JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Google demonetizes climate skeptics and bans “denier” ads because skeptics win over too many people

The only people worth silencing are those who are right

Censorship on Google, Goolag, satirical logo.

— Hacktivist Parody Google

Google is waging a war against skeptics because skeptics have the truth on their side and they win debates too easily. How do we know? There are plenty of wrong people on the internet, and acres of misinformation, but Google is happy to feed those creators. The Flat Earthers are not spreading fast on Youtube, they’re not attracting millions of views. But no one needs to cut off their money supply because their arguments aren’t persuasive. To stop those ideas from running amok, the world only needs free speech.

Google announces:   …a new monetization policy for Google advertiserspublishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. 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.

Google demonetizes content creators who deny climate change

by Ian Miles Cheong, Rebel News

Arrogance knows no bounds:

The tech giant claims it will be able to differentiate between content “that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim.”

Who needs scientists anyhow –just Google the truth instead of doing all those experiments?

It’s time for skeptics to hone their skills in satire and parody. Let’s screw those algorithms!

For content creators who were relying on Youtube adverts, losing the monetization could kill the business, it’s a cruel blow. Google’s behaviour is grossly unfair and deceptive. It sold itself as a “platform” deceived people into watching and sharing their creative talents, and on November 1 could wipe them out. But good talent can still find a way — not only are there other, better video homes, but it’s so much better to get a business model that doesn’t feed or rely on Google. My advice would be to connect with your audience, set up a blog or a website, and ask for help and donations. Use Youtube while you still can, to set up a list.

Does anyone believe the Google-excuse?

“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,” said YouTube in its policy update notice. “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.”

This is a company that specializes in harvesting data and placing customized adverts with a highly targeted audiences and they say they can’t stop solar panel adverts showing up on climate skeptic sites?

At the nub of it all, is the dangerous popularity of skeptics:

Bloomberg reports that on YouTube, inaccurate videos about climate change received more than 21 million views and frequently ran ads, according to research in 2020 from Avaaz. The explosive report prompted members of Congress to admonish the tech giant, which proudly boasts about its environmental record.

The latest censorship step shows how fragile the global warming movement has become. Google wouldn’t be silencing skeptics if it wasn’t losing the arguments. And Google wouldn’t be losing if they had truth on their side. They have billions of dollars, control of almost 90% of all internet searches and support from governments, uni’s, professors, the UN and the whole renewables industry.

All the truth needs is a fair and open debate.

h/t Marvin W

9.9 out of 10 based on 141 ratings

240 comments to Google demonetizes climate skeptics and bans “denier” ads because skeptics win over too many people

  • #

    Rumble is up and coming, and Odysee may be a contender. Bitchute is well-established but does not provide income, as far as I can see. There are emerging alternatives, albeit not nearly as financially rewarding (yet).

    360

  • #
    Simon

    Presumably Google have trained their machine learning algorithms in an attempt to discern climate science fact from fiction. This is actually a very difficult thing to do, a lot of content on climate science denial websites is on the surface quite reasonable, but relies on cherry-picking and out of context references to make their point. More likely, permissible content will be determined by headlines and past behaviour.

    2118

    • #
      clarence.t

      Your algorithm certainly is unable to produce any actual facts, only fantasy and fiction..

      What is “climate denial” ?

      What do “climate denial” sites “deny” that you have ever been able to produce any actual scientific evidence for.

      You can’t even support with actual science, that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

      1060

    • #
      R.B.

      Simon has no idea about science. It starts out as “presumably”. It doesn’t become fact until after much thought, experimentation and debate. But with Simon, the presumed becomes fact because he is going to be on the right side of history.

      They merely decide based on a logical fallacy – appeal to authority.

      (Sorry about the double post)

      680

    • #
      el+gordo

      We are safe here because we are having a discussion on the subject

      “We’ll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim,” the company said in the statement.’ (Business Insider)

      90

    • #
      William Astley

      Simon,

      You seem to be ignorant about the CAGW controversy. This is a summary of the key issues.

      The IPCC ‘climate’ models are running ‘hot’. The earth is no longer warming. Attach below is a graph that shows actual measured temperature of the earth (satellite measured) Vs what the IPCC model’s predicted how the earth’s temperature would change. As you can see the IPCC Climate models are not correctly ‘predicting’ the earth’s temperature. There is no scientific explanation why that is so.

      https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/certaintychannel_ipcc_reality.png

      There are two climate change theories. AGW is the assumed warming, from a doubling of atmospheric CO2, which would occur if there is no amplification. CAGW, Catastrophic AGW, assumes the earth’s systems (like cloud cover), amplify CO2 warming. The IPCC models predictions assume the earth amplifies CO2 warming by changing cloud cover.

      The pubic are not aware, it is a fact that the planetary temperature does not correlated to CO2 changes, in the deep paleo record. That fact itself indicates that AGW/CAGW are incorrect. The CAGW theory (CAGW assumes positive feedback to amplification a 0.5C degree warming for a doubling of CO2 to 5C warming and greater) and AGW (Predicted warming with no feedback. Hansen’s calculation of 1.2C for a doubling of CO2, ignores the fact CO2 changes the lapse rate as CO2 increases the specific heat of the atmosphere which increases convection. The change in the lapse rate (convection efficiency of the atmosphere) explains why the IPCC physical prediction that the increase in atmosphere CO2, would cause there to be a hot spot in the tropical troposphere, has by satellite measurement of temperature in that region of atmosphere, to be completely incorrect.

      There was been no warming in the tropics in the last 30 years. Global warming is not global. It is high latitude warming. These are the same regions of the planet that warmed cyclically in the past correlating with solar cycle changes.

      Scientists have discovered in the last 15 years by examining new data, that the earth (both hemispheres), was cyclically warmed and cool with a periodicity of 1500 years and 400 years. In the last 250,000 years there was been 242 of these cycles. These cyclic warming and cooling periods are known to correlate with solar cycle changes, however, to date, no one has figured out, how the sun, is causing the cyclic changes to the earth.

      A strange solar change is now underway to the sun. This is one of a dozen papers that have been written about this solar change.

      https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.09099v1

      The Sun in transition? Persistence of near-surface structural changes through Cycle 24

      The regions that warmed and cooled, in the past, are the same regions that warmed and cooled recently. The past cyclic warming and cooling which it is fact, correlates with solar cycle changes, was not caused by CO2 changes. There is no physical explanation in the climate community as to what caused the past cyclic warming and cooling which is called a Dansgaard-Oeschger ‘event’.

      This cyclic warming can be seen in the Greenland ice sheet core data, from Richard Alley’s paper. Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. The Greenland Ice Sheet also recently warmed. The Greenland Ice Sheet is now starting to cool and to gain mass due to a change in summer cloud cover.

      http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

      Recently it was been found that this cyclic warming that is seen in the Greenland Ice sheet, also occurs in the Southern Ocean and is captured in the Antarctic Peninsula, ice core analysis.

      http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
      Davis and Taylor: “Does the current global warming signal reflect a natural cycle”

      …We found 342 natural warming events (NWEs) corresponding to this definition, distributed over the past 250,000 years …. …. The 342 NWEs contained in the Vostok ice core record are divided into low-rate warming events (LRWEs; < 0.74oC/century) and high rate warming events (HRWEs; ≥ 0.74oC /century) (Figure). … …. "Recent Antarctic Peninsula warming relative to Holocene climate and ice – shelf history" and authored by Robert Mulvaney and colleagues of the British Antarctic Survey ( Nature , 2012, doi:10.1038/nature11391),reports two recent natural warming cycles, one around 1500 AD and another around 400 AD, measured from isotope (deuterium) concentrations in ice cores bored adjacent to recent breaks in the ice shelf in northeast Antarctica. ….

      Public media in the U.S., including National Public Radio (NPR), were quick to recognize the significance of this discovery.

      The past natural warming events reported by Mulvaney et al. are similar in amplitude and duration to the present global warming signal, and yet the past warmings occurred before the industrial revolution and therefore were not caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The present global warming cycle lies within the range of these past natural warming cycles, suggesting that the present global warming cycle may be of natural origin and not caused by human activity–as climate skeptics have been arguing for some time.

      770

      • #
        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          Major SKS Bingo FAILS

          70 “It’s the ocean” The oceans are warming

          Herein lies the IPCC’s scientific fraud – misattribution of observed ocean heat rise. See radiation-matter “tuning” explained and IPCC scientific fraud in respect to ocean heat at #2.7.1 (awaiting moderation).

          62 “2nd law of thermodynamics contradicts greenhouse theory” The 2nd law of thermodynamics is consistent with the greenhouse effect which is directly observed.

          False in 2 major ways.

          1. Yes the greenhouse effect is observed, downwelling infrared radiation (DLR) can and is measured, but that doesn’t necessarily make DLR a heating agent on surface materials – water/ocean in particular. Again, see #2.7.1 at the link above.

          2. No the The 2nd law of thermodynamics is certainly NOT consistent with the IPCC’s speculated downwelling air-to-sea energy transfer. The Clausius statement of the 2nd law:

          “Heat does not of itself move from a cold object [troposphere] to a hot object [surface].”

          Abdussamatov puts it succinctly:

          “Heat rises up, not down”.

          240

          • #
            clarence.t

            “downwelling infrared radiation (DLR) can and is measured”

            Actually, to measure any radiation at CO2 emission frequencies, you have to use a super-cooled sensor, essentially “creating” a negative temperature gradient to measure it.

            Even then, given that the mean free path of that frequency at surface atmospheric pressure and density is only 10-20m, you are only actually measuring a net transfer because you have created it for that tiny distance in the atmosphere.

            CO2 radiation that needs a super-cooled sensor to even create a net radiation, is not going to warm anything.

            150

            • #
              mobihci

              heat depends on the object absorbing radiation, not the radiation itself. the source of the radiation is not directly affected by the destination.

              if you consider some random points in the spectrum – blue light = 450nm our eyes are the sensor and we interpret this as blue, 500nm is nearer to green, and we interpret this as green. our eyes (the sensor) ability to absorb a small amount of this radiation does not change the source frequency (energy) or intensity. a single blue photon will be a single blue photon until something it runs into changes it. IR is just a different frequency, nothing more. IR emission lines are 15,10,9,4um = 15000nm etc. our sensors (eyes) dont see it, but it is there just like the blue light. we dont see radio frequencies either at 1m = 1000000000nm, but they are there.

              there are many ways to see all the frequencies from the lowest to the highest on the EM spectrum, all of them are testable. point is that where there is emission (transitions), these photons will exist regardless of the destination. to be converted to heat requires absorption.

              20

          • #

            The only reference to this work on Google Scholar is in Russian

            Habibullo Abdussamatov. Energy Imbalance Between the Earth and Space Controls the Climate.
            Earth Sciences.
            Vol. 9, No. 4, 2020, pp. 117-125.
            doi: 10.11648/j.earth.20200904.11

            70

            • #
              Richard+C+(NZ)

              Philip, there is a plethora of planetary thermal inertia/lag time frames to choose from, all from different methods of determination – e.g. thermodynamics (Abdussamatov), statistics (Scafetta), empirics (Trenberth), and others.

