CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world.


Media impermanent-civilization

Published on October 31st, 2011 | by Susan Kraemer

69

How Google is Making the Climate War Worse

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

October 31st, 2011 by
 
I am a huge fan of Google. And the company has done far more than any other company to help solve the problems of climate change by investing in game-changing renewable innovation, and even providing an education on climate change, directly. However, it’s core mission – finding stuff for you – is turning out to hamper progress in a weird way.

Google tries very hard to please you by finding you more stuff just like the other stuff you clicked on last time. That is the essence of google’s great cleverness. But that very brilliance is becoming more and more damaging to the shared view out to an objective fact-based world.

Who hasn’t gotten exasperated with someone else’s ignorance about climate change? Haven’t you finally said: “look, you can just google it!”

But there turns out to be one big problem with just “googling” it. It depends on who you are.

So if last time you looked up climate change and chose to open something by, say, Marc Morano, then Senator Inhofe, and then the Drudge Report, which all discredit climate change, Google thinks, “oh, this reader is searching for the political rebuttals to climate change,” and next time, more of its top suggestions for your search will be skewed even further to the political, non-science treatment.

As you keep heading further into la-la land, Google is there, holding your hand, assuring you that indeed, this is the objective, google-able truth. Two people with different search histories get two entirely different sets of google “facts” for the identical search terms.

The problem is that science-based types, who click on the fact-laden science-based pdfs from the EPA and reports from the WRI and studies from NOAA – and then get more of these kinds of results; assume that’s what everyone sees when they just “google” it, but there is no one objective science-based google.

Google has become like a good but unobtrusive butler, that always obsequiously aims to please, by always giving you more and more of what you liked last time. Ultimately, as a result, we are now all living in what we believe to be the objective, self-evidently google-able truth. And we are not.

Climate scientists keep turning out more and better climate science, and scratch their heads at the apparent lack of effect on “rational” hearts and minds, but it is simply not being found by the other side, because googling it turns up the opposition. While scientists wring their hands over the problem that they are not communicating well enough, there is nothing they can do differently.

Together with the outright (deliberate) propaganda by the 1% against the 99%, Google’s (accidental) amplification of that propaganda, a mere accident of our technological history, is fueling part of the rage of this internet age. The civil war on science it amplifies – even by accident –  is a danger to our survival, as it saps our commitment to change before it’s too late.

Susan Kraemer@Twitter
Copyright

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Print Friendly

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author

writes at CleanTechnica, CSP-Today, PV-Insider , SmartGridUpdate, and GreenProphet. She has also been published at Ecoseed, NRDC OnEarth, MatterNetwork, Celsius, EnergyNow, and Scientific American. As a former serial entrepreneur in product design, Susan brings an innovator's perspective on inventing a carbon-constrained civilization: If necessity is the mother of invention, solving climate change is the mother of all necessities! As a lover of history and sci-fi, she enjoys chronicling the strange future we are creating in these interesting times.    Follow Susan on Twitter @dotcommodity.



  • Pingback: Search Engine News Wrap-up Nov 20 | Domain Buddy

  • Jackgym

    The warming scare is dead, Susan. Even the grants are running out for the ‘scientists for sale’ who continue to sprout this rubbish.

    • Anonymous

      Yep. Winter’s here Jack. We won’t have to worry about any Texas-style heat waves for several months.

      At least in the northern hemisphere.

      Say, did you hear that NASA got a new climate monitoring satellite into orbit about three days ago? Now we’re going to have even better data showing how we’re screwing the planet and ourselves.

  • TealGreenBlogger

    I have a question about the algorithm. If you are googling on a shared computer (say at a library), does google know that, or are your search results based on what the people before you googled? And if you clear your cache and delete your cookies occasionally (as I do for security reasons), does that reset the bar? Thanks

    • Anonymous

      Google personalizes results based on web history on that browser (so, yes, others’ history on a shared computer comes into play) and your personal history if you are logged into a google account, if i remember correctly. yep: http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/answer.py?answer=54041
      Still, I think it’s a rather small % of search results that changed based on personalization (5% if i remember right?)

  • Hierge

    You know, I think the author of this piece is a moron too and I’m angry at Google for producing search results that support the greatest Marxist power grab in the history of the world. My remedy is different though. Instead of throwing out the first amendment and free speech by forcing Google to ban all Marxist result sets, how about I get my elected representative to stop giving my tax dollars to fraudulent Marxist researchers who couldn’t give you the definition of the word Empirical and instead return those tax dollars to the tax payers who are free to make up their own minds who they believe. People don’t like having their farms taken from them and turned over to the government. They fought back in 1919. The solution was to just kill them and take the farms. Marxists are all the same. They are so unpopular they have to force people to relinquish their human rights and property for the “good of the masses.” The earth doesn’t talk. Animals don’t talk. They don’t unanimously do things like tear down oppressive barriers like the Berlin wall. People did that. Marxists were thrown out by their own. But… the earth and animals are inanimate. Just another Marxist strategy towards repeating their failed cycles of denying human rights.

