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→
Artificial bias has been found to be intentionally introduced by the Google team in addition to the natural bias caused by the media dominance of the Left and the influence foreign political entity websites.
Where to put a comma? Recent expulsion of the neo-nazi domain DailyStormer from Google made news. The unusually high ranking that the DailyStormer website enjoyed in Google Search before this news completely escaped coverage. The following screenshot shows Google search results for Allum Bokhari (performed on August 10, 2017 in Anaheim, California, using the clean browser configuration; no prior search for the term from the same IP). Continue reading Google – DailyStormer: Love Not Hate→
Contrary to its claims that Trending stories were selected automatically, Facebook used a team of hand-picked leftist journos that routinely suppressed “conservative” news. Facebook denies that, but its Guidelines had an obvious effect: a very aggressive filtering out of conservative news.
Gizmodo, May 9, 2016: Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News (1)
Facebook workers routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from the social network’s influential “trending” news section, according to a former journalist who worked on the project. This individual says that workers prevented stories about the right-wing CPAC gathering, Mitt Romney, Rand Paul, and other conservative topics from appearing in the highly-influential section, even though they were organically trending among the site’s users.Continue reading Facebook Filtered out Conservatives for Years→
Do you know that the Hammer of Witches has been peer reviewed?
In or around 1487, the theological faculty of the University of Cologne peer reviewed the Hammer of Witches (the quoted edition is Mackay, The Hammer of Witches: A Complete Translation of the Malleus Maleficarum. Cambridge University Press(1)): Continue reading Peer Review of “Weather Cooking”→
It’s no secret that formerly respectable and mainstream media outlets became fake news purveyors. Whatever it is that drove journalists to lie and manipulate, the evidence is there to prove their intent to deceive.
Much like television commercials and print advertisements, news stories are written to sell the reader something. Many times, what the news outlets are selling is politically motivated. On almost any given topic they choose to cover, they’ve been seen to cherry pick quotes that are in line with their interests and agendas, to omit relevant information that may harm their stand on something, and to use language that falsely imputes guilt on Republicans and conservatives.
The long-observed phenomenon of newsmaking – where the media is creating events instead of reporting them – has long been in existence.
In a recent example, a team of Democrat staffers and journalists launched a national campaign against elected Republican Congress attempting to hit them where it hurts – in their states and electoral districts. The gist of the campaign is to appear as members of a grassroots movement of dissatisfied citizens, rather than a Democrat-organized attack. Examples from the campaign guide (bold font is original; red highlighting is mine): Continue reading When newsmakers talk of “GOP’s delusions”→
At this time, there are two viable applications for the photovoltaic solar power:
Off the grid energy supply for the least developed 3rd world countries.
Emergency backup power supply for the US households. Notice that the rooftop solar, promoted using fraudulent feed-in tariffs, are designed to shut off in time of power failure, rather than to provide backup.
Photovoltaic solar has a unique advantage of being down-scalable almost infinitely.
“One would think it would be possible to present a coherent argument and discussion in a small book (154 pages plus 17 pages of introduction and preface), but Stephen Schneider fails.”
“As best I can tell, Schneider is trying to endorse both the study of the Earth as a system and the integrated assessment of potential damage from possible global warming. Schneider’s prejudice is revealed when he presents the Paul Ehrlich-John Holdren formula, I=PAT: Environmental Impact equals Population times Affluence per capita times Technology used. This is in the part of the introduction where Schneider introduces population, affluence and technology as “the enemy”. Here he also informs us that an altered climate is a “damaged climate.”Continue reading Brilliant Richard Lindzen, more links→
Do you still believe that climate alarmism is a grassroots movement? Do you still believe it is based on science, possibly exaggerated or misunderstood science? No, it is a centralized command & control structure with aspirations to become a “global governance” (they shy away from the phrase “global government”.) Read what they say, and think again.
*** James Gustave Speth [Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President, 1979-1981], Peter Haas. 2013. Global Environmental Governance: Foundations of Contemporary Environmental Studies:
The challenge of the global environment is fundamentally one of effective governance—global environmental governance.
Democrats and their allies have started blaming their election loss on alleged “Russian hacking,” and bitching about foreign interference in the US elections. How hypocritical!
The Internet has opened American political processes for foreign interference. Most of the foreign interference benefited extreme Left . Starting with the Internet based organizations, such as MoveOn.org, foreign influence contributed to transformation of the old Democratic Party into its current radical shape. The 2016 elections has been marked by the heaviest foreign meddling in the US history. Almost all of it was in favor of the Democratic candidates. Some of the most significant meddlers were:
The UN organization and its many branches
The Guardian, a media outlet of the British Left, partially financed by the British government
Greenpeace, WWF, FOE, and the rest of the European green establishment
The Climate Action Network with its 1,000+ foreign member organizations
Updated & Corrected, 2nd time: N-grams show that the climatist offensive started in 2006, apparently following the release of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Nevertheless, majority of decisions and most “work” on that movie was done in 2004-2005.
