From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Weather Blog
Roy Spencer
DrRoySpencer.com has been demonetized by Google for “unreliable and harmful claims”. This means I can no longer generate revenue to support the website using the Google Adsense program.
From a monetary standpoint, it’s not a big deal because what I make off of Google ads is in the noise level of my family’s monthly budget. It barely made more than I pay in hosting fees and an (increasingly expensive) comment spam screener.
I’ve been getting Google warnings for a couple months now about “policy violations”, but nowhere was it listed what pages were in violation, and what those violations were. There are Adsense rules about ad placement on the page (e.g. a drop-down menu cannot overlay an ad), so I was assuming it was something like that, but I had no idea where to start looking with hundreds of web pages to sift through. It wasn’t until the ads were demonetized that Google offered links to the pages in question and what the reason was.
Of course, I should have figured out it was related to Google’s new policy about misleading content; a few months ago Google announced they would be demonetizing climate skeptic websites. I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since:
- I believe the climate system has warmed
- I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning
Many of you know that I defend much of mainstream climate science, including climate modeling as an enterprise. Where I depart of the “mainstream” is how much warming has occurred, how much future warming can be expected, and what should be done about it from an energy policy perspective.
From the information provided by Google about my violations, in terms of the number of ads served, by far the most frequented web pages here at drroyspencer.com with “unreliable and harmful claims” are our (UAH) monthly global temperature update pages. This is obviously because some activists employed by Google (who are probably weren’t even born when John Christy and I received both NASA and American Meteorological Society awards for our work) don’t like the answer our 43-year long satellite dataset gives. Nevermind that our dataset remains one of the central global temperature datasets used by mainstream climate researchers in their work.
For now I don’t plan on appealing the decision, because it’s not worth the aggravation. If you are considered a “climate skeptic” (whatever that means) Google has already said you are targeted for termination from their Adsense program. I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.
Perhaps Google staff can tell us exactly what percentage of the current 418ppm of CO2, is attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. I did not see any dip in the curve whilst the biggest polluter shut down for a month.
It will manifest itself in about 500 years time.
Trust me, I’m a climate scientist.
(retire to the sofa holding head in vice-like grip)
Mr Leifmotif…..
“Trust me I’m. Climate scientist”.
That’s just the problem of course.
‘Many’ denizens don’t trust any type of science/scientist.
Because they disagree with what they discover.
Even doctors.
Because else?
You tell me … it’s you that are down the rabbit-hole.
And some random blog full of like-minds gives voice to your ‘beliefs’ and magnifies it’s power and ‘correctness’.
We live in a post common-sense world and this is one of it’s chief temples.
Close behind the anti-vaxxers and the QAnoners.
Oh, and Trump ‘won’. …. Of course he did – it’s obvious!
No evidence – just because he says so and signalled it beforehand so that (god forbid) he excuses himself from being a looser.
And (apparently) ~ 70% of Trump voters believe him.
Result – a real threat to your Republic down the line.
Because belief doesn’t need any sort of common-sense.
The mythical “colder doesn’t warm” bollocks you still espouse puts you firmly in the camp.
If you looked into it you would find that outer space is at 3K and the top of the atmosphere upwards of 200k.
Still don’t get it I suppose?
“We live in a post common-sense world and this is one of it’s chief temples.”
Someone is disconnected from reality, but I don’t think it is who you think it is.
QED:
The majority of experts in ANYTHING are by virtue of common-sense more likely to be correct than a random Blog full of echo-chamber cognitive dissonance motivated “belief”.
Hence the myths that never die like the 2 LoT violation.
That you think the tiny minority are correct is the QED.
A self-fulfilling prophecy for this place.
Ok, Anthony here is a graph by experts showing that CO2 has almost no emissivity. The experiments were done by different people in different decades with almost the exact same results.
Since, you should accept this as true as they are experts, please explain how CO2 could cause warming.
The mythical “colder doesn’t warm”
That is a straw person. And your alarmist camp engage in no less denial than any other side. You deny chaotic-nonlinear dynamics, you deny the principle of least action. You deny the existence of the ocean. In fact you deny all of science and all scientists who have ever lived, outside of a tiny hymn book of politically approved carbon-revisionist “science”.