    • Anonymous

      Marxist?

      Geezes Squeezes, what time warp did you get dumped out of?

      It’s the 21st Century, just to help catch you up. We’ve severely damaged the planet and we’re on our way to snuffing ourselves out. Stalin was an underachiever compared to what we’re getting ready to do to the world’s population.

      Socialism, communism, under-regulated capitalism, fascism – we tried all that stuff last century and they aren’t the answers. The best idea of the moment is a well-regulated free market system that allows people to develop new and better ideas. But put some limits on those people so that they don’t take advantage of others and grab more than a fair share.

      Time to change our evil ways. Time to leave carbon underground and use the good, free stuff at hand to power our lives.

      Hooray for the scientists and inventors who are finding a new path!

      Scientists should be the ones making seven figure salaries. Not some second rate brain from business school.

  • wahlink

    Wow this must be the most commented article on CT ever. So you don’t believe in climate change…OK… but isn’t there anything about clean technology that could even remotely appeal to you or that would allow any area of compromise so that this bickering can end and something productive happens? Patriotism … energy independence… anything? You might be surprised to know that one group of guys and gals that ironically gets it is the military who are huge supporter and early adopters of renewable/clean energy and they do so for lots of good reasons. They don’t do it to feel good. They do it for purely practical reasons and I highly doubt they they have been brainwashed by the so-called hollywood liberals. Forget about saving the only planet we have here is something that might appeal to you- Google this : ” military largest backer of clean energy “. One of the hits will come up with something like ” Marines And Seals Are Doing It: Clean Energy | EarthTechling”. Its a enlightening article.

    • Anonymous

      We’ve had a lot more comments on many posts, but this one is surely above avg — not exactly the most productive string of comments, though, given the long line of deniers trolls that popped in for a short visit.

      We’ve covered the military going green in probably hundreds of articles now. It is something to highlight. But I’m sure the deniers can link it to some conspiracy or another.

  • Anonymous

    climate scientists’ projections vs “skeptics”: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/19/how-global-temperatures-predictions-compare-to-what-happened-skeptics-off-target/

    yes, climate changed before (no one denies that), but it is changing now due to humans and at a tremendous, catastrophic rate:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

    http://planetsave.com/2011/10/28/yes-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-humans/

    It’s cooling, hasn’t warmed? What planet do you live on?

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc&feature=player_embedded

    the world actually MIGHT be cooling right now, IF we weren’t lighting a fire underneath it (so to speak, of course)

    Jimmy, do you work for the fossil fuel industry, or are you just one of it’s last remaining victims of pseudo-science?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f6Z0_HMLo8&feature=player_embedded

    http://vimeo.com/climaterealityproject/doubt

    ah, but i see your problem, you’re looking at this as if it were a religion, and you believe one side or the other. it seems you have not actually looked at the science at all, which would show you without a doubt why the IPCC won a Nobel prize and the following scientific bodies support their work and conclusions:

    U.S. Agency for International Development
    United States Department of Agriculture
    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
    National Institute of Standards and Technology
    United States Department of Defense
    United States Department of Energy
    National Institutes of Health
    United States Department of State
    United States Department of Transportation
    U.S. Geological Survey
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Aeronautics & Space Administration
    National Science Foundation
    Smithsonian Institution
    International Arctic Science Committee
    Arctic Council
    African Academy of Sciences
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society of Canada
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Académie des Sciences, France
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
    Indian National Science Academy
    Science Council of Japan
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society of New Zealand
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    Turkish Academy of Sciences
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    National Academy of Sciences, United States
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Science
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American College of Preventive Medicine
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    American Public Health Association
    American Quaternary Association
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society for Microbiology
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of America
    Ecological Society of America
    Federation of American Scientists
    Geological Society of America
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Society of American Foresters
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Engineers Australia
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of Australia
    British Antarctic Survey
    Institute of Biology, UK
    Royal Meteorological Society, UK
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    European Science Foundation
    International Association for Great Lakes Research
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    World Federation of Public Health Associations
    World Health Organization
    World Meteorological Organization
    Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/13m7y)

    by the way, who doesn’t support their findings (other than Marc Morano)?