              Abdussamatov in his papers over the years even comes up with different time frames depending on his method at the time.

              Downthread I link to Abdussamatov 2013 where he comes up with “the thermal inertia of the World ocean (20±8 year)” from thermodynamics principles.

              His paper you link to is Abdussamatov 2020 in which he comes up with:

              7. Conclusions

              “Increase in TSI in the growth phase of the quasibicentennial cycle with a delay of 30±10 years [17], determined by the thermal inertia of the world ocean, leads to an increase in temperature (Figure 3),…”

              [17] is this paper:

              Abdussamatov, H. I., Bogoyavlenskii, A. I., Khankov, S. I., Lapovok, E. V. (2010). Modeling of the Earth’s planetary heat balance with electrical circuit analogy. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications. 2, 133-138.

              So, different answers from different methods.

              I fail to see how there can be any “scientific consensus ” on the earth’s climate when there is no consensus on the critical planetary thermal lag time frame among the different methods of determination..

              20

              • #
                Richard+C+(NZ)

                So given a different thermal lag time frame we can now develop different cooling scenarios to that in #2.4.1.5.2 which was:

                2004 + 12 = 2016
                2004 + 20 = 2024
                2004 + 28 = 2032

                That assumption being the end of the Grand Max at 2004.

                The IPCC and Usoskin et al. (2014) say 2009 so lets use that and Abdussamatov (2010) above:

                2009 + 10 = 2019
                2009 + 30 = 2039
                2009 + 40 = 2049

                Or, using 2004 as previous,

                2004 + 10 = 2014
                2004 + 30 = 2034
                2004 + 40 = 2044

                Again, these are the time frames in which to look for the beginning of a cooling response in the earth’s climate to the end of the solar Grand Maximum.

                3 different rationales – 3 different scenarios.

                I’m inclined to think 2004 and thermodynamics principles (first scenario) produces the most physically realistic estimate but time will tell.

                10

        • #
          clarence.t

          As usual, just a call to mantra and gibberish

          Not one bit of actual science in either link.

          Basically every point in your comedic SKS link is provable wrong with actual data and evidence or just hand-waving mantra statements.

          2. Here is the 30 year trailing TSI from Greg Kopp data…

          https://i.postimg.cc/L4Gn9HsX/Kopp-30-year-trailing-TSI.png

          And solar Paleo data showing huge peak leading up to 2000

          https://i.postimg.cc/FFDD8LWc/Solar-Proxy-paleo-BE.jpg

          3. Crop yields around the world continue to rise.

          4. Consensus…. blah blah blah.. not science.

          5. It has been cooling since the last major El Nino

          6. Surface data is sparse, erratic, and highly compromised by urban heat. The fabrications that follow from them is polluted by manic adjustments and smearing of the urban temperatures over vast areas where they don’t belong.

          7. At non urban sites, it is no warmer now than around 1940..

          https://i.postimg.cc/tg6BcR7x/Instrumental-Temperatures-World-10-Regions-1900-2010-Lansner-and-Pepke-Pedersen-2018.jpg

          8. Extinctions.. LOL… name one species that is extinct because of “climate change” (apart from an itinerant mouse washed off a tiny atoll by a hurricane.. which never happened before)

          9. yes, it warmed from a large El Nino.. absolutely nothing to do with humans That El nino has now subsided and La nina is taking hold. Sun is sleepy and lacking energy.

          10, Latest data has Antarctic gaining ice mass..

          First 10 SKS points totally destroyed by fact and reality.

          Try a better link.. one with some actual facts , evidence and science in it.

          https://i.postimg.cc/YqSkVcR2/Solar-UV-cycle-25-4.png

          ——–

          What is “climate denial” ?

          What do “climate denial” sites “deny” that you have ever been able to produce any actual scientific evidence for.

          You can’t even support with actual science, that atmospheric CO2 causes warming.

          340

        • #
          clarence.t

          Oops

          1. A blanket mantra conjecture statement based on absolutely zero fact.

          100

        • #
          R.B.

          Debunking with more fanciful assertions.

          Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past

          And when it’s inconsistent with the data, the data gets changed so that it’s true. But it’s not how science is done. A well argued adjustment means you might not be wrong. To these clowns, their adjustments turn it into fact and deniers are debunked.

          It’s a sad joke.

          170

        • #
          Richard+C+(NZ)

          2 “It’s the sun”
          In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions

          This is laughable.

          They compare TSI at TOA to surface temp (NASA GISS ?). But the appropriate solar metric is Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) i.e. this is the solar effect at the surface – not TSI at TOA. SSR changes at the surface are a couple of orders of magnitude greater than TSI changes at TOA. Even the IPCC reports this in AR4/5.

          As for a direct comparison over time – that is totally bogus. They don’t allow for the thermal inertia of the planetary solar => ocean => atmosphere + space climate system i.e. thermal lag. Many time frames for this but the IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth says 10 – 100 years:

          An overall estimate of the delay in surface temperature response caused by the oceans is 10–100 years.

          From:

          INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL FOR CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC) AND ATTRIBUTION AND PREDICTION OF CLIMATE: PROGRESS SINCE THE FOURTH ASSESSMENT
          Kevin E. Trenberth (1), Magdalena Balmaseda(2), Nathaniel L. Bindoff (3), John Church(4), Howard J. Freeland(5),
          Gary Lagerloef(6), R. Steven Nerem(7), Matthew Palmer(8), Steve Rintoul(9), Dean Roemmich(10),
          Christopher L. Sabine(11), Detlef Stammer(12) and Peter Stott(13)
          https://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/trenberth.papers/Trenberth_IPCC_OceanObs09_WPP_v5.pdf

          210

          • #
            Richard+C+(NZ)

            >2 “It’s the sun”…yada yada..

            That’s from Simon’s SKS Bingo upthread

            80

          • #
            Richard+C+(NZ)

            >”Many time frames for this but the IPCC’s Kevin Trenberth says 10 – 100 years”

            Abdussamatov 2013
            http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/grand_minimum.pdf

            “Quasi-bicentennial variation of the solar radiation absorbed by the Earth remains uncompensated by the energy emission to space over the interval of time that is determined by the thermal inertia of the World ocean (20±8 year).”

            Range 12 – 28, mid-range 20.

            So if we take the end of the Modern Solar Grand Maximum (debatable I know) to be 2004:

            2004 + 12 = 2016
            2004 + 20 = 2024
            2004 + 28 = 2032

            This is Abdussamatov’s time frame in which to look for the beginning of a cooling response in the earth’s climate to the end of the solar Grand Maximum.

            Indiscernible at first then abrupt. Even the IPCC’s Mike Lockwood notes that in respect to his Figure 7:

            ‘Solar change and climate: an update in the light of the current exceptional solar minimum’
            BY MIKE LOCKWOOD

            8. The current solar minimum in context and the future

            “…there is also a tendency for the declines to be more rapid than the rises”

            https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.2009.0519

            40

        • #
          el+gordo

          ‘The PDO shows no trend, and therefore the PDO is not responsible for the trend of global warming.’

          That is demonstrably wrong, a neutral PDO can produce a temperature hiatus.

          60

        • #
          William Astley

          Hi Simon,

          It is interesting that the blog ‘Skeptical’ Science that you provided a link to, is a CAGW pushing propaganda site. Skeptical Science has an agenda which is to push CAGW.

          Skeptical Science ignores and hides peer reviewed papers and analysis which has disproved CAGW (the earth does not amplify CO2 changes). Skeptical Science ignores the fact that IPCC models are running ‘hot’. The IPCC models predicted increase in planetary temperature has not happened. Planetary temperature has plateaued and is no longer increasing.

          And it is interesting that Skeptical Science hides the fact the earth has warmed and cooled cyclically, correlating to solar changes.

          130

      • #
        Ian

        William Astley

        As you you cite Richard Alley’s 2000 paper “The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland” you may be interested to read what he has had to say on climate change.

        Addressing climate change skeptics, Alley showed the basis for understanding the realities of global warming is based on physics, observation, climate models and history.

        For about a century, scientists have known about the insulating effect of the atmosphere, first introduced by Joseph Fourier about 1829, and the warming role of carbon dioxide, established by John Tyndell in 1859. Over the past century, thermometers in all parts of the world are showing a pattern of increasingly higher temperatures. The warming effects of carbon dioxide was observed by the U.S. Air Force during World War II. More recently, satellite images from around the world document less snow and ice and computer models have shown they can reliably predict climate changes.

        “To make science useful, we must solve the equations for issues we care about,” Alley said. “If you put the earth into computer models using what we know about physics, you get global warming. If you then pretend carbon dioxide doesn’t warm, you will see the models create an Earth that freezes over into a giant snowball. There’s just no honest way for the physics to work without acknowledging the warming aspect of carbon dioxide.”

        Alley acknowledged that temperatures fluctuate over the years, but they clearly have been and are continuing to trend upward since the turn of the century. Despite what skeptics say, the majority of scientists agree on this point, he said.

        “You have to look at the temperatures over a long period of time. Skeptics tend to focus on only several years at a time, which show little movement in average temperatures,” said Alley. “That [focus on a narrow time frame] allows legislators and industry to deflect the need for real change.”

        https://www.lycoming.edu/news/stories/2017/03/richard-alley-climate-change-scientist.aspx

        You might also like to watch an interview in which he discusses what we know about the climate

        https://whatweknow.aaas.org/richard-alley/

        230

        • #
          clarence.t

          ““You have to look at the temperatures over a long period of time.”

          Yes, and over the Holocene, temperatures show that we are currently only a smallish bump out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          CO2 does not have an insulating effect in the atmosphere, there is no scientific evidence of that whatsoever.

          Fourier made a supposition, he did not prove anything except that CO2 is a radiatively active gas.

          Yes, it absorbs energy in a narrow band, but that energy is immediately transferred to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere and disposed of through the atmospheric window.

          Measurements show this is precisely what happens.

          https://i.postimg.cc/50scywD8/radiative-change-2.jpg

          There is no energy being “trapped” in the atmosphere due to CO2, the OLR is determined only by the atmospheric temperature., and that atmospheric temperature is influenced by the energy coming in ie solar energy, not what happens within the atmosphere.

          https://i.postimg.cc/MK5vb4VS/UAH-ERBS-no-trend.jpg

          The transfer of energy in the atmosphere is control totally by the thermal and pressure gradient, neither of which are influenced by CO2 in any way whatsoever.

          Climate models do not “predict” climate with any accuracy what soever.. So much so that they have to keep adjusting start points and surface data to try to make their temperature fabrications match their computer games.

          NH winter snow actually has an increasing trend, and Arctic sea ice is basically level for the last 15 or so years. Antarctic sea ice in increasing and Antarctic temperatures have been decreasing for several decades at least.

          Thermometers show a pattern of Urban Encroachment and heat effect, many thermometers that aren’t affected by this, show no increase what so ever.

          Great to see you admit it is all based on models though. Models that don’t seem to understand that the huge bulk of energy transfer in the atmosphere is controlled by pressure difference , that are controlled by the gravity thermal lapse rate, over which CO2 has absolutely no effect.