“That is a straw person. ”
Err … it’s a direct response to Mr Leitmotif’s comment above.
But that’s OK, I expect that sort of goal-post shifting here.
Do you support his view BTW?
If not how’s about try shooting down some of you own worst enemies.
It’s laughable that can be uttered by anyone with common-sense.
Like 150 odd years of scientific enquiry hadn’t twigged.
MarkW did but where did it get him?
The abuse usually reserved for the likes of me.
Pathetic.
And the rest is just the usual complete down-the-rabbit-hole bollocks from here.
Again as expected.
Fact checking is supposed to be opinions checked against data.
Nothing wrong with that.
But what we’re seeing in Roy Spencer’s case is the exact opposite:
Data checked against opinions.
The part of Roy’s site flagged as “problematic” is the data itself!
And we know from Facebook’s own court submission that “fact-checking” is really “protected opinion”.
So this is not rhetoric: it literally is data judged by (protected) opinion.
How did it come to this – in the land of the free??
Leitmotif’s comment was a sarcastic one, pointing to the practice of shielding alarmist claims from (Popperian) falsifiability.
You need more experience in interpreting blog comments.
Hint – you need to read them twice and count to ten before replying (I still need practice with this).
The bit about “head in vice-like grip” went over my head though…
It was a parody on climate scientists who had to lie for survival. It was because I was lying and lying was getting me down and was making me more desperate.
Can’t be easy for these guys.
re: “Trust me, I’m a climate scientist.”
Which is what – one or two orders separated, de-coupled from physics?
Steeped more so in ‘stats’, and data presentation (and manipulation of same) and not so much what DRIVES those stats (atmospheric physics and physics generally); just trying to zero in on what being a “climate scientist” actually means here …
We badly need a national policy on the likes of Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. deciding on what is acceptable and not acceptable .. really, says who?
I typed in the GWPF and any number of combinations of the name of that august body of scientists and policy specialists and Google’s first hits are always that bastion of truth Wikipedia and hatchet jobs by Desmogblog and Netzerowatch.
Google does not even lower itself to give you a link to the GWPF, est ist verboten.
Es ist, even.
Your anomalies are too small, below noise level on an unadjusted basis. That said, appeasement only delays cancellation.
“Your anomalies are too small”
That’s an unkind thing to say to a man 🙂
I’ll have you know that nobody has ever complained about the size of my anomalies!
Google is leading us into a new Dark Age.
Dr Spencer, I believe what you are guilty of is heresy – that is, being a believer, and questioning the orthodox dogma. The aware person, must keep in mind the difference between a belief system, and the power/political system that develops along side of it. It is the reason why separation of church and State is so fundamental to an enlightened society, and why the current State adoption and support of only one side of the Climate debate is so harmful to both the efficacy and reputation of Science
Maybe Griff can give the insider climate police and orthodoxy explanation since he was giving clues on this for some time now. We need to see that rap sheet Griff.
“I was kind of hoping my content was mainstream enough to avoid being banned since…”
When are you professionals going to realize there is no middle ground with these people? We are in a life and death struggle and right now the Fabian Socialists (i.e., communists) are winning. It’s time to really choose sides and act accordingly. Or you’ll get no choice.
“When are you professionals going to realize there is no middle ground with these people?”
Good point. Fairness is out the window.
…and a new “Fairness Doctrine” would close the window.
Like that professor at Evergreen State in Olympia WA who thought, bless him, that he could reason with the woke mob. Watched a documentary about that whole fiasco and the clueless looks on the faces of the mostly white, older faculty as they were held hostage by the mob that they themselves had invited to descend upon them was humorous…sort of…
We can all fight back. Use DDG, turn off location services and Siri, Alexa, etc. and anonymize your browsing. Don’t share contacts with any app. Don’t allow cookies. Eventually a large enough demographic will be outside of the Big Tech world, or so pixilated that it cannot be monetized,that the monopoly will be broken. The trend is there: check out DuckDuckGo.com/traffic We are winning, that is why they use these methods.
DDG have their own anonymous browser now. It will also block all Android apps from tracking you too. Very good stuff.
”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?
