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.
This news makes it clearer than ever that these “fact-checkers” are nothing more than pathetically radicalised talebanically left wing woke fascists, with IQs similar to their shoe size.
We already know from the recent Facebook court case that “fact checking” is nothing more than “protected opinion” – from their own mouths.
When will the social media Khmer Vert try to demonetise and cancel the earth’s climate itself, when it fails to obey their sacred dystopian models?
re: “This news makes it clearer than ever that these “fact-checkers” are nothing more than … ”
… Maddows.”
On Insty (Instapundit) I suggested this last week that we call them “Maddows” in honor of that political philosopher and indoctrinator* on MSNBC named “Pat” Rachel Maddow .. PhD in Polysci (or some such) from (where I don’t recall) …
.
* a person who teaches another person or group of people systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically
So Google are censoring data from satellites.
When historians look back on this time they will surely shake their heads and mutter, “tyranny”
it’s time to stop by products advertised in Google ads. You must also send an email to the advertiser telling them why you won’t buy their product.
I think google is harmful and unreliable
Goebbels would be proud of them
Truly appalling. I’d urge you appeal: you might be speaking to a bot, a human might see sense, since you are a world authority, after all. If they don’t, I’d urge you to sue for punitive damages, since that’s the only language they understand. God only knows who they will come for next.
This appears straight-up defamation.
Roy is as near to Climate Royalty (!) as you can get. UAH data is stirred into the mix for the official global data set.
The official data set!
So important it needs stating twice.
The idea that such a long-running data set can be deliberated manipulated is hugely controversial and needs substantial evidence. (It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, as a certain Tony Heller has been alleging of NASA and NOAA for many years)
But make no mistake it’s a terrible slur. Google don’t hold the final say on this matter and deserve to be held to account for their libel.
They’ll soon demonetize anyone using NSIDC data as well, their data is pointing to an increasing sea ice coverage in the Arctic!
I just looked at the different global temperature standards since 1979:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1979/plot/uah6-land/from:1979/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979
And well to the untrained eye they seem quite parallel (with AFAIK the height difference steming from different reference periods)
Hadcrud seems to show a lower trend than UAH and Gistem-dts (extrapolated) shows a higher trend. So I dont see what the fuss is about!
Since it cannot be the temperature facts, it must be you speaking about it!
Personally, I can of course live without any commercials, at the same time I do appreciate your work and think any compensation is only fair and I would be happy to suffer through them in order to read your posts.. in other words:
Please keep up the good work!
When business can openly attack a large demographic of society with social and economic impunity, you might have a monopoly.
This is why you don’t negotiate by splitting the difference with extremists who don’t care about facts.
Science is not a negotiation with nature and is not a deal struck with reality.
Hi Roy,
As a fellow scientist/academic I find your story deeply disturbing. Watching this trend develop over the last few years I was trying to understand how something like this happens? To get some insight into it, the only thing I could think to do was read about societies where this has already happened. As a result I stumbled upon this book, which I think explains a lot about what is going on today; read some of the reviews:
Stalin and the Scientists: A History of Triumph and Tragedy, 1905-1953
https://www.amazon.com/Stalin-Scientists-History-Triumph-1905-1953/product-reviews/0802125980
Ten years ago I would have blanched at reading something like this; thinking that the story of Soviet science was a dry, inane, archaic curiosity that has no bearing on modern Western science. However, I have reversed that opinion 180 degrees and now believe it is essential reading.
I just can’t square the soaring intellectual rhetoric of Barack Obama about the world moving beyond 20th Century thinking into a new, modern, progressive 21st Century world based interconnectivity, science and rationality. After reading the book, you will come to the conclusion that we are headed right back to the crackpot 1930s, with the added twist of having dismissed and derided all of the learnings and safeguards that we put in place to get us out of that era and to see that it never happens again.
As a result of this change, I no longer recommend a scientific career to my students with a “truth seeking” personality, who want to explore and go where ever the scientific data takes them.
For what it is worth…
I think its safe to say we are all going to have to ride this out. There is no path forward, at this point, towards a sane energy future. I think their scheme is inevitable as the supporters are all Genz being taught by ideologues, that indeed they are “saving the planet” and are psychologically and morally wedded to that lofty goal. I think “the science” at this point should be collected, categorized and preserved in books for use at a later date to prove how this massive swindle, this hideous milestone in human behavior was allowed to occur.
“Fact-checking” of instrumental data?
Isn’t that a contradiction in terms?
A logical short-circuit?
Enjoyed reading The Great Global Warming Blunder. How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists (Encounter Books, 2010).
Any plans for a new edition with new insights and data on the detectability, amplitude, positive/negative effect of atmospheric feedback of GHG’s and clouds?
I simply have a ‘donate’ page. And no ads whatsoever. No one has to pay. No products are advertised, if you think my site is worth a few dollars, contribute, if you don’t, that’s ok too.
I think googles advert stuff is pernicious
How can you support climate modeling or any modeling based on the General Curculation Model that commits suicide by estimation variance?
It could be far worse. Michael Mann is being forced to deny that he is a sex symbol.
Liberal arts grads probably think a ‘standard deviation’ is some quantification of a sexual perversion – what can you do!#%?
Since these threads usually run their course after a few days and my comments, met with the typical ad hominem rants, are not relegated to the bottom this should hang around here near the top.
My contribution closed with a challenge for the general audience to explain how/why my specific points are incorrect.
Let me recap:
“To all:
Earth w/o atmos/GHGs/albedo becomes much like the Moon. Correct or incorrect?
K-T diagrams and the clones are trash. Correct or incorrect?
GHGs need “extra” energy upwelling from a BB surface. Not possible per experiment. Correct or incorrect?
Correct means no RGHE.
Incorrect needs evidence.
So, bring it!”
Judging from the resounding silence and despite the loud insulting mouths, no one apparently is willing or able to finish me off by actually “bringing it.”
“Earth w/o atmos/GHGs/albedo becomes much like the Moon.”
Incorrect. The Earth rotates once a day, the Moon rotates once a month. The temperature swings would be much smaller than those of the Moon.
Well, it would still be barren and hot lit side and cold dark which still refutes the RGHE that says it would be an ice ball. Hard to do that with no water.
And the swing does not seem that different in Dr Kramm’s (U of AK) paper on the Moon as analog for the Earth.
Oh, look! Pushed to the bottom of the thread!
Science facts can be harmful…to climate change high priests and facilitators.
It’s not about the truth, they’ve been deplatforming anyone and everyone and that is why I banned google from my own blog. You should have stopped using Google long ago.
I weep… For the love of….. Oh dammit… Open thine eyes, little ones. See thy doom.
Dr Roy:
Your offense was to collect observed climate data, instead of circulating a rigged model. Consider such censorship an honor. It confirms you’re conducting genuine scientific research.