          Denying basic physics is the only way the AGW meme can exist

          1) radiative heat transfer requires a thermal gradient. ie it is a product of a thermal gradient.

          2) gravity provides a thermal gradient as part of containment.

          3) radiative heat transfer, if significant, reduces the thermal gradient by cooling the warmer body and heating the cooler.

          4) if radiative heat transfer is insufficient to modify the gradient it remains a ‘product’.

          There is no evidence that the tropospheric thermal gradient is modified in any way, globally averaged, by long wave radiation. The lower troposphere is in exact energy balance with 7.5km, despite the bulk of long wave opacity ‘heat trapping rubbish’ being below.

          330

          • #
            Ian

            “Great to see you admit it is all based on models though. Models that don’t seem to understand that the huge bulk of energy transfer in the atmosphere is controlled by pressure difference , that are controlled by the gravity thermal lapse rate, over which CO2 has absolutely no effect.”

            Perhaps you could re-read my opening sentence which stated:

            “As you cite Richard Alley’s 2000 paper “The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland” you may be interested to read what he has had to say on climate change.”

            Everything that followed was from Richard Alley. I made absolutely no comment either for or against his argument and certainly made no admissions regarding models or indeed of anything else. Perhaps you could re-post to Professor Alley putting forward your points particularly regarding your assertion “Denying basic physics is the only way the AGW meme can exist”

            117

            • #
              clarence.t

              “If you put the earth into computer models”

              Models that have proven woefully inadequate and basically just wrong !

              Great to see you are unable to counter any of the facts, though.

              Perhaps you could look at the facts instead of trying to make spurious claims to other people’s mis-understandings. !

              250

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            That’s a great outline there Clarence.
            Got it.

            60

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              Atmospheric thermodynamics is a potentially complex topic.

              Simple factorial analysis shows that the CO2 item is a non-starter in that it is quantitatively irrelevant in the system under examination.

              You cannot make a model when the one and only pivotal factor is irrelevant.

              If you are going to assess the atmospheric temperature in terms of atmospheric makeup then the one only credible factor, assuming constant Solar input, is:

              The Water Cycle.

              In a couple of thousand years we will most likely be well into the next Glaciation with everyone heading for the Equator.

              Perspective is crucial in real science.

              KK

              60

        • #
          clarence.t

          “but they clearly have been and are continuing to trend upward since the turn of the century.”

          Solar energy will tend to do that. !

          https://i.postimg.cc/8PjKLB02/Solar-Activity-Proxies.png

          Also the drop in clouds over the Tropic oceans lets more energy into the oceans.
          Nothing to do with CO2.

          https://i.postimg.cc/nLC93Jtm/clouds.jpg

          There is none of that energy being trapped. It is being allowed out by OLR at the same rate as the solar/cloud forced temperature increase in the oceans

          https://i.postimg.cc/76VcwYzV/OLR-increase.jpg

          The only real atmospheric warming has come at El Nino events, which are totally unaffected by atmospheric CO2

          https://i.postimg.cc/DyckQYzC/UAH-ERBS-no-trend.jpg

          We are in La Nina territory now, and with a weak sun, and the Earth is starting to cool.

          CO2 is not causing that either.

          240

        • #
          clarence.t

          ” computer models have shown they can reliably predict climate changes.”

          now that’s just funny

          https://i.postimg.cc/662fhTJB/Christy-JR-20210121-v2-CMIP6-models-UAH-2021.jpg

          (red dot is approx 2021 year to date)

          And as the La Ninas, sleepy sun, downward slope of AMO and PDO start to bite, it will look even more hilarious. 🙂

          https://i.postimg.cc/YqSkVcR2/Solar-UV-cycle-25-4.png

          200

        • #
          R.B.

          Addressing climate change skeptics, Alley showed the basis for understanding the realities of global warming is based on physics, observation, climate models and history.

          For about a century, scientists have known about the insulating effect of the atmosphere, first introduced by Joseph Fourier about 1829, and the warming role of carbon dioxide, established by John Tyndell in 1859.

          How is that possible? They had nowhere near enough understanding of physics, enough observations, computing power or knowledge of historical climate to know

          Fourier decided the world was 33 degrees warmer than it should be because of the extra heat from the stars. Arrhenius pointed out Tyndell thought GHG didn’t change mean temperatures but moderated the highs and lows. Should we be listening to someone who doesn’t know how much the consensus was to reject these ideas for more than a century, until their jobs depended on them playing along with it?

          110

          • #
            Ian

            “How is that possible? They had nowhere near enough understanding of physics, enough observations, computing power or knowledge of historical climate to know?”

            The early scientists came to the conclusion that C)2 was a greenhouse gas without using the methods of today

            You ever heard of Eunice Newton Foote? On 23 August 1856, Eunice Newton Foote sat in the audience at an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) meeting in Albany, New York, to attend a talk about her own work. She did not present her research. Instead, surrounded by America’s elite scientists, she listened as Joseph Henry, secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, presented—and failed to recognize the implications of—her research on the heat-absorbing properties of carbon dioxide and water vapor. The work had led Foote to conclude that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to global warming. “An atmosphere of that gas [carbon dioxide] would give to our earth a high temperature,” Foote declared in the subsequent paper describing her work”

            In the article linked below her methods and those of others in the 19th century are described. It is well worth a read whether or not you are a climate sceptic .

            https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.4.20210823a/full/

            I recommend reading at least this abstract from that article. It has two major conclusions. One is that because Newton Foote was a woman her studies were of little interest and tow is that her experiments came up with current thinking on CO2 without any of the “necessities” you consider ex=ssential

            “Never forgetting her childhood exposure to science, Eunice stayed up-to-date on current scientific literature. Her 1856 experiment was likely a response to a Scientific American volume that discussed theories about how the Sun heats Earth. A debate ensued on why mountaintops were colder than valleys. Some believed it was due to the angle of the Sun’s rays; others believed it came down to air density. Foote devised an experiment to settle that debate

            Foote’s experiment was simple: She placed two identical thermometers in identical glass cylinders, 30 inches long and 4 inches in diameter. Using an air pump, she exhausted air from one cylinder and added air into the other. After the temperatures equalized, she placed the jars next to each other in the Sun and recorded the resulting temperature every two to three minutes. She also conducted the experiment with both jars in the shade. In comparing the temperature changes, she observed that “the [thermal] action increases with the density of the air, and is diminished as it becomes more rarified.” She repeated the experiment using moist and dry air by adding water to one cylinder and dehydrating the other using calcium chloride. She discovered that damp air became significantly hotter than dry air.

            Last, she measured the effect of different gases against “common air” (the ambient atmosphere) and found “the highest effect of the sun’s rays . . . to be in carbonic acid gas.” She noted that after being removed from direct sunlight, carbon dioxide maintained its high temperature much longer than other gases did. She also tested hydrogen and oxygen but listed only their final temperature values. “

            011

            • #
              clarence.t

              Copy paste of old understandings of physics.

              Yes we know CO2 is a radiatively active gas.

              Enclosed chambers are NOT the atmosphere.

              Pure CO2 is not the atmosphere.

              “She discovered that damp air became significantly hotter than dry air.”

              Yes the beginnings of understanding of the latent heat properties of water vapor.

              None of this applies to an open atmosphere controlled by pressure and temperature gradients.

              The understanding of atmospheric actions was still very much at a child’s level.

              Those who stick to these concepts as be all and end all, have not progressed any further in understanding.

              150

            • #
              clarence.t

              ““the [thermal] action increases with the density of the air, and is diminished as it becomes more rarified.””

              Yay, you have discovered the gravity based pressure-density gradient which rules the atmospheric temperature gradient. !

              You have just proven that atmospheric CO2, which cannot and does not affect this pressure/density gradient, cannot and does not affect temperature.

              Well done. 🙂

              140

              • #
                Kalm Keith

                And may I say just how brilliant that concise little summary is.

                Unfortunately the many won’t appreciate it because it requires an understanding of real science.

                40

            • #
              clarence.t

              “The work had led Foote to erroneously conclude that increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would lead to global warming.”

              It was a supposition, a conjecture, a guess, based on a lack of understanding of how the atmosphere actually works.

              Not scientific proof of anything.

              100

              • #
                Ian

                “It was a supposition, a conjecture, a guess, based on a lack of understanding of how the atmosphere actually works.

                Not scientific proof of anything.”

                Fair enough clarence. I’m not a particularly ardent supporter of CAGW but I hadn’t heard of Enunice Newton Foote nor of her experiments which however erroneous or c conjectural were well in advance of the understanding in 1856 of the role of atmospheric gases in global temperatures. We disagree on almost everything but I think we just might agree that women scientists are disadvantaged by their gender.

                09

              • #
                R.B.

                How can it be in advance if it’s wrong?

                60

              • #
                clarence.t

                “women scientists are disadvantaged by their gender.”

                Both genders face advantages and disadvantages because of their gender.

                Its part of real life.

                I don’t see how Foote, or female scientists in general, are affected one way or the other as scientists.

                Science is science, you just have to produce something worthwhile and evidence based.

                Its sad that some people think female scientists are disadvantaged. Very sexist.

                40

            • #
              R.B.

              I only hear about Foote in propaganda.

              For a century and a half, the world has instead remembered John Tyndall, an Irish physicist, as the person who discovered the warming potential of carbon dioxide and water vapor—even though he published his findings three years after Foote.

              Tyndall measured the adsorption of CO2 in a tube. It was already established that IR heated a thermometer, by Herschel in 1800. It was already known that CO2 and water absorbed this radiation decades before.

              A debate ensued on why mountaintops were colder than valleys. Some believed it was due to the angle of the Sun’s rays; others believed it came down to air density. Foote devised an experiment to settle that debate.

              No she hadn’t. The air gets cooler with altitude because of convection and PV work due to compression or expansion of air. The lapse rate is not 9.8°C a km because the process is not adiabatic, because of gases that absorb and emit IR radiation. Close enough to be useful for faster processes like foehn winds.

              But the stupidity of this is how few people actually think that CO2 does nothing. To put this up as proving sceptics are wrong is a Straw man argument. It will absorb some energy from the Sun and that gas will become warmer, and if it wasn’t a glass cylinder, it would make a difference. Using glass means the gas inside is irrelevant except CO2 (and argon) are poor heat conductors.

              Her experiment was flawed. It proved nothing.

              70

              • #
                Ian

                “Her experiment was flawed. It proved nothing.”

                You may well be right but remember anaethesia was only 10 years old when her results were published which was around 40 years prior to Arrhenius’ model of greenhouse gas effects

                03

              • #
                R.B.

                Arrhenius had to explain how this gas acted as such a big blanket as to be the reason for coming out of an ice age.

                The problem is that it’s not a blanket. If you sleep with a blanket that rises up once your body warms it, it’s useless.

                Can you understand that making out that Foote was some unsung genius is a sad joke?

                71

            • #
              Kalm Keith

              A sealed container holding CO2 is just that: sealed and concentrated.

              CO2 in the Atmosphere is Free and seriously Diluted.

              It is free to act as nature intended and take its rightful place in that atmosphere as the inconsequential component that it is.

              Away from thermodynamic considerations the gas CO2 is amazing and is lifegiving.