”I believe most of this warming is probably due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning” – Why?
Roy hasn’t heard that it’s the dark rooves and the climate changers are only worried about 1.5C-
Millions of Western Sydney homes uninhabitable within 15 yearsThe NSW government on Wednesday announced plans to ban dark roofs in a bid to promote energy efficiency.
Planning Minister Rob Stokes referenced UNSW research finding that Sydney’s ambient temperature could be reduced by up to 2.4C by ending dark roofing.
And during a heatwave, lighter-coloured roofs also have the ability to cut temperatures by up to 10C.
Millions of Sydney homes uninhabitable within 15 years (yahoo.com)
Somehow I don’t think pulling all the subsidies for wind solar and batteries and sticking it into white roof painting would go down well with the green blob.
“”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?”
Good question.
The last 10,000 years?
It’s been cooling for 10000 years
It’s been warming slightly for ~200 years
I refuse to panic, exactly the same as Roy
re: “”I believe the climate system has warmed – Compared to when?”
Take it back to oh, say, the Wisconsin Glacier.
Facts are bad. Truth is good. Truth is flexible and relative. I’ll take pity on you. That’s sarcasm.
Hey Google, fact check this:
3000 years ago, there was the Minoan Warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Roman warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, there was the Medieval warm period. It was warmer than now WITHOUT fossil fuels.
Then 1000 years later, came our current warm period. You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years stay on schedule. Not very believable.
The entire climate scam crumbles on this one observation because it shows that there is nothing unusual about today’s temperature and ALL claims of unusual climate are based on claims of excess warmth caused by man’s CO2.
”You are claiming that whatever caused those earlier warm periods suddenly quit causing warm periods, only to be replaced by man’s CO2 emission, perfectly in time for the cycle of warmth every 1000 years stay on schedule.”
It’s beyond curious that any scientist entertains this idea until you understand the mechanism of belief as outlined in the video I linked above. Curry and Spencer both seem to be taken in a tad.
Is it now just not enough to say we don’t yet understand what caused the great ”warming”, and any speculation about it remains just that?
And then they came for. ……….
Dr Dr. Spenser,
The battle for truth, You are one of my hero’s.
Historical data from receding Glaciers you highlighted. In “Paleoclimate of the Last 10,000 Years, Glacier Bay Annual report 2010 is also very hard to access. I have it on my disc in a PDF form. It showes that it has been warmer than now 7 times in the last 10,000 years. Some of the uncovered, logs from the ice, were 400 years when they were killed by advancing glaciers. This fact alone means to me that nothing happening today is outside of the normal with regards to the last 10,000 years. Those wanting a copy of the Pdf just asked for it at Roy4Maria@gmail.com
It is indeed hard to find. If you google it, it doesn’t show. But it was available through metager and is here:
https://www.nps.gov/glba/learn/nature/upload/Lawson_etal_2010_AnnualPaleoclimateReport.pdf
Interesting that the first few results are the same from google and from metager with the only difference that the Glacier Bay paper is missing from google, whereas with metager its the first listing.
That link didn’t work for me.
This may be the full cite:
Lawson, D.E., Wiles, G. and Wiesenberg, N., 2010. Paleoclimate of the Last 10,000 Years, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve: Progress Understanding Climate Change in Southeast Alaska. 2010 Annual Report, Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, Gustavus, AK
Cannot find it. Very “odd” because many other Glacier Bay reports by that author show up in searches.
I agree. Even the wonderful Sci-Hub site can’t find it for me!
Link does not work for me.
Try another paper:
https://www.nps.gov/articles/historicglacieractivityinglacierbay.htm
The original paper has mysteriously disappeared from the nps website.
Don’tbe evil.It is very easy to find alternatives to google and all its span … I did it a couple of years ago .. google Facebook twat and the like are all in the past for me
Per my Grandma (God rest her soul), if you don’t stand for something, you go for anything.
We approach the singularity …—…
Surely there are still politicians in the US who will champion free speech?
There are a lot of US politicians championing free speech, but there are also many who want to censor anyone who disagrees with them.
It’s an ongoing battle.
“There are a lot of US politicians championing free speech, but there are also many who want to censor anyone who disagrees with them.”