    American Petroleum Institute
    US Chamber of Commerce
    National Association of Manufacturers
    Competitive Enterprise Institute
    Industrial Minerals Association
    National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
    Great Northern Project Development
    Rosebud Mining
    Massey Energy
    Alpha Natural Resources
    Southeastern Legal Foundation
    Georgia Agribusiness Council
    Georgia Motor Trucking Association
    Corn Refiners Association
    National Association of Home Builders
    National Oilseed Processors Association
    National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
    Western States Petroleum Association

    hmm, that’s the scientific crowd we should be learning from, eh?

    • Anonymous

      reposting “Michael’s” comment below, since it was out of place:

      “Look at James Hansen, the world’s “leading” climate scientist, he is the new messiah, with a string of failed prophecies.”

      That you need to use religious vocabulary to “make your point” says more about you and how you perceive your “mission” than it does about the scientists out there.

      The difference between religion and science is pretty simple: Sciencetific theories can be revised and adapated as new evidence shows up. Religion is a dogma. The only ones being dogmatic are the “sceptics”, who aren’t sceptics at all, they just coopted the name. Little Chihuahua in a wolfcoat hiding in sheep skin.

      • http://www.facebook.com/IH8LIBS Roy Brown

        By your own definition of science and religion, with years of evidence that AGW-proponents are hiding their own data, falsifying their own models, and denying contradictory data from others, and refusing to adapt and revise accordingly, they are exercising religious dogma through their assertions that the “science is settled” and “man is the culprit”. It’s the same old song and dance. “Man is the sinner. Bow down before almighty God(Gaia) and his(her) disciples(‘scientists’).” “Skeptics are dogmatic”?? Well, that just shows how ignorant and dogmatic YOU are. Skepticism is the language of the mind. Dogma is the language of fear. Who are the ones making fearful predictions of catastrophe if you don’t ‘change your behavior’ or ‘donate your wallet’? Don’t answer, we all know the answer to that.

        • Anonymous

          Roy, your entire post hits FAIL when you state ” years of evidence that AGW-proponents are hiding their own data,”. There is zero evidence that supports your claim.

          There’s also zero evidence that climate models are being falsified. And there is no evidence that reliable data is being suppressed.

          All claims of scientific misbehavior have been investigated multiple times and have been found to be unfounded.

          Bring facts to the discussion if you think there are any which show the planet isn’t warming or if you think there’s an alternate reason for why the observed warming is not due to human behavior.

          Otherwise do not be surprised if rational people simply dismiss you.

  • Anonymous

    i guess that’s why 7 independent evaluations have found there was no scientific mischief and nearly every scientific body in the world supports the climate scientists (not the criminals who hacked the scientists’ emails and tried to frame them):

    Groups that support the climate scientists and say humans are causing considerable and concerning global warming:

    U.S. Agency for International Development
    United States Department of Agriculture
    National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
    National Institute of Standards and Technology
    United States Department of Defense
    United States Department of Energy
    National Institutes of Health
    United States Department of State
    United States Department of Transportation
    U.S. Geological Survey
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    National Center for Atmospheric Research
    National Aeronautics & Space Administration
    National Science Foundation
    Smithsonian Institution
    International Arctic Science Committee
    Arctic Council
    African Academy of Sciences
    Australian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
    Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
    Cameroon Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society of Canada
    Caribbean Academy of Sciences
    Chinese Academy of Sciences
    Académie des Sciences, France
    Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
    Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
    Indonesian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Irish Academy
    Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
    Indian National Science Academy
    Science Council of Japan
    Kenya National Academy of Sciences
    Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
    Academy of Sciences Malaysia
    Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
    Nigerian Academy of Sciences
    Royal Society of New Zealand
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    Russian Academy of Sciences
    l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
    Academy of Science of South Africa
    Sudan Academy of Sciences
    Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
    Tanzania Academy of Sciences
    Turkish Academy of Sciences
    Uganda National Academy of Sciences
    The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    National Academy of Sciences, United States
    Zambia Academy of Sciences
    Zimbabwe Academy of Science
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
    American Astronomical Society
    American Chemical Society
    American College of Preventive Medicine
    American Geophysical Union
    American Institute of Physics
    American Medical Association
    American Meteorological Society
    American Physical Society
    American Public Health Association
    American Quaternary Association
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society for Microbiology
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of America
    Ecological Society of America
    Federation of American Scientists
    Geological Society of America
    National Association of Geoscience Teachers
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Society of American Foresters
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America
    Australian Coral Reef Society
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Engineers Australia
    Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
    Geological Society of Australia
    British Antarctic Survey
    Institute of Biology, UK
    Royal Meteorological Society, UK
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    European Physical Society
    European Science Foundation
    International Association for Great Lakes Research
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    World Federation of Public Health Associations
    World Health Organization
    World Meteorological Organization
    Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/13m7y)