              70

            • #
              • #
                clarence.t

                The whinge brigade.

                If a woman produces the same science, they get the same kudos.

                The fact you are citing the Conversation, Huff-an-puff etc, shows its just leftist whinging.

                “Internationally women have generally reached parity in university study: 45-55 percent of bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 44 percent of PhDs are now awarded to women.”

                Women are now “choosing” differently. Of course numbers in industry will take time to equalise.

                Its very sad that people like you think women are not capable of being equal to men in science.

                20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Ian:
          Fourier noted that “unless a portion of the atmosphere solidifies WITHOUT changing its optical properties, then it cannot act as a greenhouse”. It seems that he knew how an actual greenhouse works (i.e. by changing circulation). I am not aware that he ever designated any figure for the Earth being warmer than it should be based purely on its distance from the sun (although that was widely thought then in scientific circles).
          As for Tyndall (correct spelling) he did find that carbon dioxide (along with over 20 other gases) absorbed some heat rays (his word for Infrared) but radiated it very quickly. If you check the Proceedings of the Royal Society you will find his experiment reported. He didn’t think that it had much of a “greenhouse” gas, probably because he was (apart from a very thorough scientist) a mountain climber and thus aware of the atmospheric lapse rate. He certainly thought that CO2 had a minor effect.
          As for the “observed warming effect” I would point out that this has been evident in the UK since 1710, although there are cycles to cooler conditions (1740 was a very cold winter etc. and the first great Irish potato famine). Waming restarted then seems to have receded in the 1780’s (possibly due to volcanic eruption in Iceland in 1783) and this had an effect in France in 1789. Curiously Glacier Bay in southern Alaska showed melting from sometime in the 1780’s which continued until around 2011.
          1815/6 was known as the “year without summer” due (almost certainly) to the eruption of Mt. Tambora. Glaciers in the Alps started rapid melting from 1837 (Mt. Blanc) to others in Switzerland in the 1850’s and 60’s, followed by those in Glacier Park in Montana. Yet the 1890s to (about)1910 were cold years in the northern hemisphere and dry years in Australia.
          By 1924 warming was very evident across the North, Iceland started growing barley again after 400 years, and Spitzbergen (as Svalbard was then called) had an entire year without pack ice, something that hasn’t happened in the last 30 years.
          From sometime in the later 1940’s until 1979 the northern hemisphere experienced a colder climate leading to numerous predictions of a “new ice age”. Since then there have been numerous claims about abnormal warming but I haen’t seen any hard evidence of that.

          100

        • #
          William Astley

          Alley is repeating ‘Rhetoric’ rather than summarizing the science. It does not matter what Alley says or believe is what he says or believes is not scientifically correct. What is the data/analysis to support Richard Alley’s claims?

          The past is a guide to the future. The earth in the past, cyclically warmed and cooled, correlating with solar cycle changes. A great deal of money has been spent fight climate change. What has been accomplished?

          What is Alley’s explanation for the past cyclic warming in the current interglacial period? Alley ignores the data/analysis that completely disproves AGW/CAGW…. Climate Scientists stop being scientists if they cannot kill a theory which data/analysis has proven to be incorrect.

          Alley is repeating ‘Rhetoric’, pushing an agenda that does not work and is scientifically incorrect, rather than summarizing the science. The past is a guide to future. The earth in the past, cyclically warmed and cooled correlating with solar cycle changes.

          What is Alley’s explanation for the past cyclic warming in the current interglacial period?

          As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years. The Greenland Ice Sheet also recently warmed. The Greenland Ice Sheet is now starting to cool and to gain mass due to a change in summer cloud cover.

          http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif

          CAGW and AGW require that anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. That assumption has been disproved.

          The IPCC developed a fake equation… The Bern equation which assumes that there is zero, particular organic carbon, sequestered in the ocean. This is necessary because the IPCC assumes the only new source of CO2 into the atmosphere to replace what is sequestered is from volcanic eruptions.

          This recent observation that C14 which was created by atomic bomb tests, been found in shells, in the deepest ocean, proves the so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times, is completely incorrect.

          The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

          The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

          https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

          ‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

          Bottom feeders
          Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.

          Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea. But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.

          The fantasy of accelerating sea level rise just got hosed

          https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/02/bewildered-scientists-a-global-warming-crisis-fails-to-appear-sea-level-rise-grinds-to-a-crawl/

          This is a three part problem. Humans did not cause the CO2 rise, the CO2 rise did not cause the temperature rise, and the money spent on green energy is causing damage to the environment and is damaging our economy, and not changing atmospheric CO2. Alley appears to be completely ignorant concerning the green scams. The money which is being spent on the Green scams is not reducing climate change or changing CO2 in the atmosphere.

          CAGW and AGW require that anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. That assumption has been disproved.

          The IPCC developed a fake equation… The Bern equation which assumes that there is zero, particular organic carbon, sequestered in the ocean. This is necessary because the IPCC assumes the only new source of CO2 into the atmosphere to replace what is sequestered is from volcanic eruptions. If the only new source of CO2 was from volcanic eruptions the earth would be almost lifeless as all of the CO2 in the atmosphere would be sequestered. There is obviously a massive source of new CO2 that is entering the atmosphere to replace the sequestered CO2.

          This recent observation that C14 which was created by atomic bomb tests, been found in shells, in the deepest ocean, proves the so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times, is completely incorrect.

          The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

          The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

          https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

          50

    • #
      Raving

      Easy. Never fails … Besides who is giing to argue with it?

      Active weather = extreme weather = climate change

      31

    • #

      Simon, Astley’s post below reveals some pretty big cherries! Climate science evolves as a result of genuine debate between those representing ‘the consensus’ and those with alternative cherries. (The standard methodology of all science, except climate science, sadly.) Failure to engage the debate just reinforces the consensus as scientism, political activism dressed up as science, basically just ideology.

      190

    • #
      Richard+C+(NZ)

      Simon >”Google have trained their machine learning algorithms in an attempt to discern climate science fact from fiction”

      Trained all that?

      Sure is an impressive “attempt” if so.

      All the laws of physics.
      All the laws of thermodynamics in particular.
      Application of all of the above to a fledgling (un)discipline.
      And getting it all perfectly correct – heroic.

      They’ve then pulled in the field of optics (radiation-matter interaction). This despite the IPCC making their own assumptions in respect to water rather than defer to that body of literature – herculean.

      Is there nothing the collective human intelligence of the corporation and their artificial intelligence machine cannot do?

      90

      • #
        Richard+C+(NZ)

        From the Tec Science article linked previous”

        The ability of an object to absorb, reflect or transmit depends not only on the material, but also on the type of radiation, i.e. the wavelength of the radiation. A pane of glass almost completely transmits visible radiation, i.e. it has a very high transmittance in the visible wavelength range. Shorter wavelengths such as ultraviolet radiation (UV) below 320 nm, on the other hand, cannot penetrate glass!

        That ability is also known as radiation-matter “tuning”

        And,

        A pane of glass almost completely transmits visible radiation, i.e. it has a very high transmittance in the visible wavelength range. Shorter wavelengths such as ultraviolet radiation (UV) below 320 nm, on the other hand, cannot penetrate glass!

        Conversely (almost) for infrared radiation and water. Infrared in the solar IR-A/B category penetrates and most effectively heats water at about 1m. Terrestrial and GHG infrared in the IR-C category has maximum penetration of water at about 100 microns (think human hair) and is only effective at about 10 microns.

        It is absurd to think IR-C from GHGs then heats water (ocean) beyond what solar IR-A/B does. Solar IR-A/B energy-per-photon is measured in electron Volts (eV), terrestrial/GHG IR-C in milli eV i.e. 3 orders of magnitude less.

        Undaunted, the IPCC climate scientists believe, and therefore so must everyone else, that all the excess energy their CO2 forcing paradigm generates at TOA does indeed bypass all of their surface energy budgets (and laws of thermodynamics) and ends up in the ocean – this alone accounts for the observed ocean heat increase since the 1950s.

        Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) changes (think cloudiness) cannot possibly account according to the IPCC even though their own research has surface changes in radiation about 2 orders of magnitude greater than theoretical CO2 forcing (about 0.2-0.3 W.m2).

        Hence the IPCC’s scientific fraud either by ineptitude or intent.

        90

    • #
      Doonhamer

      Me on the denier scale.
      10 or 15 is very nice.
      But it is mainly down to the wearer.
      A nice smile trumps (am I allowed to use that word?) any denier.

      04

    • #
      James Murphy

      I don’t deny that there is a climate.
      I don’t deny that it changes.
      I don’t know any rational person who does.
      I do see people with little to no understanding of basic physics, geological history, and chemistry denying aspects of reality.

      The only people who seem to “deny” climate change are those who think the climate (and sea level, for that matter) was static until the moment that humans discovered how to mass-produce steam powered hardware. Ignorance, and stupidity is a dangerous combination, and a powerful weapon. when exploited by the media, social media, big corporations, politicians, and activists pretending to be scientists.

      130

    • #
      Lance

      When will you stop beating your family?

      “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

      “To produce a maximum of chaos in the culture of the enemy is our first most important step. Our fruits are grown in chaos, distrust, economic depression and scientific turmoil. At least a weary populace can seek peace only in our offered Communist State, at last only Communism can resolve the problems of the masses.“

      – Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria.

      30

    • #

      The ‘algorithm’ is mostly a list of hand curated web sites and the hand curated component is the problem because it’s wildly uninformed people like yourself doing the curating.

      10

  • #
    Zigmaster

    Knowing how manically active shareholders are these days I suspect it may be funds like Black Rock have forced this change on Google

    200

  • #
    farmerbraun

    This is good news ; nothing is true until it is officially denied .
    An official denial that skeptics are right is what is needed right now .
    For some Google = officialdom.
    winning.

    430

  • #
    Craig

    mmmmmm……do you think they’ll come after you Jo?

    130

    • #
      PeterS

      Almost certainly eventually. Hardly anyone will be exempt from the coming ultimate tyranny. Enjoy what freedoms we have left until they are taken away. Note though we will be given a new set of “freedoms” with conditions attached. It’s all part of the coming NWO agenda years down the road.

      230

      • #
        New+Chum

        Google blocked me from a skeptics website about four weeks back. This is the message that appears if I attempt to download the website.
        This blog is under review due to possible Blogger Terms of Service violations and is open to authors only

        180

      • #
        Ted1

        “Enjoy…freedoms”.

        If you were Vlad Putin, do you think you would prefer to live in a world with the US or China?

        China went to Europe before. I doubt that Europe harbours fond memories.

        20

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        We already have VictoryFreedoms(tm) that exist upon sumbission to the new Needle N*zi 4th Re*ch ….and can change at any time when the sociopaths running the show decide to inhale something new….

        20

    • #
      el+gordo

      It would please you greatly, but it would be foolish to gag blogs because of their views on extreme weather events.

      41

    • #
      DD

      Perhaps the algorithm will just search for the name of the individual or organization that published it.
      It appears they are going to demonetize rather than block. It means that alternative views will slowly and quietly fade from the public’s consciousness, without much fanfare. Blocking such views would have drawn much more attention to them.