This follow-up post draws on readers’ comments on my recent piece A Short History of Climatism in Google Ngrams, published on WUWT. Climatism launched a major PR offensive in 2006 and continued it through at least 2008. In 2006, the alarmist bodies manufactured and put into broad circulation a nasty term, climate change denial. Continue reading The Climatist Offensive 2006-…→
Washington, DC is owned by the Democratic Party, regardless of who is the President and what party has majority in Congress. More than 90% of Washington population votes for Democrats. Despite votes leak to the libertarian candidate, the nation has elected Trump. In the same time, the ratio of Hillary to Trump voters in Washington, DC has been more than 16:1. If Trump wants to make a real change, he needs to move most government operations from DC to the United States, and to hire new people with technical and managerial experience in the business sector. National Scientific Foundation (NSF), National Academy of Science (NAS), and NASA are the first candidates for drastic change that come to mind. EPA should be abolished, and its few useful functions might be spread among other departments. Continue reading DCracy→
The heading of this post is taken from an email, sent by one Deputy Attorney General to another one in connection with the so-called “ExxonKnew” witch-hunt, but it is the key to understanding how the climate alarmism grew to its current size and power. Various individuals and organizations took part in some alarmist activities carelessly or under a false impression, then found themselves stuck, and decided to ride it. Unfortunately, they did not give thought to who was driving and where the ride would take them. A hint: to a very bad place. Anybody who still can will be better by getting off immediately, whatever the cost is. The cost will only grow with time. Continue reading “we … locked in on this and have to ride it through”→
Climate Alarmism can be compared to the HIV virus. After entering a society, it attacks the main defense of the society against itself and similar threats – the scientific enterprise. After the scientific enterprise was weakened enough, the society becomes defenseless against any pathogenic agenda, alleging scientific justification. Climate Alarmism brings with it a number of such agendas, from shutting down the national energy infrastructure to banning free speech to submitting to the UN. America became infected in 1992 through Al Gore and Timothy Wirth.
On persecution of scientists, dissenting from con science of climate alarmism. Excerpts from Climate of Fear, Wall Street Journal, 2006.
Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm … Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. [In 2006 – AH] Continue reading Richard Lindzen on the Climate of Fear, 2006→
What do alarmists not want to let the “deniers” do? Google does a good job indexing the Web and placing the most relevant and referenced results on top. In the spirit of science, I let the data guide me, and ran a Google search for “don’t let the deniers *“. Continue reading Alarmists Chant: “Don’t let the deniers…”→
Noam Chomsky is one of the most frequently cited academics. But a quick Google search with words noam chomsky climate change paints him as a narrow-minded, intellectually lazy, arrogant, and fanatical charlatan. This goes a long way to illustrate how academia has embraced and then submitted to the climatist cult. If Chomsky represents the top academic level, then what is the average? Continue reading Noam Chomsky, Jack of All Trades→
Following overt instructions from foreign entities, including at least one country in a state of war with the United States (North Korea), the Obama administration has launched an attack on the United States Armed Forces. According to the Washington Times:
Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard Lindzen. Testimony at House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response. November 17, 2010. Selected quotes, emphasis is mine.
“In my long experience with the issue of global warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of laymen including policymakers do not actually know what the scientific debate is about. In this testimony, I will try to clarify this. Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing some portion of whatever is happening. I’ll explain this in this testimony. Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated any other role they may be playing.”
“I have been involved in climate and climate related research for over thirty years during which time I have held professorships at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. I am a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and the author or coauthor of over 200 papers and books. I have also been a participant in the proceedings of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). The questions I wish to address are the following: What can we agree on and what are the implications of this agreement? What are the critical areas of disagreement? What is the origin of popular perceptions? I hope it will become clear that the designation, ‘skeptic,’ simply confuses an issue where popular perceptions are based in significant measure on misuse of language as well as misunderstanding of science. Indeed, the identification of some scientists as ‘skeptics’ permits others to appear ‘mainstream’ while denying views held by the so-called ‘skeptics’ even when these views represent the predominant views of the field.”
In 1996 President Clinton issued Executive Order #12986, granting this transnational organization diplomatic immunity: “I hereby extend to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources the privileges and immunities that provide or pertain to immunity from suit …” (some exceptions followed). What is IUCN and why does it deserve such immunity? Yes, it is a big cog in the climatist machine. Continue reading IUCN: Grinding Ax with Diplomatic Immunity→
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→