads not getting the exposure they are paying for and will simply stop advertising with Google. When Google starts losing advertising revenue, they will re-think this foolish idea. It was probably one of those knee-jerk decisions anyway, “Hey, let’s demonetize those evil climate-denier sites and put them out of business”, with zero thought to the financial consequences to Google.
The numbers of, say, videos on YouTube that will be affected by Google’s actions is tiny and will have close to zero effect on their income. There are 500 videos uploaded to YouTube each minute. Annual advertising revenue to Google is over $7 billion. That from censored advertising is a drop in the bucket. The financial consequences are, in fact, inconsequential.
You can’t keep alienating customers without it eventually affecting the bottom line. Companies that pay Google to display their ads mostly don’t care it their ad appears on WUWT or Auntie Harriet’s Kitchen, they only care about exposure numbers and how many clicks they get. If clicks go down they are not going to be happy customers of Google advertising.
How the mighty fall.
It’s only a matter of time. It comes to us all.
This news appeared in the ‘Independent’ (a joke in itself), with supporting statement from Unilever and two activists pretending to be advertising standards agents, so I have requested the immediate burden of proof from all named parties in the form of the scientific method and/or evidence of the closure problem for models. If they are unable (we know the answer) then they must issue a wide public apology. This must also include refrain from use of the pejorative ‘climate denier’, due to their science denial, and further acceptance of their actual physical harm due to 1.5 million per year dying from energy denial and energy poverty policies specifically as a result of this kind of unsubstantiated ideology, which by their own standards would be a hate crime. The request for response has also been sent to the legal team of YouTube. Let’s see what happens 🙂
Nothing will happen.
Beside the fact the police may have a deeper look at your activities.
You will find yourself under investigation for your “intimidation” and “threats of violence”!
Every day’s a ‘school meeting’ day……..
I would be very surprised if it was true that advertisers don’t want the business of climate skeptics. That is a seriously flawed business model and if that is their attitude then they can do without my business. I have always believed that one’s politics is not something one wears on one’s sleeve if one wishes to be successful. Refusing to do business with people who don’t share your political views is a short cut to bankruptcy.
Of course they will turn their backs on income for the sake of their conscience! However, if they are publicly held companies that sell stock with the expectation of maximizing profit for their shareholders, then they may be open to being sued for not properly exercising their fiduciary responsibility!
I doubt anyone will sue. It’s already a fairly useless ploy. Companies have a legal identity and can withhold all they want. They won’t lose much since anyone really interested in a particular product can probably find it at least two other places.
Eliminating advertising from climate videos on YouTube makes virtually zero difference to either advertisers or Google as there are 500 HOURS of video uploaded to YouTube each MINUTE daily. I don’t know what percentage of those videos are about climate change, but it’s certainly a relatively small number. The abuse of power by big tech is the greatest threat to freedom world-wide since Hitler.
“Refusing to do business with people who don’t share your political views is a short cut to bankruptcy.”
And is becoming increasingly common lately.
Yes, entirely too many people today wield their ideology like a club. it used to be considered poor manners to discuss religion and business owners never revealed their political leanings in their place of business for fear of offending potential customers.
It’s fashionable. What can I say other than fashions come and go.
We’re all waiting for the next SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!
Just another one of a long list of efforts to deplatform and/or defund unapproved ideas. You can see the same with MyPillow, the boycotts of Fox advertisers, etc.
Just more division until there are two separate economies, two separate nations both occupying the same space, which is untenable.
Have you ever tried a MyPillow? They are not at all comfortable! I was terribly disappointed with the product and went right back to my goose down.
I love mine!
Me, too! 🙂
Great, so glad you were both satisfied. The ones they sent me were way too fat, pushed my neck out of alignment. Are all My Pillows filled with shredded foam? Mine were and lumpy to boot.
“The ones they sent me were way too fat”
Yep, you got the wrong “color” (they’re color coded)
I was not able to choose, was sent two king size lumpy pillows.
Pamela, you can choose different fill levels for the pillow. I got the one with the least fill in it, and it works great for me.
I think I might not have liked the pillow if I got the maximum fill, but with a minimum fill, it conforms to my head and neck much better.
All those nice creepy crawlies in goose down.
You’ll never sleep alone.