      40

  • #
    Delory

    How many tons of CO2 per day would be required to keep Google’s servers running?
    Even if they source that energy from solar/hydro/wind – how many megawatts of energy are they draining from the climate system?

    190

    • #
      William

      Yes, their massive banks of servers draw extreme amounts of electricity from the grid, coal gas or nuclear mostly, and those servers generate so much heat that massive airconditioners are required to keep them from overheating – again drawing extreme amounts of that same electricity to cool their heat.

      Google and its fellow sanctimonious climate alarmist renewable zealous social media associates are hypocrites of the first order. If they really believed in the damage human activity is causing to the planet, they would push the off buttons and save the world. At the cost of their massive profits.

      100

    • #
      Earl

      For a great rundown regarding Google actions to stay green and “source that energy from /wind” go to the documentary Headwind”21 and at 38min40sec mark get your dose of green google reality.

      A nice pristine remote area of Sweden has recently had numerous wind farms spring up. The first area was developed by GE who were looking for some remote place to test out its new prototype turbine. Apparently a French equity house helped finance this. A Danish company did all the clearing of the land area which just happens to be peat forest which is very important to the ecology of the area. Then more wind farms starting springing up and these are apparently bankrolled by a Luxembourg fund. Who is associated with the fund? Munich RE a reinsurance group (Germany). Who contributes? Oslo Pension Fund (Norway) W&W Gruppe (Gemany) Physio Pension Fund (Netherlands). So where will some (if not all) of the electricity from all these wind farms be going? It will be going to Finland to power a new cloud data centre that Google are building.

      Why not build the things in Finland then? Well there is no issue with carbon credits or worries like that because Sweden met its 2030 targets back in 2018 after all the country has had a strong hydro power network since the 1930/40s. The wind farms will never show a profit so no tax issues either.

      End result pristine peat forest areas in a remote part of Sweden are being damaged so that Google in Finland can run their new plant while bankers and fund managers in Luxembourg, Germany, Norway and The Netherlands rack up lovely profits. That is what United Nations do.

      60

    • #
      Lance

      A rough number would be about 240 kg CO2 / MWh.
      Gurgle data centers use somewhere around 260 MWh of electricity.

      So, that’s about 62.4 metric tons of CO2 / hour, or about 546 million metric tons CO2 / year.

      It is going to depend on the electrical generation fuel mix, efficiency of data centers, etc. It is a moving target, so any snapshot is going to be a “sketch” at best.

      30

      • #
        Ross

        That’s roughly equivalent to Australia’s CO2 emissions (570-660 MT/annum)- and we are always made out to be the “baddies” of climate change. So, the logical progression from that fact is Google are also climate baddies.

        30

  • #
    R.B.

    Simon has no idea about science. It starts out as “presumably”. It doesn’t become fact until after much thought, experimentation and debate. But with Simon, the presumed becomes fact because he is going to be on the right side of history.

    They merely decide based on a logical fallacy – appeal to authority.

    180

  • #

    How does Google or Youtube know what is an “inaccurate” claim regarding climate change? They don’t. The ban people based on ideology, not evidence or facts.

    320

  • #
    PeterS

    This is part of the overall trend in play to shut people down who refuse to follow the coming NWO agenda. We will soon find out if the elite and political puppets will take it to the next level of tyranny, or it will be done later. Either way it’s inevitable as the trend is set and they have no intention of turning things back. It’s all go, go, go ever since the climate change scam started many years ago. It has accelerated since the COVID-19 pandemic started. What comes next is going to frighten the socks of many. Be prepared. For those who think I’m talking nonsense, I know you will change your mind eventually as the events unfold. Give it time. It might take a few months to several years, depending on how thick you are, but regardless you will wake up to reality. This is serious business. Anyone who ignores all this must really have their head well and truly stuck in the sand not to notice at least some of the signs over the past few years. You have been warned.

    180

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Which is why Gab ticks off the globalists no end, because as a Christian run service, they refuse to submit, despite it appears they have been approached by govts asking them to censor, and the answer is always no….

      70

  • #
    another ian

    No Biden, You’re Wrong”

    https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=243833

    Google wouldn’t like this!

    60

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Of course there were the lies. You won’t “get” Covid if you get jabbed, so said Biden. Biden’s own government has analyzed that and found it is not true — of those over 65 as of August 7th 60% of the hospitalized Covid-19 cases were fully vaccinated. It’s almost-certainly higher now. He lied and he knew it.

      Those who he wants to fire if they won’t follow his dictatorial Mengele-style mandate know it too; many of them see it every day because they’re health-care workers.

      Some of them run around with T-shirts on and preach at others. They’re lying to themselves as well as everyone else; perhaps THEY had a bad reaction or worse, they see the data, they see people choking to death in 2 days and know they’re probably ****ed so in a fit of pique they insist on dragging you down into the hole with them. They know good and damned well that the jabs wear off and thus don’t work “as advertised” — and that they have a nasty side effect profile. Ever been around someone who’s addicted and tries to take you down the bowl with them when they know they’re getting flushed?

      110

    • #
      Travis T. Jones

      Indeed, a company requiring a mandate vaccine has broken the unspoken bond between employees and employers of loyalty and trust and job security.

      Employees now know their job can be taken from them at a government whim, and the employers won’t hesitate to enforce this.

      A forced mandate jabbed employee will hate their boss, their job, the workplace, their government, and begrudge going to work as they have only two choices, get jabbed or go hungry.

      An important line has been crossed.

      A good opine.

      120

      • #
        OldOzzie

        Biden Using Dishonorable Discharges for Military to Weaponize Covid Vaccine

        If there is still one person somewhere in America who doesn’t think President Joe Biden and the toxic progressives who increasingly call the shots for the White House and the Democratic Party are heading swiftly down an authoritarian road, here’s yet another illustration:

        “The Administration strongly opposes section 716, which would detract from readiness and limit a commander’s options for enforcing good order and discipline when a Service member fails to obey a lawful order to receive a vaccination …

        “The Administration also strongly opposes section 720, which would create a new and overly broad exemption from the vaccination requirement for previous infection that would undermine the effectiveness of the requirement.”

        Those graphs are from a September 21 Statement of Administration Policy issued by the Biden White House concerning a congressional proposal to bar dishonorable discharges for members of the U.S. military who decline to be vaccinated against Covid.

        For those who might have expected Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin to step up in defense of the 1.3 million active-duty military service members and 800,000 reservists, be aware that he was asked his position on the issue during a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

        Austin’s response wasn’t exactly a profile in courage, as he responded by saying that “taking a vaccine is a requirement. I’ll just leave it at that,” Note that neither Austin nor the White House statement made clear or even remotely acknowledged what is at stake for every declining service member on this issue.

        The proposal being objected to by the Biden administration was introduced by Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.) as an amendment to the draft National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Green’s amendment enjoyed bipartisan support in the House Armed Services Committee. The Senate still has to act on the NDAA and it is far from certain that the upper chamber will endorse Green’s call.

        But it’s important that everybody understands what is really at stake on this issue and how it illustrates Biden’s weaponizing Covid against millions of Americans who insist on their right to decide for themselves what medical treatments they will experience.

        90

        • #
          Forrest Gardener

          Note the way the powers that be just skip right over the word “lawful” as though it is not even in question.

          90

        • #
          Russ Wood

          It looks as if it might be necessary to use the Mahatma Gandhi treatment – “I won’t!”. Enough people doing this will hammer the military discipline principles, because if EVERYONE being hammered INSIST on a courts martial, the whole defence system becomes STUFFED! Can you imagine the civilian lawyers licking their lips and opening the ‘book’ on courts martial? After all, the US government administration IS lawyers!

          10

    • #
      PeterS

      The effects of the COVID-19 vaccines are really secondary to the whole agenda. All that matters is the elite and political puppets clamp down more and more to install their tyrannical regime. The main excuse is they don’t trust us and they really believe they know what’s best for own own good. If the vaccines do end up terminating a lot of people that would be considered a bonus to them. It’s the same with climate change agenda. Fool as many people as possible to control the masses regardless of whether energy policies cause any harm to the economy or not. I suspect though they would not mind too much if they did crash the economy and/or kill of lots of people as that would give them yet another excuse to turn on the screws even more quickly and much harder than they already have. I’m pretty sure whatever crisis happens next, it will be a whopper and their tyrannical wet dreams will escalate to the next level.

      60

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        All people need to do to stop this tyranny in its tracks is refuse to wear a mask, refuse to stay inside and refuse to get the jab.

        At that point I think the globalists would start a war.

        But then people refuse to fight and refuse being yelled at.

        What can they do?

        They could release bio wepon No. 2 or nuke a few cities.

        These people are psychopaths … they are not normal nor human like we think of people, but evil, and need to be stopped.

        40

  • #
    another ian

    Read more on that here

    “Announcing: The First WUWT Climate Change Essay Contest”

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/08/announcing-the-first-wuwt-climate-change-essay-contest/

    50

  • #
    John+Culhane

    The real reason is fintech. Companies like Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter intend to grow in banking and finance. To carve a slice of that lucrative pie from the bankers in a new digital currencies world they operate in the political sewer and as part of this quid pro quo they censor opposition to the dominant political narrative. Otherwise whey lose advertising revenue if there is no payoff? As far as companies advertising are concerned, the colour of everyone’s money is the same and a good salesman wants to maximise their commission, so why cut out sales leads? There must be a business plan behind Amazon, Google, Facebook and Twitter overtly supporting the DNC and I don’t buy Environmental, Social And Governance (ESG) as the reason.

    120

    • #
      OldOzzie

      Just came in email from Rum Rebellion (occasionally something useful from them usually not)

      Around the year 800, the Tang dynasty in China ran into a small problem. They were running out of cash.

      Cash at the time being copper coins.

      Coins were used a lot by merchants for trade around the country. To tackle the shortage, they tried to limit the amount merchants used by making them barter commodities as a medium of exchange instead, but that hampered trade.

      So they started issuing certificates that merchants could redeem for metal coins at the capital.

      These certificates had some advantages. You didn’t need to carry a heavy load of coins everywhere you went, it was safer, and they could have different amounts of money on them.

      But merchants stopped bothering going to the capital to redeem them and started to use them as an exchange system, a sort of money instead.

      The certificates became known as ‘flying cash’, mainly because they had the habit of flying away when it was windy.

      Flying cash was the precursor of paper currency, which was later introduced with the Song dynasty and would eventually replace the world’s ‘cash’ at the time (gold, silver, and copper coins).

      Now our ‘cash’ is changing again, we’re witnessing a revolution in money.

      Central banks are looking very closely at Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).

      China so far is well ahead of the game, looking at launching its digital yuan during the 2020 Winter Olympic Games in Beijing.

      CBDCs have plenty of advantages for governments.

      As opposed to digital currencies like Bitcoin [BTC], central bank digital currencies are centralised and backed by the government.

      Payments are quick and there are less fees because they don’t need intermediaries. They don’t need to run on the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications or SWIFT for short.

      So in a time when tensions are increasing between the US and China, you can see how this can be appealing.

