from the website "Talking About The Weather" http://talkingabouttheweather.com/
--- If this re-post is in violation of something, somehow and you do not want it to be re-posted on this website, please contact me @ Jenningsroofs@gmail.com and I will gladly take it down immediately. Other than that, please enjoy, and pass on a link to everyone you know.
Everyone should be typing into the search box “climategate” or "c l i m a t e g a t e" many times a day, just to flood their algorithms at google.com
This is a sad occurrence, if a search engine company Like www.google.com is guilty of trying to do exactly the same type of shenanigans that the so called scientists were doing when they were caught hiding the truth.
- "Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing" Dr. Phil -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Talking About The Weather
Googlegate? December 2nd 2009
Posted in Climate change, global warming by Harold Ambler on December 2, 2009
Google's headquarters in Mountain View, California. According to an anonymous search-engine industry professional, questions regarding Google's Suggest function are an everyday occurrence, fruit of what he described as "endless conspiracy theories." Google Earth image by Martin Stehr.
Among the points of interest in the unfolding climate scandal is the fact that the term “climategate” rapidly eclipsed global warming in the number of links produced by a simple Google search.
As is standard, Google’s auto-suggest function facilitated this, several days into the story’s evolution. Anyone typing in the letters c-l-i would see the suggested time-saving choice of climategate. Within a day or two of the auto-suggest function being added for “climategate” it had become the top item in the list.
Suddenly, though, on Monday December 1, Google stopped offering “climategate” as a choice to those who typed c-l-i and even to those who typed c-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t. Strange.
Intrigued, I sent a few questions to Google’s Global Communications Department and a polite gentleman by the name of Jake Hubert responded right away.
This is what he wrote back in an e-mail:
I can verify that Google has not ever removed the query [climategate] or variations of the query from Google Suggest. It was never a “decision” as you suggest in your question, but instead it may have disappeared from the Suggest feature because of a normal update of the Suggest feature. The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.
Google Suggest uses a variety of algorithms in order to come up with relevant suggestions while the user is typing. We do remove certain clearly pornographic or hateful or malicious slur terms from Suggest, but we have not removed anything in this case.
Hope this helps,
In my response, I pointed out that the number of links produced by a “climategate” query was growing by leaps and bounds, drawing attention to the fact that “climategate” had eclipsed global warming (by that point) by more than half. (The doubling would be completed in the next 24 hours.)
Could he double-check with his product team?
His response was not surprising:
I hear what you’re saying, and I have already verified my prior statement with our product team.
At this point, although I suspected I was getting the run-around, I thought I’d give Jake once last shot at solving this problem:
I’m not questioning whether your product team confirmed your statement. Thank you again for that. I wonder, though, whether they have the complete story.
For instance, I wonder whether you and they have run some experiments just to see how odd this is? In your first response, you wrote, “The suggestions change dynamically over time through automated processes based on relevance algorithms.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but the relevance algorithms work according to numbers of searches and links. Google Suggest fills in, for instance, both your name (although your name search produces only 680,000 links) and my name (which produces only 1,690,000 links). Climategate, on the other hand, yields 16 million links (growing by the hour), but Google Suggest doesn’t provide suggestions. So, the math doesn’t appear to add up.
Would it be possible to give me an example of another word or phrase that is yielding more and more hits (has more than 15 million already) but that Google Suggest does not in-fill (or stops during the word or phrase’s ascendancy)?
Barring such examples, this has the appearance of a political decision from high up the chain of command.
Would it be possible to provide me with contact information for a press officer at Google at the executive level?
Thank you in advance.
Unlike the previous efforts at communication, this one was met with silence. At that point, I thought it might save time to work my way up the chain of command. I e-mailed a letter to Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, to whom I forwarded my correspondence with Jake. Toward the end of my letter I wrote the following:
Unfortunately, what this situation appears like is one in which someone with an interest in suppressing Climategate prevailed upon someone within the Google structure to remove Climategate from the list of auto-suggests. (Other phrases starting with climate are still Google-suggested even though they have many fewer links than Climategate.)