Personally speaking, pillows are next to useless. I get the thinnest one I can to roll up to keep my neck aligned when I go to sleep on my side. It’s usually abandoned altogether by morning when I’m on my back with a naturally positioned spine.
I have a couple of MyPillows, bought before the flap. I have no trouble with them, well, at least the thinner one. the thicker is better for reading in bed.
There are several different types, depending on your size and how you sleep. Did you get the right one?
I’ve heard this complaint a lot which is why I was hesitant to try, but once I finally tried, I’m a fan. Most comfortable pillow I’ve ever had.
In order to boycott an advertiser don’t you have to watch or listen to the program in order to know who is advertising? This all smacks of the Anita Bryant school of mean-spirited hate.
The only “advertisers” who demanded this were the billionaires who control Biden.
Just another part of the Fabian strategy that was decided already years ago at a Bilderberg meeting and a disguised social credit score.
This was as “authentic ” as it was a coincidence that Alex Jones was banned by several different mega tech corporations on the very same day.
The average advertiser does not give a shit who buys their products (
People like Zuckerberg would kiss the devils butt,rape 10 children on Epstein Island and sell their soul twice to increase profit.
This was a top down order to protect their narrative / prostitutes etc.
Similar thing happened with Hunter Bidens sextape and laptop.
A megascandal that would have generated billions in advertising for msm and social media, but they got the order to protect zombie joe.
Even Glen Greenwald was not allowed to write about the topic in his own company though he had editorial autonomy.
Similar thing happened with Seymour Hersh when he exposed Obamas conspiracy with the turks to bomb Syria which is for sure a bigger scandal than 10 watergates.
All of them refused to print his article
Same thing happened 2015 when Amy Rohbach already exposed Epstein.
She was shut down by the CNN Boss.
This was the biggest of all scandals.
An ugly,disgusting guy who went from nobody to millionaire
opens up a child brothel for the Hollywood Stars,top CEO ‘ s(Bill Gates)top politicians (Bill Gates)and top aristocracy (Prince Andrew) and has an MSM billionaires daughter as pimp (g. Maxwell) – that’s 10000 bigger than the scandal of miss Humidora Lewinsky,yet the story got buried for 2 more years.
Protecting pedophiles,warmongers and crackheads and spreading 2 years of misinformation about russian collusion = everything is fine.
Denying vaccine and climate = you monster.
Do you mean “Bill Clinton” for “top politician”?
Is this what they wanted, coz they certainly got it..
(Hope the picture shows up)
Mad Max comes to England’s #1 premier Main Road, in the centre of England = an overnight lorry-park (layby) on the southbound A1 in North Notts earlier today
While, and I know for fact, there are some goodly number of little oil wells chugging gently away within 5 miles of that spot. (There are 3 that I know of within as many miles of my house)
Hidden in clumps of trees and guarded by ‘instant response’ CCTV and jungles of razor wire.
Do we imagine Boris is pleased with his work…..
Why not? The are monopoly. They can do whatever they want.
There is no competition
This is the digital equivalent of the Nazi book burnings. If you don’t learn the lessons of history, you are condemned to repeat them.
Unfortunately, those who Do learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them with you.
When has a historic lesson ever been learned?
Honestly, that Sentence is so over used it’s just boring.
This is the digital equivalent of the N@zi book burnings
The response typically is “but private companies…”
Corporations are legal creatures of the state. They are largely dependent on the expansion of credit by the central bank. They will support state policies as long as it does not affect profits too adversely.
DANG! I hope someday there will be some kind of revenge for all this censorship, but of course it is a private platform.
I am with the author on this one. There is no way advertisers are telling google they don’t want their adds run with climate skeptical content. BS. Those advertisers who do want the skeptical eyeballs will just shift to the alternate sites…all is good. Freedom will win eventually, I hope.
Naive.
Like nature, capitalism abhors a vacuum. If Google voluntarily leaves the field, someone with guts, determination and a bit of funding will figure out how to fill the void.
The mainstream television media is taking a shellacking in the ratings from Fox, they’ve filled the void their competition created for them.
It’s not just climate sites they are demonetising …
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2021/10/lew-rockwell/lets-smash-google-censorship/
MG
Well….well.
I do agree that the banning of sites that Google doesn’t like is a terrible development. But these particular guys?