      In fact, it was something even Huang Qifan, Vice President of China Center for International Economic Exchanges said at the 2019 Bund Summit:

      ‘First of all, SWIFT and CHIPS are gradually becoming the financial instruments for the United States to exercise global hegemony and carry out long-arm jurisdiction. Historically, the United States has launched several financial wars with the help of the SWIFT and CHIPS systems.

      ‘Second, SWIFT is an outdated, inefficient, and costly payment system. Since its establishment 46 years ago, SWIFT has been slow to update and its efficiency has been relatively low. International wire transfers usually take 3-5 business days to arrive. Large remittances usually require paper documents, making it difficult to effectively handle large-scale transactions. At the same time, SWIFT usually charges a fee of one ten-thousandth of the settlement amount, and has obtained huge profits by virtue of the monopoly platform.

      ‘Therefore, under the current trend of digitalization, there is no future for SWIFT and CHIPS systems that rely on slow technology updates and difficult security. Driven by big data platform and blockchain technology, building a new clearing settlement network has become the consensus of many countries. Blockchain technology has five characteristics: decentralization, information not tampering, collective maintenance, reliable database, and openness and transparency. It has the natural advantages of transparency, security and credibility in clearing settlement.’

      Quick payments and less fees are also an advantage for a top-trader country like China, and a digital yuan could allow for this.

      CBDCs also allow for more control of the economy, things like negative interest rates or even giving currencies an expiration date.

      So it’s no coincidence that China has also tried to eliminate competition by banning cryptos and crypto mining, but also cracking down on digital payment services like WeChat and Alipay.

      Now, central banks around the world are looking at CBDCs but they’re also concerned on competition.

      One of the latest warnings on digital currencies like bitcoin has come from the International Monetary Fund recently, as the market value for crypto assets hit US$2 trillion:

      ‘As crypto assets take hold, regulators need to step up.

      ‘Crypto assets offer a new world of opportunities: Quick and easy payments. Innovative financial services. Inclusive access to previously “unbanked” parts of the world. All are made possible by the crypto ecosystem.’

      Or so the paper begins.

      But along with the opportunities there are always risks.

      They then go on to detail a long list: No governance, risk, hacking, theft of funds, fraud, money laundering, terrorism, etc.

      Which is true, cryptos are risky.

      But reading on, their key concern is something they call cryptoisation:

      ‘Looking ahead, widespread and rapid adoption can pose significant challenges by reinforcing dollarization forces in the economy—or in this case cryptoization—where residents start using crypto assets instead of the local currency. Cryptoization can reduce the ability of central banks to effectively implement monetary policy.’

      As cryptos are becoming more mainstream, money has started to sift away from the financial system and into digital currencies because they offer an alternative.

      70

  • #
    David Maddison

    As I have observed before the Left are returning us to an age before The Enlightenment when the ideas of human reason and evidence as the basis of knowledge are ignored, as well as the values of the pursuit of happiness, liberty, tolerance, free speech, and law and order. They are out to destroy it all.

    We are heading toward the Darkest Days of humanity if they are allowed to win.

    Part of their strategy is the perversion of science and the introduction of anti-scientific ideas like “settled science“. There is no such thing in the scientific method. Any and all ideas are open to challenge.

    The useful idiots of the Left are too poorly educated and ignorant to understand the nature of the scientific method while their leaders who tell the useful idiots what to think know exactly what they are doing and are arch-propagandists and arch-manipulators.

    230

    • #
      John

      You’re quite correct. We’re being taken back to the Dark Ages, with myths and superstitions (about the magnitude of the influence of CO2 and methane) ruling.

      The socialists at the UN are trying to punish every developed country for improving their living conditions, wealth and health since the Industrial Revolution.

      In the instances where European countries occupied and settled other countries there’s no thanks for improving the situations of the indigenous people but the reverse – the UN is pushing for the indigenous people to have special rights and laws that other citizens can’t have. Never mind that those indigenous cultures might have developed in the past then stagnated. Never mind that in many cases the indigenous people were tribal (and fought each other) or that their cultures were thousands of years behind European culture and that they now got the opportunity to learn skills for the modern world.

      120

  • #
    Travis T. Jones

    If it can’t be questioned, it’s not science.

    150

    • #
      Lance

      “I would rather have questions that cannot be answered, than answers that cannot be questioned.” – Richard Feynman

      160

    • #
      RickWill

      Does God exist?

      Does CO2 cause global warming?

      Both questions of faith!

      The new religious belief is fabulous for Australia’s commodity based economy. The world can never make random energy generators sustainable but it appears there are enough maths challenged nutters to keep the illusion going for a long time. GOOGLE et al are infested with them.

      My concern with GOOGLE and other tech giants is that they have become the high priests of the new religion, wielding unmatched power. Their doctrine rules over understanding – they are the TRUTH purveyors. Civilisation is returning to the dark ages with the new church in control of information.

      It appears that the northern land masses could be heading for a self-inflicted energy crunch during the boreal winter. The inhabitants could literally descend into the dark ages as early as January 2022. In the last two decades, trillions has been invested in random energy generators and there is some certainty that their combined output in the northern hemisphere will be close to ZERO when needed the most! I consider that poorly directed investment in an essential service.

      50

      • #
        CriddleDog

        “Faith” is something you’ve got to have to believe in something you know isn’t true!

        Or something like that.

        50

        • #
          Yonason

          Faith is something you only invest in what you know to be true. If someone gives you their word, and always keeps it, you can have faith that you can trust them.

          00

      • #
        clarence.t

        “It appears that the northern land masses could be heading for a self-inflicted energy crunch during the boreal winter.”

        I hope so, but not to bad, just enough to wake them up to reality.

        “The inhabitants could literally descend into the dark ages as early as January 2022.”

        Not sure that has not already happened. 😉

        50

      • #
        Ronin

        I was watching a car show the other night and there was mention of vacuum windshield wipers, they are the closest thing to renewable power I can think of, fine when you don’t need them, don’t work when you do need them.

        50

      • #
        SimonB

        That descent into renewables darkness in the northern winter will also only wake a few on the periphery of the cult, as the use of gas and coal to stave off many cold related deaths will be ignored, or flat out hidden from the mainstream trashmedia viewer.
        This brainwashing is deep and been embedded in school curriculum for a decade or more now. That won’t be easily countered by reality for years.
        For my part I chip away at the cultists with disbelieving questions to fool the algorithms. It usually only takes a coupla back and forths for the faithful to either shut down, or revert to the character assassination prevalent in paid leftwing social media attack squads like Getup and antifa. They can be fun to play with for a while, as it highlights the lack of credibility of the truly zealous to the useful idiots on the periphery.
        It’s the only way to stay sane; produce facts, have the lunatics help hone your argument and believe you have converted at least one useful idiot to the ability to research facts for themselves.
        Naive possibly, but as I say, a decision to retain sanity in a brainwashed society swiftly moving from climate denial to anti vaxxer epithets all designed to hand over personal liberty and freedom of thought to central control not just through social media but ‘vaccine passports’ for the safety of all…..even though both vaxxed and unvaxxed will still get and transmit the virus! You will comply! Willingly in a lot of cases apparently!
        I mean, you’ll be happy for central control to add your normal food intake won’t you? Once the ‘disease of the unvaxxed’ is smoothly transitioned into using the actual data to show that 98% of those who died had comorbities it is only natural to ensure that obesity is tackled, just to keep you safe from yourself, so your location tracking on your devices which show you visited dangerous food outlets, or your trolley scanned unapproved items for your optimum health will be used not only for your benefit, but to get rid of climate change creating animal food products!
        No word yet on what the decision will be between climate and animal liberation warriors.
        That’s a fight worth watching. How do you cull a population of animals which will be destroying the planet in greater numbers as they no longer become a food source, yet keep the species from extinction?
        Those are the questions I love asking on Socialist media!

        10

  • #
    David Maddison

    Just a reminder about some milestones in the history of the Scientific Method.

    Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE) – established that measurement and observation were the foundations of science and that abstract thought and reasoning must be supported by said measurements and observations of the real world.

    Roger Bacon (1214 – 1294) make observations, develop hypothesis, experiment to test hypothesis, document experiment so others could repeat it and verify.

    Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) Further developed the scientific method and emphasised the importance of inductive reasoning and that experimental evidence could be used as decide between conflicting hypotheses or theories.

    Galileo (1564 – 1642) realised no measurement could be perfect or complete (or maybe even possible to do), sought to standardise measurements, produced theorems based on mathematics, emphasised inductive reasoning.

    Sir Isaac Newton 1643-1727 established that the scientific method required both induction and deduction.

    Royal Society 1660 established and said experimental evidence always supersedes theoretical evidence. Established basis of peer review of scholarly publications.

    Al Gore 2006 started The movement to destroy all of the above advances in the scientific method when he proclaimed there was such a thing as “settled science” which was indisputable and whatever he and other beneficiaries of the anthropogenic global warming fraud said was by definition the truth.

    Ref for some points: https://explorable.com/history-of-the-scientific-method

    180

  • #
    el+gordo

    If by chance they did gag the Denialati I propose we talk about weather and climate without mentioning CO2.

    The PDO is carbon neutral and its set to go negative, which means we’ll have a rerun of the period from 1945 to the great climate shift of 1976.

    https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/decadal/pdo.html

    100

  • #
    Neville

    Well what are we supposed to deny?

    Here’s a few facts……
    The Holocene optimum, Minoan WP,Roman WP,Med WP were warmer than our so called Modern WP. Just check the SLs like Eastern OZ etc 4 K years ago. See ABC CATALYST.
    Human life exp from 200 K years ago to the year 1800 was under 40. Since then our health and wealth has exploded and yet we now have another 6.8 billion people to look after.
    Today human life exp is 73 and we are much wealthier than at any time in human history.
    OH and the climate today is incredible, see African Population increased by 1 billion people since 1970. Then life exp was just 46 and today is 63 and is now higher than the WORLD life Exp of 56.5 in 1970. THINK ABOUT IT and Africa ( 53 countries) is the poorest continent on the planet.
    The UAH V 6 temp observations show about 1.4 c a century and this could quickly change when the AMO changes to the cool phase.
    And Antarctica has shown no UAH V 6 temp increase for the last 42 years and according to the latest NATURE study there has been no Antarctic warming since 1950.
    And Antarctica has just recorded the lowest temp since the 1950s.
    SLR is now about 1 to 2 mm a year at the tide gauges or about 4 to 8 inches per century or about the same as the last century or well before their so called CAGW. See Humlum, Eschenbach, Morner etc.
    In the ice core records co2 is a follower AFTER temp increase and never leads temp.
    In fact sometimes temp drops and co2 remains high for thousands of years before it slowly follows temp. See Petit et al etc.
    The world is greening because of the increase in co2 levels and this can be found or over the world for the past 35 years.
    And the SH is ALREADY a NET co2 SINK and the NH is the NET co2 SOURCE.
    Aussie cyclone TREND is LOWER since 1970, see BOM. Just a few verifiable facts to THINK about.

    90

    • #
      clarence.t

      It is quite bizarre, isn’t it..

      They use the words “climate denial”, yet when asked what we “deny” that isn’t just fantasy and blind-brained mantra, they have absolutely nothing.