    On climategate:

    http://planetsave.com/2011/09/02/yes-climategate-was-science-denier-b-s/

    http://planetsave.com/2010/07/09/climategate-scientists-vindicated-by-inquiry/

    http://planetsave.com/2011/02/25/cliamtegate-one-more-investigation-still-no-basis-for-accusations-of-misconduct/

    http://planetsave.com/2011/02/03/the-real-climategate-crime/

  • Anonymous

    and just a reminder, BEST was a study by a skeptic (or more). it was no surprise to the climate scientists what was found. only the fickle media acted like it proved something that was “unproven”

    and, of course, deniers who backed it 100% before the results were out are now verbally flogging Muller. http://planetsave.com/2011/10/22/best-study-climate-science-skeptic-study-finds-global-warming-is-real-whats-new/

    way to accept the science, guys!

  • Anonymous

    please, don’t bring such nonsense here before looking into it: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/31/curry-lost-in-denial-global-warming-still-more-snow/

  • Jay S

    Yes, the 1% of us who find the A part of AGW to be a myth, are screwed by our Google habits to forever be neanderthal climate change deniers (actually, we’re man-made climate change deniers, but, it doesn’t fit your meme to understand that).

    Now, if we could just get our government to pick some more Solyndra like great solutions, we’d all be just happy as clams.

    • Anonymous

      Naw. You’ve got the option to spend some time and learn the science behind the current round of climate warming/change.

      There’s no requirement that you remain an ignoramus. You won’t even loose your Republican party membership. A majority of Republicans recognized that humans have kicked this beast to life.

      • Susan Kraemer

        That’s a great phrase “humans have kicked this beast to life” – wish more conservatives could want to conserve our civilization, there are real reasons to want to.

        I remember as a child, being horrified that 10,000 years ahead, someone might stumble upon a nuclear depository and get cancer. Now that seems like wishful thinking that human civilization could last that long when a mere 300 years ahead, two thirds of our land will be uninhabitable by humans, because it is just too hot in too much of the world. How hot would it be in 500 years, or a thousand. We have had two thousand years since Christ was born, and probably ten thousand years of farming. In that context, three hundred years is NOTHING!

    • Anonymous

      Jay, I think you haven’t kept up with clean tech. Solyndra was a tiny part of the government’s “bet” on clean tech, including solar, and the overall result would please any investor. The portfolio is what you want to look at; no investor is 100% on the money.

    • Anonymous
  • Akbweb2

    Like any tool, it depends how you use it, Google, doesn’t it? An open society and democracy depends on the quality of its people…It seems you’re heading down the path towards a controlled groupthink media…As much as I agree with your opinions regarding climate science and good science reporting, I can’t agree with the implications you suggest, or blaming Google for how Web users use it…

    • Susan Kraemer

      I certainly don’t blame Google. I actually find it useful, as it saves time.

  • Anonymous

    Who you calling “moron” , carbon creature ?

  • Jae

    ” “oh, this moron likes denier news about climate change,” and next time, more of its top suggestions for your search will be skewed even further to the right.”
    Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/13GDP)

    I stopped reading at this point, since no truths preceeded it and the article immediately becomes nothing but another leftist rant.

    • Susan Kraemer

      Fair enough. I originally considered wording that more diplomatically so you would read further, and have changed it back, so now you can. (And I think it is better.)

      “So if last time you looked up climate change and chose to open something by, say, Marc Morano, then Senator Inhofe, and then the Drudge Report, which all discredit climate change, Google thinks, “oh, this reader is searching for the political rebuttals to climate change,” and next time, more of its top suggestions for your search will be skewed even further to the political, non-science treatment.”

  • Guest

    JAXA scientists have just finished mapping global GHG emissions from space with a satellite launched in 2009 which was designed to determine net GHG emissions. JAXA has found that the USA net contribution is small compared to other countries and third world countries. This is yet another nail in the coffin of a cap and trade, “blame America” politically driven climate science and childish emotional screeds labeling people as deniers won’t alter the satellite evidence. The machines (satellites) are providing clearer evidence on a regional and local aspect and while better resolution needs to be developed, we at least now know that the USA is a small contributor compared to these other countries. This will be very helpful information as international attempts to extort money from the USA under the false pretense that “climate change” is the result of the USA will likely end up in court.