I mean, really? This is one where I would defend them, and oppose the Google policy, because its only a matter of time before Google extends to anything at all it disagrees with.
But these guys really think that “killing people though the vaccine is part of a plot to reduce the world’s population”?
If they were going about it deliberately to make themselves hard to defend, I don’t know what else they needed to do.
I’ll still defend them. In the same way as I would defend people who believe in Uri Geller spoon bending. Trying not to laugh.
Prove Geller wrong………..
People far greater than you tried and failed.
When you ignore any data that doesn’t fit your agenda, it’s easy to never be proven wrong.
What data is there on Geller? For or against?
Google has a political agenda and is simply pursuing it. There is no way that enough advertisers would be not wanting the funds the ads would produce to warrant this large move. This is simply Google blaming their policies on others, to avert criticism.
The edifice of fashionable advertising always falls.
Lemme see if I can still remember..
You can fool some people all of the time,
You can fool all people some of the time.
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time.
This will sort itself out. Denying yourself of revenue streams (yes, this is what Alphabet does) has a tendency of sorting itself out rather quickly.
You only need to fool a simple majority all of the time.
Then they become the minority very quickly.
I think this good. Not because of what Google is saying with their decision– which is that they hate non-orthodox opinions. I think it’s good because it’s yet another decision that cuts Google deeper than it realizes. Think of it like trimming a nail: if you keep clipping more and more off, eventually you cut the quick and start bleeding. With each asinine decision Google makes, it’s cutting closer to the core of its lifeblood.
The Internet is still a free place and other social media and advertising platforms are rising. The mighty Achilles was bested by a simple strike to the back of his foot. Google should keep a close eye on who’s behind it.
Reminds me of an old saying: The hand went too far too fast and touched the wrong thing at the wrong time, causing the entire plan to disastrously unravel.
Sounds like a lot of high school dates.
A fellow traveller. Nice to meet you.
Exactly what I was saying earlier. You simply can’t keep cutting down your customer base and expect to continue to thrive. Especially with a business like Google, which does not sell anything tangible, only services. Those services are increasingly available elsewhere. DuckDuckgo,com is perfectly acceptable as a search engine. One’s advertising dollars don’t have to go to Google, there a many other choices available. Google Maps is often wrong and they are very slow to respond to corrections, often rudely questioning the veracity of the complainant.
Why stop there? Let’s stop all ads running alongside content that ever contradicted well-established scientific consensus. Lets start with any articles about Galileo, Da Vinci, Einstein, Alfred Wegener and Barry James Marshall.
The real reason. Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitters intention is to grow in banking and finance i.e. fintech. To get a slice of future action with digital currencies they play in the political sewer and as part of this quid pro quo they censor opposition to the dominant political narrative.
So Google is denying science in the name of politics. The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Hence all of the efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no effect on global climate. We are currently warming up from the Little Ice Age much as we warmed up from the Dark Ages Cooling Period more than 1400 years ago. The Holocene has experienced several warming and cooling periods over the past 10,000 years. There is nothing unusual about the climate change that is taking place today. There is no climate crisis. This is all a matter of science.
Central to this issue is the AGW conjecture, that is that Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is causing the Earth to warm up. At first the AGW conjecture sounds quite plausible but upon closer examination I find that it is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Gases with LWIR absorption bands are called “greenhouse gases”. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of such purportedly heat trapping gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass we have gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the surface of the Earth roughly on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is what has been derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. Any additional warming caused by an additional radiant greenhouse effect has not been detected on Earth or on any planet in the solar system with a thick atmosphere. Hence the radiant greenhouse effect is nothing but science fiction and hence the AGW conjecture is nothing but science fiction as well. This is all a matter of science. So Google wants us to deny science in the name of science fiction. Hence it is Google who is being antiscience.
“It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. So too on Earth where instead of glass we have gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere.” Bullshit. And what are these “first principals” to which you refer?
IMO, Gore, Nye, Mann, etc. came up with the greenhouse analogy because they figured the ignorant masses would respond to it – you don’t have to understand the science to know that greenhouses tend to be nice and warm. Take that to the next step, commercial growers do pump additional CO2 into their greenhouses, so the liars can use that to reinforce their lies, claiming that it is the additional CO2 that keeps them warm. It is easy to ignore the presence of heaters and fans if your aim is to promote a big lie.