I agree with that. Let’s not forget it was Trump who popularised the phrase “fake news” in an attempt to silence the press that was critical of him.
Except that much of it really is fake
And is still fake today
Like calling that Colorado grass fire climate change.
Fake as a $3 bill
There is fake news everywhere. But when a leader starts to censure his critics, there is a larger problem.
Calling something fake isn’t censorship. You shouldn’t confuse the two.
A White House ‘encouraging’ media like Google, Twitter and Facebook to remove “misleading information” is censorship. Calling something fake is merely the expression of an opinion.
>I can’t expect their liberal arts-educated “fact checkers” to understand the nuances of the global warming debate.<
Do you realy think they are educated? I think they come from high scool.
re: “Do you realy think they are educated?”
Well, how would you classify the “Pat” Rachel Maddows of the ‘whirled’?
You clearly don’t listen to her. You don’t have to agree with everything she says, but there is no doubt she is educated.
When will the lukewarmers understand, if you give the left an inch they will take everything.
Lukewarmer = A particular opinion.
After feedbacks, CO2 may cause net cooling rather than net warming, and noone knows which way it works, including Lukewarmers.
Roy seems to think we are warming because of man made CO2. Oh and so does Anthony Watts. I think it is testimony to his tolerance that he allows those who deny this to comment here.
Roy, like Judith Curry, states his belief but then freely admits he may be wrong
Because none of this is proven.
He and she exhibit the fundamental requirement of science which is “knowing what you don’t know”.
Do you think mike Mann has any clue as to what he doesn’t really know compared to what is merely belief?
“Do you think mike Mann has any clue as to what he doesn’t really know compared to what is merely belief?”
The only work of Mann’s I really know much about is his early stuff often referred to as the hockey stick.” Given it is now very old and been verify numerous times, and pretty much accepted by mainstream science, I don’t really have much to say about him.
”The only work of Mann’s I really know much about is his early stuff often referred to as the hockey stick.””
I feel ill.
All that needs to said.
”Roy seems to think we are warming because of man made CO2.”
So what? An appeal to authority? You can ”seem to think” whatever you want.
Huh… this article is about Roy Spencer and his censorship.
Disgusting of google. It’s little more than fascism.
Its exactly fascism
Yes, this is the fascism works.
January of 2023 may be a new day for the social media enforcers of the climate change dogma, along with all the other censorship they are engaged in.
Tyranny of the know-nothing Billionaires.
These globalists are evil people using their illegitimate power to destroy civilization with their LIES.
“Tyranny of the know-nothing Billionaires.”
Yes. Delusional billionaires are trying to run out lives to suit them.
Appeasement is not a good tactic – proven repeatedly.
It sure looks like The Poodle actually checked WUWT posts on this subject, found massive criticism here of GHG radiative beliefs, and censored.
Next will for sure be the opposite pole.
So who will The Poodle bark at next?
Everyone is entitled to their faith. However the GHE (whatever that means) has zero impact on Earth’s energy balance.
The energy balance is controlled by two temperature limiting process both due to ice formation. Sea ice regulates heat output from ocean surface at -2C by isolating the surface from the air. Ice in the atmosphere between 7km and 14km altitude regulates ocean surface insolation to an upper limit of 30C. Convective instability is a powerful process that can turn day to night and is highly sensitive to ocean surface temperature:
http://www.bomwatch.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Bomwatch-Willoughby-Main-article-FINAL.pdf
The fundamental failure of GHE theory is that it is based on atmospheric gases. It neglects the most powerful component – atmospheric solids, predominantly ice. The persistence of the atmospheric ice is strongly linked to the ocean surface temperature.
I don’t understand how Roy as contravened their policy (bizarre as it is) as stated here
“In a statement, the company’s ads team said that all Google advertisers and publishers and YouTube creators will be prohibited from generating ad revenue from content that is skeptical of “well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.”
The ads team added: “This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.”
re: “The ads team “
Hmmmm … no training, no special familiarity with the ‘technical subject’ just a ‘popularity contest’ type ranking body …
Yep. Zombie like collectivism. Has no one watched the above video? It’s happening right in front of us and so many of us remain blissfully unaware.