    Going forward it is imperative that we remove the political elements which have contaminated climate science and trash questionable work like that of the IPCC, which has been contaminated by radical organizations like Greenpeace and WWF, and start over. Climategate was the start of the exposure of poor scientific work based on error ridden climate models and poor proxy data. Diverging models have have failed to prove the IPCC science is robust. We know this because model testing by the MET Office scientists are showing models are wrong and in addition the scientist’s predictions for example, worsening hurricanes and tornadoes have not been supported by any data. To the contrary that is evidence that adds to the falsifying the models that wrongly predicted these events.

    You would think that by now people would want an explanation as to why these models are wrong, why scientists can’t explain missing heat in the Earth’s radiation budget or why their predictions never materialize. Unfortunately political science has trumped questioning and accountability for continued errors and has moved climate science into the realm of politics and religion. Rather than grilling the scientists on mistakes and errors, climate religionists chooses instead to ignore failed predictions and missing heat choosing instead to embrace faith that more predictions from these inaccurate climate models. People like this author act as if CO2 is original sin and she has deemed everyone guilty.

    We already have a Polar Bear Scientist undergoing a lie detector test and we would be stupid to commit trillions of dollars to the political science and religion of climate that will only hurt Americans. We shouldn’t blindly accept consensus religion and unless more of these climate scientists are willing to undergo lie detector examination, we shouldn’t give them any more money. Right now 72% of Americans find climate scientists untrustworthy and there is no way that this will change without honest and open science. There needs to be hearings to examine the infiltration of radical environmentalism into the scientific process and activist scientists need to be weeded out or nobody will trust the science. There needs to be separation of power and money between modelers and those collecting the temperature data. Grant money is politically controlled and used as a hammer to gain conformity of thought and until this is corrected Americans will continue to find climate science untrustworthy.

    • Anonymous

      Link?

      When I look at the JAXA presentation on this page I see the US right in the mix, pumping out the CO2 along with the other worst producers.

      http://www.jaxa.jp/article/special/geo/nakajima_e.html

    • Anonymous

      I’m sorry dude, you may have good intentions, but you’re way off.

      The “skeptics” are the ones who have been the most off: http://planetsave.com/2011/10/19/how-global-temperatures-predictions-compare-to-what-happened-skeptics-off-target/

      CRU UNDERestimated warming: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2010/12/01/207110/met-office-hadley-centre-underestimate-global-warming/

      The work of the IPCC has been backed up in 7 independent evaluations and nearly every scientific body in the world supports their thorough, conclusive work and agrees that GW is caused by humans and is a considerable concern:

      U.S. Agency for International Development
      United States Department of Agriculture
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      National Institute of Standards and Technology
      United States Department of Defense
      United States Department of Energy
      National Institutes of Health
      United States Department of State
      United States Department of Transportation
      U.S. Geological Survey
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      National Aeronautics & Space Administration
      National Science Foundation
      Smithsonian Institution
      International Arctic Science Committee
      Arctic Council
      African Academy of Sciences
      Australian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
      Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
      Cameroon Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of Canada
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Académie des Sciences, France
      Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Irish Academy
      Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
      Indian National Science Academy
      Science Council of Japan
      Kenya National Academy of Sciences
      Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
      Nigerian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of New Zealand
      Polish Academy of Sciences
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Sudan Academy of Sciences
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
      Tanzania Academy of Sciences
      Turkish Academy of Sciences
      Uganda National Academy of Sciences
      The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
      National Academy of Sciences, United States
      Zambia Academy of Sciences
      Zimbabwe Academy of Science
      American Academy of Pediatrics
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      American Astronomical Society
      American Chemical Society
      American College of Preventive Medicine
      American Geophysical Union
      American Institute of Physics
      American Medical Association
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      American Public Health Association
      American Quaternary Association
      American Institute of Biological Sciences
      American Society of Agronomy
      American Society for Microbiology
      American Society of Plant Biologists
      American Statistical Association
      Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
      Botanical Society of America
      Crop Science Society of America
      Ecological Society of America
      Federation of American Scientists
      Geological Society of America
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      Natural Science Collections Alliance
      Organization of Biological Field Stations
      Society of American Foresters
      Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
      Society of Systematic Biologists
      Soil Science Society of America
      Australian Coral Reef Society
      Australian Medical Association
      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Engineers Australia
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      Geological Society of Australia
      British Antarctic Survey
      Institute of Biology, UK
      Royal Meteorological Society, UK
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      European Physical Society
      European Science Foundation
      International Association for Great Lakes Research
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Health Organization
      World Meteorological Organization
      Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/13m7y)

      “starting over” would only benefit the extremely rich fossil fuel industry CEOS

      btw, why is the polar bear scientists being put to such extremes, BECAUSE OF POLITICS (not because of his scientific work!) wake up, dude.