      May as well call us “Grimm Bros deniers”. It would have just as much meaning.

      90

  • #
    Lance

    Firstly, get the definitions proper:

    Consensus: Noun.

    1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.
    2. General agreement or accord.
    3. A general agreement or concord: as, a consensus of opinion.

    Fact: Noun

    1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
    2. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.
    3. A real occurrence; an event.

    Therefore, a Consensus is an Opinion, Not a Fact. It is a Political answer to a Factual Question, Problem, or Situation.

    Consensus means “We don’t actually know the answer, so here is our Opinion and Agreed Upon Guess”.

    That isn’t Science. Consensus is Voodoo. Ignorance masquerading as fact. A gilded Lie. An Convenient or Dishonest Excuse.

    130

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Careful Lance. Next thing the thought police will read your words, realize what you have said and will change the dictionary definitions. Four legs good. Two legs better.

      100

  • #
    Old Goat

    Google has practiced censorship for a while now . It is now overt instead of covert . Its competitors will thrive on the people who reject this. What is of greater concern is that at some stage the whole internet will become censored too as that is the next logical step. China was already done this. 1984 will no longer be fiction if we don’t stop it . We can shape the future but it will require that truth and rationality prosper. Its up to Jo and all of you to do this -keep up the good work.

    110

  • #
    exsteelworker

    I just want to see the looks on the faces of the smug solar panel owners when they get the bill for removal and recycling of their toxic , extremely brittle sun mirrors. And all those Tesla knobs, when the 600kg lithium battery needs replacing, recycling costs will be astronomical, and what to do with 200m high broken down windmills, with 20tons of buried reinforced concrete?…All extremely toxic and a huge liability…I suspect it will cost more than $5 dollars per tyre, lol. Renewables waste will be the new asbestos, but by the trillions of tons and mix of dangerous minerals, chemicals…Good luck with that kids.

    160

  • #
    Lance

    Google has announced their intentions. Take them seriously. They intend to censor, demonetize, or de-platform, anyone who disagrees with their chosen agenda.

    The only reason we may discuss this here is because Jo makes it possible. She provides the venue.
    Others provide platforms as well, such as Tony Heller at realclimatescience, Anthony Watts at wattsupwiththat, etc.

    But the platforms are not “free”. May I ask that, for those who are able, please consider financially supporting the platform(s) of your choice so that we might collectively continue to enjoy freedom of speech, discussion, association, and sharing of knowledge.

    Thanks to all who may consider this request.

    90

    • #
      PeterS

      There are many other platforms for people to conduct discussions and exchange information, some free and some require payment. In fact it’s blossoming for the very reason that traditional social media platforms are clamping down on what people can say. I suspect though these other platforms will not last too long as the tyranny continues to grow. There is already talk of “securing” the internet by content filtering the traffic, including VPN traffic unless they are point-to-point, which isn’t very common and not practical for casual use. That’s why there are projects under-way to try and work around that. The Nym Project is one of them. Whether they will work only time will tell. I doubt they would last anyway even if the did work as there is always ways to break things. I suspect eventually the only means of communication that won’t be hindered by technology is face-to-face. Even then if there are enough cameras and microphones around that will get harder and harder. Whether we end up reaching the point of big brother as in 1984 where we are spied upon even in our own homes only time will tell. Perhaps by then most people won’t mind, just as now it’s becoming increasingly popular for people to accept social credit system being considered in some countries outside of China. There are many things most of us accept today that we would not even consider accepting decades ago, and perhaps even reacted violently. People can be strange creatures.

      60

      • #
        Lance

        Perhaps a “Peer to Peer” network with distributed storage (replication) might work as an alternative to server based platforms?

        Participants in the network would hold pieces of the whole on local files, replicated for redundancy , on other users storage. Kind of like a virtual, distributed RAID server.

        Joining that blog cloud would require storage of some few gigabytes of redundant storage to participate, but the blog would be independent of cloud or server farm control.

        Essentially, it would be a “skynet blog” beyond the control of anyone with the exception of the Hosted server, which could be a desktop PC because the bulk storage is distributed and mirrored. It could work. A version of a torrent cloud.

        Nobody could stop that system without taking down the entire internet.

        10

  • #
    TdeF

    I would be more forgiving of Google than our ABC. The service google/Youtube provide is amazing and the concepts revolutionary. No government money was spent on this life changing company. Yes, often staffed by teenagers. It is nowhere near as bad as Wikipedia or the ABC. It’s an advertising company.

    And their reasoning is not that they want to censor but are responding to a direct attack by customers, the advertisers who claim they do not want to see their advertisements on the same medium let alone the same page as their mortal enemies. Google has to pay wages and respect all their customers.

    So the reaction is understandable, as with most of the current attacks on government, investors, boards, banks, insurance companies and especially individuals. The anti Western democracy movement is huge and growing, from BLM to Systemic Racism to Climate Change the objective is the same. Destruction of democracy.

    I would reserve my anger for ‘our’ ABC, which is obviously ‘their’ ABC. They provide free but often completely wrong information, at a cost of $30 Million a week of our money, not theirs. And their ‘experts’ are often exceptionally bad and unbalanced. From Physicist Robyn Williams who assured us the ocean would be perhaps 20 metres higher by now (100 metres by 2100), the business expert and economics graduate Alberici who did not understand taxation is on profit, not turnover and lately their single medical spokesman who has been consistently dogmatically wrong.

    What is it about the ABC that they take no criticism, apologise for nothing? And bankrupt anyone who dares sue them for slander or libel, again using public money, our money.

    Jailing Cardinal Pell, without any evidence at all wins the Golden Quill award for journalism and the b*stard award from the rest of society. The most senior Australian ever in Catholic history in solitary confinement for a year. Not even an apology.

    Sliming and hounding our Attorney General Christian Porter out of his job, out of the Cabinet and even out of parliament again without evidence. The parliament did not pay Porter’s legal bills but once again Milligan gets millions for free. Untouchable.

    Attacking the long dead NSW Premier Neville Wran as a criminal and again without evidence.

    And supporting every mad left wing fashion ever created, which includes Global Warming, Anti male, anti business, anti Conservative, anti Male Patriachy to name a few. Julia Gillard is now a shining example among women, which is not the view of most Australians.

    The campaign against Tony Abbott knows no limits. They are well paid haters

    All while demanding even more free cash with threats and clear menaces, if the attack on Christian Porter is any example.

    Sell the ABC/SBS.

    As for Google and Youtube, they are incredibly useful and the information is still there. Their reaction seems balanced. Its about advertising and at the very least and so unlike the ABC, they do not have massive unearned guaranteed income and cannot afford to put customers offside. It seems to be about advertising, not censorship.

    But their ABC is accountable to no one. It is rich private and exclusive club with more than a billion dollars a year in cash and they can afford millions for lawyers. They are untouchable. Sell the lot. We can get our news, our views and our weather from Google and more. Since the internet, no one needs their ABC.

    120

  • #
    David Maddison

    Very good 4.5 minute excerpt from Prof. Thomas Solwell about Al Gore, global warming(TM), covid, BLM.

    https://youtu.be/ue4JtDz77Tw

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here are just two of the many reasons I no longer donate to Wikipedia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial?wprov=sfla1

    Organised campaigning to undermine public trust in climate science is associated with conservative economic policies and backed by industrial interests opposed to the regulation of CO2 emissions. Climate change denial has been associated with the fossil fuels lobby, the Koch brothers, industry advocates and conservative think tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers skeptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy?wprov=sfla1

    The controversy is, by now, political rather than scientific: there is a scientific consensus that global warming is happening and is caused by human activity.

    80

    • #
      wal1957

      Wikipedia is a libray of opinions not facts.
      Why it still survives and often quoted as credible is beyond me.

      Similar to “fact checking” sites.
      That they call themseves a “fact checking” site is itself a lie.

      70

  • #
    mal

    All real scientists are sceptics by definition.
    So called consensus scientists are generally second rate herd followers.
    As Lubos Motl from the The Reverence Frame, says in his normal subtle way, The world is full of ink spillers

    110

  • #
    Lawrie

    I am still positive in my outlook. Reality is a truth that cannot be argued nor can it be cancelled. A nice long winter in the Northern Hemisphere with rationed heating and closing manufacturers is a reality that even the most apathetic voter will notice and question. Antarctica has had it’s coldest winter for what appears a cycle so there is hope the North will be next to feel Winter’s wrath. Through history feeble man has been dragged back to earth by reality. Napoleon and Hitler were both unstoppable until winter interceded before Moscow. China’s vast Army in 1274 failed to land in Japan when a Kamikaze (divine wind) sunk 80% of Kublai Khan’s fleet. La Nino probably brought the Aztec empire down when prolonged droughts i the Yucatan undermined the priests control of the populace. So there is hope yet. Keep up the fight because we will win.

    80

    • #
      PeterS

      Yes perhaps longer term but just as it was with Hitler and others, things first have to become very serious and extremely uncomfortable before most people wake up to reality. Until then most people will continue to fall under the illusion that everything is OK, until reality bites, and bites real hard causing much unbearable pain. We are many years away from that point.

      30

  • #
    mal

    Google is now just part of the deep swamp that want to destroy western civilisation.
    CO2 driven climate change (which cant be demonstrated) is their propaganda tool.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      As I wrote above, it’s far more subtle than that. The swamp is the extreme public service. 98% of Washington DC voted for Hilary Clinton. That is your swamp, large, deep, Green and stinks. All on free money. Google is a company and has to respond to real customers on all sides.

      “a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.

      The ban is on advertising on such content, ostensibly to prevent conflict with advertisers who are Google’s customers. It is not on the content itself. And this is in response to a substantial campaign by major advertisers to have climate sceptic views removed. Probably because they are too persuasive! The balanced view is to remove the advertising on such content and in a way, remove the income from sceptics.

      In a funny way it is an admission that such content is by individuals because only individuals care about income from videos. So much of the very good video content which debunks man made Global Warming is posted by individuals.

      Every major company in the world is under siege at the moment from activist shareholders and customers who are trying to ‘cancel’ anti Climate Change videos and opinion. Google’s response seems reasonable.

      80

      • #
        Tilba+Tilba

        The swamp is the extreme public service. 98% of Washington DC voted for Hilary Clinton. That is your swamp, large, deep, Green and stinks

        Complete nonsense. The “Deep State” has nothing to do with DC work-a-day bureaucrats who live in the average bits of Georgetown, and probably vote Dem. They’re just low-level.

        The “Deep State” are the totally pro-Republican dark-money types – Koch Brothers, the Military Industrial Complex, the Judiciary, the Fed, real NSA=CIA power, and mostly, those who control trillions on Wall Street.

        That is your real swamp – and not one of them would ever ever vote Democrat.

        [Tilba. Time to give up. I have approved a few, but it isn’t worth my time.You are abusing blog rules. I’m not even reading your longer comments. It’s too much work to read 20 mostly uninformative and sometimes rude comments to publish three good ones. I’m sorry. When I put your details into the spam filter all your comments will disappear. I won’t see your complaints. Get ready. It’s coming. – Jo]

        02

        • #
          Tilba+Tilba

          You just want to censor any views you don’t like. I’m breaking no blog rules whatsoever by just holding an opinion.

