Updated on 10/13/2017 and 10/15/2017
A Google search for Holocaust happened (and also for did Holocaust happen) returns the Wikipedia article Holocaust denial. This article entices readers to doubt the Holocaust and provides helpful reference information to Holocaust deniers. It is almost a dissertation in Holocaust denial that spreads over 45 pages showcasing multiple Holocaust denial theories while generously linking the profiles and books of many deniers.
To be clear, the Wikipedia’s Holocaust denial article (WHDA) does not explicitly deny that the Holocaust happened. It even criticizes Holocaust deniers and argues with them, but does that in such a way as to cast a strong doubt about the Holocaust. Continue reading Google is Still in the Holocaust Denial Business
Following the well-accepted paper A Method of Google Search Bias Quantification and Its Application in Climate Debate and General Political Discourse (WUWT, 09/08/2017), I checked the evolution of the intentional Google bias back to early 2015. The intentional Google anti-conservative bias in news & opinion has not noticeably changed since then. The intentional Google pro-alarmist bias in the climate debate has not noticeably changed since early to mid 2016. I could not get earlier data. The very low correlation between PGSTN and the popularity of the news & opinion domains in 2016 and 2015 confirms the validity of the PGSTN methodology.
Artificial Google bias, persisting over the long time, has been causing a vicious spiral: less traffic from Google search to demoted domains caused less sharing on social and traditional media and less traffic from other sources. That led even lower Google rankings, and so on. These effects further decreased Google ranking of the site, and so on. Finally, news & opinion websites artificially demoted by Google were not considered by many individuals as legitimate sources. This social component of the vicious spiral probably had a destructive social effect and significantly contributed to the political polarization of recent years. Continue reading Google anti-Conservative Bias Unchanged since 2015
The following table shows that the most visibility of neo-nazi sites dailystormer.com and stormfront.org came from formerly mainstream leftist news outlets. stormfront.org had PGSTN = 25.0%, and additionally received 6.9% traffic from Google’s Youtube and Wikipedia. No traffic from conservative, right, or even “alt-right” sites has been recorded. Continue reading Former MSM and Google have Lifted Neo-Nazi Sites
Google unfairly promotes climate alarmist websites and punishes climate realist ones. The table shows that more external domains link to wattsupwiththat.com than to any of the four “Google darlings,” that make the first page in the results for ‘climate change’ (no quotes) search. Continue reading Google Search Engine of Climate Alarmism
A couple of weeks ago, Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen and 300+ other scientists and professionals sent a Petition to President Trump asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. 22 academics, calling themselves “MIT Faculty Working on Climate” published an opposing letter, parroting climate alarmism dogma. Continue reading MIT Climate Faculty Letter Signatures Confirmed
I did a little research and published some technical papers in the wind power. This experience has opened my eyes on the real nature of climate alarmism.
Initially, I didn’t know how far the alarmist claims were from real science. But I saw that the “renewable energy” push by the second Obama administration was just a make-believe effort. Continue reading Climate Alarmism Used “Renewable Energy” as a Decoy
In preparation of its texts, IPCC utilizes General Circulation Models (GCMs), analyzed using computers. Such models, and the way in which IPCC utilizes them, exhibit — among others — the following errors.
There is no mathematical apparatus (i.e., proven theorems) behind these models and “ensembles”. This fact makes the whole modeling exercise useless. This fact also makes rigorous evaluation or criticism of these models very difficult or even impossible to do. The following notes apply to the GCM models (including their more complex variations, such as AOGCM). Continue reading Mathematical Errors in IPCC Climate Models
The General Circulation Models (GCM), alleged by IPCC to forecast climate, are computationally intensive computer programs that repetitively perform the same task: integrating specific sets of differential equations, such as the primitive equations of weather. In such situations, a normal practice is developing specialized hardware for performing that task. One example is video encoding hardware, evolved from big boxes, that make grainy and jumpy 640×480 moving pictures, to the tiny circuits inside of the CPUs of modern cell phone, producing smooth 1920×1080 full motion video. Continue reading Conspicuous Absence of Specialized Hardware for Climate Models
Knowledge is power, especially in this Era of Political Repression. A useful database of IPCC and climate alarmism is published by Peter Bobroff, ex Royal Australian Navy Commander. The website describes itself:
This is the place for basic research. There are no articles or stories here. You can look up an individual person, country, organisation, email etc. There are also much broader comparison tables from many view points. Continue reading Climate Alarmism Research Database
The worldwide CO2 emissions in the last 10-15 years have been underestimated by 8-15% because of the data fabrication, caused by the IPCC process. See Notes on FAO-FRA 2010. The implication is that all physical models of the carbon cycle that agree with the official data are wrong. That is, one more time wrong.
Continue reading Carbon Cycle Research Update
Call it “historical responsibility” or “historical merit,” but the fact is: 66% of the surplus CO2 in the air has been released by non-Western countries.
The re-estimate is based on the admission of underreporting emissions by China and scattered indications of higher than expected underreporting of deforestation by the developing countries. See original Atmospheric CO2 Change front page.