    • Anonymous

      if you think the grant money for scientists is influencing science not the millions or more the fossil fuel industry pumps into the tincy tiny percentage of scientists who deny the work of 97% their community, you are clearly lost (or funded by someone yourself)

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sebastian-Spinczyk/100001312688624 Sebastian Spinczyk

      Pardon my french, but: Bullshit. All you have are strawmen upon strawmen, half-truths, missrepresentations and even the occasional, outright lie. Seriously, why do you deniers keep on yammering about climate”gate”, when it’s been shown again and again that there was absolutely no fraud or distortion of truth. None. But somehow, it’s STILL a talking point; just like that ridiculous nonargument “But in the 70′s everybody predicted a new Ice Age”!
      And 72% of the American public find “climate scientists untrustworthy”? That may very well be, but it matters absolutely eff-all. I wouldn’t be suprised if 72% of Americans find biology scientists untrustworthy, but that doesn’t make evolution any less real.
      Wouldn’t you agree?

      • Susan Kraemer

        I read polling recently, sorry too lazy to google it, that climate scientists are among the MOST trusted, actually.

        (Even so, for all of us non-scientists, acknowledging our limits and ignorance is key. I confess that I find astrophysicists a little hard to believe: antimatter??? dark holes??? serial universes?!!??

        But since I don’t have a PhD in Astrophysics I know I am not qualified to opine on it.)

  • BlueRock

    OK. This is worth a read:

    “Would a conservative see only conservative web sites? A liberal see only liberal web sites?

    No, Google says. Annoyingly, the company will not give any metrics…

    “We want diversity of results,” said product manager Johanna Wright. “This is something we talk about a lot internally and believe in. We want there to be variety of sources and opinions in the Google results. We want them in personalized search to be skewed to the user, but we don’t want that to mean the rest of the web is unavailable to them.””

    http://searchengineland.com/google-now-personalizes-everyones-search-results-31195

    As always we need to speculate on how Google’s black box works, but I’d suggest that their ‘standard’ algorithms will heavily outweigh personalisation – so ‘climate change science’ will not produce Marc Morano’s or Anthony Watt’s cesspits – no matter how much the denier loves their toxic output.

    Also, I wonder what percentage of people on the planet have a Google account or remain permanently logged in? Not very high would be my guess.

    So, I don’t think this issue is anywhere near as big a problem as it might at first appear.

    • Susan Kraemer

      That is reassuring.

  • BlueRock

    EDIT: Ignore this: I just checked my Google account and web history was switched off. I must have switched it off and forgotten about it – presumably to avoid what you describe!

    Hi Susan,

    I’m not convinced this is the problem that others have reported.

    For example, I just tried two searches that I imagine newbies would use – and subjects I regularly search on:

    1. facts on climate change

    2. facts on renewable energy

    I did them in my regular browser where I’m always logged in to my Google account, in another browser where I’m not logged in and via an anonymiser so that Google doesn’t know it’s my IP address.

    All results were near-identical… and differences can be explained because they come from different Google data centres that are not constantly in sync.

    Also, all results were credible – no deniers, no fossil / nuke propaganda. :)

    David.

    P.S. You certainly riled the wingnuts with this article!

    • Susan Kraemer

      Noted edit – but also – you gave yourself away by hinting to the “butler” that you like science by requesting “facts” on “climate change” – try “truth” about “global warming” to skew it a bit

  • http://twitter.com/thedarkerside Michael

    “Look at James Hansen, the world’s “leading” climate scientist, he is the new messiah, with a string of failed prophecies.”

    That you need to use religious vocabulary to “make your point” says more about you and how you perceive your “mission” than it does about the scientists out there.

    The difference between religion and science is pretty simple: Sciencetific theories can be revised and adapated as new evidence shows up. Religion is a dogma. The only ones being dogmatic are the “sceptics”, who aren’t sceptics at all, they just coopted the name. Little Chihuahua in a wolfcoat hiding in sheep skin.

    • Anonymous

      Thank You. Very True. It’s pretty amazing how much they flip to accurate critiques of themselves on people following the science.

  • BUG HUNTER

    The real problem behind this is that even well-educated people do not take the time to understand how exactly webtracking with cookies work – would you expect an ancient scientist not to know how to read a book? Why are we accepting modern scientists to not know how the internet works?

    I sometimes do computer service and advice jobs and I see Professors and Doctors who are really completely ignorant about internet knowledge – they use gmail or other free mail providers for really important and private mail, they use internet explorer as administrator, they of course do not know anything about cookies… they are actually illiterates in a modern world with every-day internet access.