          Kind of ironic for you to gag different views when at the same time you post the complaint about Google doing exactly the same thing.

          What is wrong with debate? If someone claims that “the deep state is all Democrats”, what is wrong with challenging and rejecting that? Pure censorship.

          Are you and the execrable LVA afraid of different views? Do you just want a tired old echo chamber, like so many forums – with the exact same 20 armchairs warriors (retired rednecks with too much time) saying the exact same things every day?

          I don’t understand why you’re so hostile to alternative points of view.
          —————————————————————————

          [Having published 2,156 of your comments, obviously your whining complaints are baseless. I want opposing views, and work hard to get them, but I don’t want someone who wastes my time, dilutes and dominates the threads and adds little content to defend their point of view. It’s too boring. All commenters here must censor themselves and not use logical fallacies as a routine form of reasoning. I’m sorry Tilba — you’ve had personal coaching and 100 chances. From tomorrow all your comments will go to the spam bin. Best wishes and good luck. – -Jo]

          00

    • #
      PeterS

      Next they will be wanting to have a seat at the UN. There is talk of giving Amazon and FB a seat at the UN. Unbelievable.

      Give Amazon and Facebook a Seat at the United Nations

      50

      • #
        Lance

        Might those seats be electrified by consensus and without warning? FB / Gurgle logic says “Yes”.

        /Sarc/

        30

      • #
        TdeF

        Interesting. Given that Tuvalu was admitted to the UN with fewer than 12,000 people and Google employees 135,300 and likely covers more area, it’s silly but not entirely unreasonable.

        Then perhaps the billions of people who rely on Google really could have a say at the UN? It could balance the 75% of countries which are military dictatorships. The same rabble who put an unqualified revolutionary in charge of WHO and cost 4.5Million lives and denied the existence of Taiwan and the damning report on Wuhan Flu on his desk in December 2019. Which allegedly he refused to read. It would be even worse if he had read it.

        70

  • #
    Leo Morgan

    When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.’
    ~ George R. R. Martin
    Censorship doesn’t cause people to believe you.
    It does damage the cause of truth because people will believe everything that you deny, as the Chinese Government’s experience demonstrates.

    140

  • #
    David Maddison

    Latest video from PragerU.

    “Restricted: How Big Tech Is Taking Away Your Freedom”

    https://www.prageru.com/video/restricted

    20

  • #
    David Maddison

    An extreme green by the name of Mallen Baker seems obsessed with Tony Heller and attempts to debunk him.

    In the following video Tony Heller debunks Baker.

    Note that both YouTube and Google (the same company) make it hard to find this video due to shadow banning of Tony Heller.

    https://youtu.be/IohJJuuClk8

    20

  • #
    Ian1946

    A great example of a non-Google site, the Richardson Post. There is no way Google or Amazon would allow this on any of their servers.

    https://richardsonpost.com/howellwoltz/23856/curing-the-pandemic-of-the-vaccinated/

    If this post is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, I will not be getting the “Jab”.

    70

  • #
    David Maddison

    DuckDuckGo is a search engine that doesn’t censor search results.

    The following video compares Goolag and DuckDuckGo.

    https://youtu.be/SrsCEbi5N7Y

    40

    • #
      Tilba+Tilba

      DuckDuckGo is a search engine that doesn’t censor search results.

      It can’t – because it only gets a tiny percentage of results compared to Google.

      07

      • #

        DDG is OK. But it is just a Bing derivative isn’t it? Microsoft. I can get more results for my site on Google sometimes.

        I’ve been trying PreSearch lately.

        40

        • #
          Lance

          DDG was created by Gabriel Weinberg. It’s not affiliated with Google and started in 2008. Google has never owned nor had any part in DuckDuckGo, but some confusion arose with Google’s ownership over the domain Duck.com which, at that time, was set to redirect anyone who visited the site to Google’s search engine.

          https://www.distractify.com/p/does-google-own-duckduckgo

          50

        • #
          David Maddison

          Jo, DDG has nothing to do with Bing or any other search engine.

          Lance, in the video I posted Google’s ownership of the domain name Duck.com and their refusal to relinquish it even though they got a huge fine in Europe over it is discussed.

          60

        • #
          Ross

          I have been using DDG on my phone for probably at least 3 years. I am involved with field agricultural research and have had no problems. In fact most searches appear to be very similar to the Google results on my desktop.

          10

    • #
      Philip

      Problem with DDG is, it’s rubbish. And so are other video platforms. Youtube is simply the best, it works, the search functions function, and it runs smoothly. Others don’t. I stream on DLive, but its rubbish, and no one except gamers use it.

      02

  • #
  • #
    Adellad

    We are in post-factual times. Google is merely suppressing dissent – the argument itself is irrelevant and those of us with climate skepticism have lost, we don’t even exist.

    40

  • #
    John+R+Smith

    “We are in post-factual times.”

    Interesting that this will be passively enforced by a product of science.
    In the past, the Overlords used religion and superstition to maintain their dominion.
    Science and rational thought toppled them from their thrones.
    Now they have adapted to use that great ultimate product of the that science revolution to establish a new religion and new superstitions.
    Perhaps they really are better than us.

    40

  • #
    • #
      Peter C

      Thanks David,

      Google’s move will have no effect on climate realist web sites for the simple reason that the ad revenue is pretty trivial. We don’t know of any climate realist who blogs for the Google ad revenue. We do it, because we oppose the abuse of science, especially as it is being used to advance totalitarianism.

      10

  • #

    The Democrats in Congress have been pressing Google to do something about skepticism, so this is not entirely G’s decision.

    31

  • #
    Deano

    Sorry if this was covered elsewhere but…

    Exclusive Perth private school for young ladies – Saint Hilda’s, invited ex student Gina Rinehart to record a video to be shown to the students. The first half of her video covered general memories and some reminiscences about the awful dormitory food when she was their. The second half of her video dealt with climate change and she urged the girls to use their excellent education to indulge in their own research on climate change. She wasn’t demanding that they adopt her views, simply that they look at the facts for themselves.

    So Saint Hilda’s censored out the second half and several prominent scientists agreed with this action. I guess that’s fair enough as they would be preparing most of their students for university life where group think is the only way to pass your subject.

    60

  • #
    CHRIS

    Well we can see just how “prominent scientists” mean in this context. I wonder if one of these “Scientists” is our old ignorant friend, Tom Foolery (maybe he is on the Board of St Hilda’s). In Australia, free speech is out the window.

    30

    • #
      Deano

      I don’t think it was Tom Flannery, but some local ‘expert’ who knows who butters his bread. Also – here in Perth this year it’s been particularly cold and wet. The climate cult warned us we were in for a warm dry winter this year, and I’m sure they’ll have a graph showing it’s been the hottest, driest winter on record as usual.

      20

  • #
  • #
    TdeF

    In the whole man made Global Warming fantasy, the vilification of the element carbon from which all life is made and powered by hydrated carbon dioxide (carbo-hydrates), there is now amazing irony in the misinformation on Google.

    In Australia the abhorrence of evil black carbon is leaving the Greens with no alternative but to support nuclear energy.

    This is something they would never have to do if they allowed us to burn the old rotted compressed green leaves we found in the backyard. Coal, oil and gas. Green Chlorophyll is a long chain hydrocarbon. But that’s real science and no green has any idea of chemistry.

    And about three years ago, one of the proponents of nuclear energy was able to say without fear of contradiction that nuclear energy has no emissions, a technology which relies entirely on forcing emissions.

    That’s what happens when you take over the language. It can be used against you.

    20

    • #
      TdeF

      Search “Emissions” on Google

      “What are some examples of emissions?

      Car exhaust, burps, and radio broadcasts are all examples of emissions. Technically, an emission is anything that’s been released out into the open. But more often it refers to gases being released into the air, like greenhouse gasses or emissions from power plants and factories.”

      This is from vocabulary.com. It is the new English language. Brought to you by endless repetition.

      Ha. Ha. Nuclear reactors no longer have emissions.

      10

      • #
        TdeF

        And Australian Greens leader Adam Bandt’s whingeing that each nuclear submarine is a floating Chernobyl falls on deaf ears. Chernobyl is so last century, 35 years ago. No one under 40 remembers it. Carbon bad. Uranium good. No emissions. Google says so. Now that’s irony.

        40

        • #
          David Maddison

          I was pleasantly surprised with the ease with which the nuclear submarine deal was accepted by the public.

          It looks like Greens, politicians, woke “leadership” of the military and other assorted morons underestimated the acceptability of nuclear power among the public. Even most Labor voters accepted it.

          10

  • #
    David Maddison

    There are two types of people in the world: People who think the government is looking out for their best interest and people who think.

    Nathan Fraser

    50

  • #

    Algorithms can behave like control freaks,
    Working hard to prevent any truth leaks,
    Freaking out on “denier”,
    Easily screwed by satire,
    By parody and lampooning techniques.

    80

  • #
    David Maddison

    The Left’s war agaibst science and reason isn’t going to end any time soon.

    They are now teaching “global warming” as an indisputable “scientific fact” in what passes as “schools” and “universities”.

    No dissent is permitted or possible, unlike in real science.

    30

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Sooner hopefully, rather than later, Google will demonetise its opposite end of the good taste and smart business see-saw then experience rapid free-fall over the event horizon into oblivion.

    20

  • #
    James Butler

    I was already demonetized so this doesn’t affect me. Google waited until I was just a few pennies shy of a hundred dollars due (the minimum for payout) and then announced they were ending my account. I guess it was just coincidence it didn’t happen after they had to pay me a hundred bucks. I immediately asked them why, but they apparently do not feel they need to tell anybody why. They just close your account and keep your earnings. They are, by any definition of the word, pricks.

    40

  • #
    justjoshin

    “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”

    ― George R.R. Martin

    40

  • #
    Philip

    That will affect Diamond Dave of Oppenheimer Ranch Project. Shame, he’s a talented broadcaster Dave.

    10

  • #
    tim c

    Will google organise book burnings too?

    10

  • #
  • #
    Yonason

    NEWS FLASH

    Nobel Prize in Science is Dead!
    https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/10/global-warming-nobel-prize-in-physics.html?m=1

    H/T – John Ray’s “Greenie Watch” blog

    10

  • #
    Bruce

    Observe:

    The big thermonuclear bomb in the sky.

    Also observe the cycles thereof.

    Furthermore, ANY “warm” water at ocean depths did NOT, COULD NOT “sink” to be there. There are things called “thermoclines” in specific locations in deep water. Useful places to hide Boomer subs.

    Geothermal activity is also observed at serious depths in quite a few locations around the world’s oceans: “Black Smokers” etc.

    The planet is cooling. It has been cooling since it coalesced, billions of years ago. As it cools, it shrinks, as one should expect. As the crust shrinks, it moves and distorts. Thermal “currents” in the Mantle also contribute.

    Any day, we could be demolished to make way for an inter-galactic bypass. Ask the Dolphins.

    21

  • #
  • #

    […] Google demonetizes climate skeptics and bans “denier” ads because skeptics win over too … […]

    00

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>