In the early 20th century experiments were performed that showed that the IR transmission properties of the glass had nothing to do with keeping a real greenhouse warm. It is amazing how people will come to believe very flawed explanations. Then there is the idea that adding more H2O to the atmosphere causes warming because H2O is the primary greenhouse gas and molecule per molecule is a stronger absorber of IR than is CO2. IF that were true then one would expect that the wet lapse rate would be grater than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but the opposite is true. The wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate which is evidence that adding H2O to the atmosphere causes cooling and not warming If adding CO2 to the atmosphere really caused warming then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measurable increase in dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened.
I say Good Riddance to Google Ad dollars. Sign up today for monthly donations to WUWT!
I don’t do Paypal.
I noticed on the donate page that there was the option to use a credit or debit card, so I continued, but the last page listed Paypal terms of service at the bottom so I assume this payment is going through Paypal, so I’m not going to do it this way. Plus, the donation requires the phone number, which is probably another Paypal intrusion and another reason I wouldn’t use this method.
WUWT should provide a mailing address and I’ll mail you some money. Or get Visa to handle my credit card payment.
Whoever thought up that method of entering the amount on the payment page ought to have their head examined.
“Demonetizes” is so close to “demonizes”, don’t you think?
I remember when Google’s motto was “Don’t be Evil”
Yeah, whatever happened to that noble idea?
Is there a list of companies that made this demand?
I’d like to be able take their demand into consideration when I’m shopping.
Excellent suggestion, can we come up with a list of these idiots? I have no trouble at all sending them letters letting them know that because of their anti-science attitude and shameless sharing of same, I will be voting with my money and spending it elsewhere.
Most people could quit using the goo and the you channels and do just fine. Who is willing to take the pledge to quit using today. Why enrich the tyrants that want to crush your liberty? Don’t post stuff to these platforms and build up the other platforms that aren’t censoring. Eventually the competition will become strong and through word of mouth, more people will migrate away from those that censor.
It would help if there were some big names making this push as well as some advertising dollars to get it done.
It could start here tonight…..
”Google’s advertisers have demanded their ads not be shown on pages which dispute the climate emergency.”
Well there goes more than 50% of their clientele then.
The obvious answer is to organise a global boycott of google. Delete your google account and change your search engine.
It’s a small step from Demonetizes to Demonizes.
I think they are losing the climate change argument and this is just a desperate attempt to stop the rot. For nearly 40 years now we have been told that weather or climate disaster of one form or another is upon us due to our use of fossil fuels. And for 40 years not a single one of th0se disasters predicted by “consensus science” has occurred or even appears imminent in any way shape or form.
Now as winter approaches it appears that a good deal of the developed or developing world is about to get a taste what can happen if one has a shortage of fossil fuels. And they must do what they can to stop the open discussion and questions about what has caused it.
So the huge number of heatwaves the year, with record temperatures, the droughts, the fires, plus the catastrophic rain events (5 at last count) we’ve had this year, that’s just ‘normal’ weather? I know from Met Office stats the UK is 6% wetter on average than 30 years ago, that exceptional rain events have increased and that that is down to climate change.
Readers might wish to check Griff’s lurid claims for themselves.
Here’s a link to Met Office rainfall, temperature, and sunshine data for over a hundered years graphically displayed, month by month, year by year for different regions of the UK;
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/maps-and-data/uk-temperature-rainfall-and-sunshine-time-series
Where is the dangerous man-made climate change manifesting itself? Catastrophic rain events? Griff, sadly you like so many have been duped. I’m in my seventies, I was born in England and have lived here for all of those years. The British climate remains as as variable and unpredictable as ever. Look at the way the data points spike up on the Met Office graphs spike up and down over the years.
I think you should read Robin Stirling’s ‘Weather of Britain’ which contains plenty of accounts of what would these days be called ‘extreme weather events’ – including floods!
LOL! NONE of that ever happened before?
, Griff’s view of life, natural history, weather, and the environment does not include ANY weather from the past that could possibly have been worse than what may be happening at a particular place at a particular time these days.
This week in 1871 the most deadly wildfires in US history occurred. Wild fires burned vast areas of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota. Chicago burned to the ground, about 18,000 buildings lost, on Oct. 8th that year. There were also massive fires in the Rocky Mountains going on at the same time.