    So please ask yourself about what exactly the problems is – of course using facebook with the same browser you do your research work is stupid, of course it is a sign of ignorance not to use any kind of ad-blocking software – this might be all okay for the average under-educated webuser or little children – but people with a degree that are whining about “google tracking me” and do not know how to fight this kind of privacy invasion are just too lazy to read the manual. It all becomes really embarrassing, when they publish opinions about what google is doing wrong and they do not even realize that these kind of publications are just a ridicolous documention of their own incompetence. Go and do your homework, learn about the tools you are using every day!

    To be constructive about the issue: google for “googlesharing” and support the author of this useful browser extension!

  • Alan Agostini

    To all these pathetic twits that keep repeating that has only been cooling in the past 10 years, do you have any recollection of HOW MANY TIMES WE HAVE BROKE RECORDS for the hottest year alone in the past 5 years. Are you one of the many “praying” for rain in texas?
    Irregardless, how anyone could ever argue that we shouldn’t reduce the amount of pollution considering what cities look like with all the smog above them, ice caps receding, and the acidification of our oceans is indicative or people who either still “pray” or work for PR firms that represent oil companies and specifically come here to post “their” opinion.
    Susan, great job on the article. There will always be stupid people who become “stupider”

    • Anonymous

      Apparently a call went out to awake Teh Great Stupid. They’ve shown up today to publicly display their inability to understand basic climate data.

      I suppose the word will always be well supplied plenty of two digit IQ folks….

      • Susan Kraemer

        Yes, I see in the back end of the site that it is the Marc Morano site, Climatedepot sending them here. (“Swiftboat” fame, former chief staffer and mouthpiece for the oil industry by working for Senator Inhofe, the recipient of more oil money than any other congress person)

      • Anonymous

        I’m not sure what the author’s take on it was, but an extremely popular German blog sent almost 10K views. And it did get linked on the always inane “climatedepot”

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sebastian-Spinczyk/100001312688624 Sebastian Spinczyk

          As a reader of that German blog: fefe’s (the author) intent was mostly to give an example of the “google bubble” (his words :D). He didn’t really comment on the climate change part, but he’s certainly no denier.

          • Anonymous

            Thanks a lot. Appreciate the info. :D I figured not, given the large amount of traffic he was sending in and the few deniers (who I’m sure came from ClimateDepot)

  • Tommy

    Browsers should always be configured to delete all cookies as soon as the browser is closed. Of course, you should also close the browser at least once a day. In about fifteen years of using the web I never had any use for persistent cookies.

  • undecided

    but would that not work the same both ways?

    • http://gyrosgeier.myopenid.com/ Simon Richter

      Indeed it does; and precisely this gets both factions even more entrenched.

    • http://twitter.com/thedarkerside Michael

      Yes it will, not only in regards to climate change but also any other topic you may be interested in.

      What Google essentially does is create you your very own personal echo chamber in which you will find re-assurance that your view of the world is the correct one.

  • Krater

    okay okay…nice insight….but without some screenshots its only blabla….yes i know that google filters my search results so, that i see first sites in my country/state etc…but i didn’t see anything else…so show some evidences that it is how you say…

    p.s.:please use another font, this one is unreadable (in firefox)

    • Susan Kraemer

      Sorry no control over fonts, but actually I love the aesthetics of our new site!

    • Anonymous

      Working on changing the font. But this site is part of a network of about 20 and we are having someone create an option to customize the font per site.

      • Susan Kraemer

        Love the font in Safari! Looks like Tahoma or Vedana, which are recommended as the most readable by web designers! Please don’t change it Zach! (Except front page headlines: too cramped)

        • Anonymous

          Cool, I like the font too. :D Just need to make it bigger and darker

  • Markus Köppen

    Ever thought of logging out and deleting cookies?

    • yours-truly.de

      I think so too, … it is damn easy to get out of this bubble. If there is a sense for the problematic.
      And I guess, this was the intention of this article.

      Delete Browser history by closing, use TOR, private surf profiles and different search engines.
      This problem couldn’t be solved by software solutions, there must be an objective mind. But software might help those ho have this sense.

      “I like this Magazine, because they write what I like to read.”
      “I like this Magazine, because they print everything, including bullshit I never thought about.”

      • Susan Kraemer

        But that is assuming you are willing to go out of your way and are somewhat sophisticated and knowledgable. (Just the sort of person who might be more likely to click on the science links, rather than the denier links.)

    • http://twitter.com/thedarkerside Michael

      The problem is that most people aren’t that techsavy to begin with.

  • spadecat

    You, my dear, are an idiot. Leave the science to the scientists.

  • Huub Bakker

    Say what you like but “outright (deliberate) propaganda by the 1%” is getting more air time and support because it contains far more science than the IPCC, WWF or Greenpeace put together (oops, sorry, I think the first two of those might be synonymous). Science you can actually go and check up on because the scientists are happy to explain clearly and make the data public.