I asked him if it would it be possible to have someone from his staff look into this. I also asked if it would be possible to interview him by phone. Failing that, I said, perhaps I could send him a list of questions?
After sending the message, I went out to pick up my daughter from nursery school. When I returned, there was a message from Jake on my answering machine. Without boring readers with the entirety of the message, the takeaway was the statement “No need to contact the CEO.”
I returned Jake’s call and we spent a pleasant ten minutes on the phone, during which he explained that there was “no conspiracy,” that the algorithm governing Google Suggest simply had its own idiosyncracies, things of that nature. Nothing remotely credible, I am afraid, although I have no doubt that Jake was sincere.
I decided then to try another e-mail to Eric Schmidt (Sorry about that, Jake!). In the meantime, I’d seen that Google searching “climategate” (if one was willing to type in the whole phrase) now produced 22 million links.
Dear Mr. Schmidt,
Thank you for following up with Jake Hubert, who has reached out to me by telephone.
Unfortunately, the explanation makes no more sense by phone than it did by e-mail.
Climategate generates 22 million links on the main Google search engine. Global warming, by comparison, generates fewer than 11 million.
The idea that a numbers-driven algorithm stopped Google Suggest from filling in Climategate is absurd on its face. (Google Suggest, as it should, continues to in-fill global warming when a user begins typing it.)
These are my questions for you and your staff:
1. Was Google contacted by Al Gore or any one of his business associates regarding climategate searches on Google? If so, when did the approach take place?
2. What was the process that led to the decision to remove Climategate from the Google Suggest function?
3. Will Climategate be added to the list of Google Suggest items again?
4. Does Google feel that it acted according to its own highest ethical principles in this matter?
Thank you in advance for your consideration.
I pushed send, got my daughter into her gymnastics gear, and rushed out the door. When I returned a little less than two hours later, I put my sleeping daughter on the couch and rushed upstairs to check my e-mail. Nada. Then I did a Google search, typing c-l-i-m … and there it was – offered by the gloriously user-friendly Google Suggest function – “climategate.”
You never know.
Was Google briefly complicit in the largest scientific scandal in at least a generation, attempting to minimize it behind the scenes? Like I said, you never, ever, ever, ever know. Ever.
P.S. Four hours after the function returned, Google Suggest on “climategate” was altered again. Instead of the single word “climategate,” which yields 27 million links per search, Google now offers “climate gate scandal,” which yields 6 million. Only by hand-typing the complete word “climategate,” to the last letter, can users view an additional 21 million links. The evident message from on high? “Tamp it down.” The apparent success of the strategy: close to non-existent.
P.P.S. As of three days after this post (on Saturday December 5, that is), Google Suggest no longer offers any choices for C-l-i-m-a-t-e-g-a-t-e, no matter how many letters one types. The total number of links appears to be stable around 30 million. The first reader who finds any Google search with 30 million or more links that Google Suggest doesn’t assist with wins the prize.
Tagged with: Al Gore, climategate, Eric Schmidt, global warming, Google
- - - - - -WOW!
...And it goes on
Today, Google’s handy helper seems to have had a change of heart.
Search Engines Censoring ClimateGate?
Paul Joseph Watson
November 30, 2009
A fantastic article written by Christopher Brooker of the London Telegraph exposing the climate change fraud rocketed to the very top of a Google News search for “global warming,” only to disappear hours later.
“What is going on at Google? I only ask because last night when I typed “Global Warming” into Google News the top item was Christopher Booker’s superb analysis of the Climategate scandal,” writes James Delingpole.
“It’s still the most-read article of the Telegraph’s entire online operation – 430 comments and counting – yet mysteriously when you try the same search now it doesn’t even feature. Instead, the top-featured item is a blogger pushing Al Gore’s AGW agenda. Perhaps there’s nothing sinister in this. Perhaps some Google-savvy reader can enlighten me.”
Another blogger noted how other versions of the article appeared, but the original had been “disappeared,” despite the fact that other London Telegraph articles showed up as the top ranked result when entering their headline.
“That is using the search string: “Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation” – which is the full headline of the piece. It shows up where it has been quoted in full by other sites, but of the Booker column there is no sign,” writes Richard North.