The condition that brought about those horrendous fires started with drought beginning during winter the previous year and lasting right up to the time the fires began. A “cyclonic” storm formed right over the Great Lakes and fanned the flames of smaller fires that merged into massive conflagrations.
It burned so hot at Peshtigo, WI that sand vitrified which takes a temp of about 1000 deg. F to occur! Over 1,000 people were burned to death. The wall of fire about 5 K wide and nearly 1 K high overtook the people in the town so quickly that most could not get out of the way. It was like a giant fire tornado. Glen Have, Holland, and Manistee, MI all burned to the ground also.
BTW wildfire burn area in the US is still below average this year despite the desperate lies from people like you.
As for storms? YTD Global ACE is 95% and NH ACE YTD is 96%. So Tropical cyclones are running about average based on the 40 year mean. The US tornado count is way down below average.
SLR? The Maldives are not only above water but are growing!
The poles? Antarctica just recorded it’s coldest winter on record. Meanwhile in the Arctic Sea Ice Extent is very close to where it was at this time in 1971! It was supposed to be “virtually ice free” YEARS ago according to the “experts” you like to listen to.
Thickness is well within the norm. FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20211005-1.png (1369×1145) (realclimatescience.com)
There is no doubt that climate changes. It has as long as this planet has had an atmosphere. But what we’re experiencing now is a relatively mild climate compared to many times in the past. Quite the opposite of what you and your fellow liars wish to portray.
Weather happens. Hubert Lamb, for example, estimated that over 1.5 million people lost their lives to bad weather in Western Europe over the period 1099 – 1590.
“huge number of heatwaves” – griff, you still haven’t told me what the RIGHT number of heatwaves should be.
So the huge number of heatwaves the year, with record temperatures, the droughts, the fires, plus the catastrophic rain events (5 at last count) we’ve had this year, that’s just ‘normal’ weather?
Smoke and mirrors
1st Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which now includes the internet.
Those idjits live and work in a place (Mountain View, CA) where it’s always warm and sunny and nothing is wrong. Nothing ever goes wrong. Everything is just perfect. Posting stuff that contradicts that concept is obviously upsetting to them. They need to spend some time in a Very Cold Place with no access to conveniences and no on to wait on them. Reality can be a very harsh mistress for such people.
Based on the people I know who work for Google, they tend to hire people on the fringes of society who would not fit in as well at more traditional companies. That could be why they have so many “progressives” working there who are very willing to push their political agenda.
Are programmers even more arrogant than Climate Scientists?
It would appear so, when they can self appoint as the ultimate referees.
We have seen this coming for years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/21/google-big-brother-knows-best/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/29/google-and-the-adjustment-of-inconvenient-viewpoints-especially-climate/
Google is acting as surrogate government censor trying to regulate what may or may not be said — first in public. They will, eventually, start to regulate what people say in private message (GMAIL) and various other private forums managed by Google.
The real topic is MESSAGING — as in Public Health Messages — Climate Change Messages — Social Issues Messaging.
Google and FaceBook are getting involved in pushing preferred messages over personal free speech.
This is an incredible threat to our democratic way of life.
An easy way to push back is to not use Google. Don’t use their search (use DuckDuckGo or Brave). Don’t use their horrible browser. If you want to go further, use NoScript or similar plugins to block the Google scripts infesting other websites as I do.
The Criminal Oligarchs at Google are doubling down…not content on Government sanctioned Censorship of the truth. Now they steal the value of the “clicks” that the truth produces.
Beneath contemptible. This crosses the line into ACTUAL government authorized political OPPRESSION.
Google is evil.
Remember when that nut job Galileo claimed Earth revolves around the sun?
What was that dude smokin’?
With every political act of censorship by Google-YouTube, the value of advertising on their media goes down as audiences dwindle. With each attempted cancellation they are cancelling themselves.
What did you expect? Google’s employees wanted to do this anyway.
The new evil of our age is “SCIENTISM”, where it becomes de facto correct that scientists supporting the preferred narrative of our internet supremos are given priority over the penalised scientists sceptical of the required narrative. Climate Change Sceptics, Great Barrington Declaration proponents to mention two recent examples. ,