    • Anonymous

      WOW, what a total load of B.S.

      The deniers show their data less than ANYONE.

      The data that was supposedly the most hampered with (which, of course, 7 independent evaluations found it wasn’t) concerning “climategate” was PUBLICLY available.

      Climate scientists have shown their work and data consistently and repeatedly.

      and looking at projections by deniers vs scientists, who is off? http://planetsave.com/2011/10/19/how-global-temperatures-predictions-compare-to-what-happened-skeptics-off-target/

      There’s a reason why the IPCC won a Nobel Prize & Marc Morano didn’t. It’s the same reason the following orgs and institutions back the work of the scientists:

      U.S. Agency for International Development
      United States Department of Agriculture
      National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
      National Institute of Standards and Technology
      United States Department of Defense
      United States Department of Energy
      National Institutes of Health
      United States Department of State
      United States Department of Transportation
      U.S. Geological Survey
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
      University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
      National Center for Atmospheric Research
      National Aeronautics & Space Administration
      National Science Foundation
      Smithsonian Institution
      International Arctic Science Committee
      Arctic Council
      African Academy of Sciences
      Australian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
      Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias
      Cameroon Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of Canada
      Caribbean Academy of Sciences
      Chinese Academy of Sciences
      Académie des Sciences, France
      Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
      Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany
      Indonesian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Irish Academy
      Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy
      Indian National Science Academy
      Science Council of Japan
      Kenya National Academy of Sciences
      Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
      Academy of Sciences Malaysia
      Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
      Nigerian Academy of Sciences
      Royal Society of New Zealand
      Polish Academy of Sciences
      Russian Academy of Sciences
      l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
      Academy of Science of South Africa
      Sudan Academy of Sciences
      Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
      Tanzania Academy of Sciences
      Turkish Academy of Sciences
      Uganda National Academy of Sciences
      The Royal Society of the United Kingdom
      National Academy of Sciences, United States
      Zambia Academy of Sciences
      Zimbabwe Academy of Science
      American Academy of Pediatrics
      American Association for the Advancement of Science
      American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
      American Astronomical Society
      American Chemical Society
      American College of Preventive Medicine
      American Geophysical Union
      American Institute of Physics
      American Medical Association
      American Meteorological Society
      American Physical Society
      American Public Health Association
      American Quaternary Association
      American Institute of Biological Sciences
      American Society of Agronomy
      American Society for Microbiology
      American Society of Plant Biologists
      American Statistical Association
      Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
      Botanical Society of America
      Crop Science Society of America
      Ecological Society of America
      Federation of American Scientists
      Geological Society of America
      National Association of Geoscience Teachers
      Natural Science Collections Alliance
      Organization of Biological Field Stations
      Society of American Foresters
      Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
      Society of Systematic Biologists
      Soil Science Society of America
      Australian Coral Reef Society
      Australian Medical Association
      Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      Engineers Australia
      Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
      Geological Society of Australia
      British Antarctic Survey
      Institute of Biology, UK
      Royal Meteorological Society, UK
      Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
      Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
      European Federation of Geologists
      European Geosciences Union
      European Physical Society
      European Science Foundation
      International Association for Great Lakes Research
      International Union for Quaternary Research
      International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
      World Federation of Public Health Associations
      World Health Organization
      World Meteorological Organization
      Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/13m7y)

    • Anonymous

      Huub. Deniers just don’t show their data at all. And that’s because they have none.

      The entire “the planet isn’t warming” argument is based on a single one year temperature spike during an extremely strong El Nino condition. A year that is not representative, but well outside the norm, an outlier.

      And that single data point if from a limited set of data – the HadCRUT3 data set which under-measures polar temperatures. And it’s at the poles where the warming has been most extreme.

      Average global temperatures in ten year blocks from the HadCRUT3 and it’s clear that the globe is warming, had continued to warm.

      There’s no data that deniers can use to support their position. They are left with accusations and irrational argument. They got nothing.

    • http://twitter.com/Kompulsa Kompulsa

      Hello.

      Why don’t you just show us the data so we can settle this?

  • wolf

    Susan, what a bunch of garbage you are spewing. It is bad enough the social editing that google does in its searches, but for you to continue this propaganda about “global warming” is not right.

  • Anonymous

    Say “Goodnight” Gracie…

  • Anonymous

    Say “Goodnight” Gracie…

  • ozonator

    I hadn’t thought of that. I keep seeing the same denier crap, like Forbes, at the top of a variety of search engines and assume they are gaming the system.

    • Susan Kraemer

      Well, yeah, there is some of that too. :-)

Back to Top ↑