Trigger warning:

This site may, in fact always will contain images and information likely to cause consternation, conniptions, distress, along with moderate to severe bedwetting among statists, wimps, wusses, politicians, lefties, green fascists, and creatures of the state who can't bear the thought of anything that disagrees with their jaded view of the world.

May 22, 2011

Censor Google; for the good of the people, that is.

Image; 'Reputable' climate scientist on Google search.

The Yale Forum on Climate Change & The Media has expressed concerns about the quality of Google searches. It seems that they have noticed what some of us, the great unwashed from out there in flyover country have known ever since Al Gore invented the Internet. When you type in a search item, sometimes you get results, which are contrary to what you want to hear.

It is somewhat surprising that a site which seems to have some connection to what Yale graduates consider to be one of the best educational facilities around, would object to having the opportunity to engage with contrarian views. Of course their objections are purely altruistic, it is not for them after all, its for all those dumb bastards out there who might read something impure, and believe it, rather than the official line:
Google and other search engine sites can lead to climate change riches … but not every search does. Researchers need to take a caveat emptor — buyer beware — approach and select their search terms with precision to avoid being led to error-prone websites.

Imagine that you’re curious about climate change but know little about it.
You might turn to the world’s most popular search engine, Google, and begin typing keywords, such as “climate change facts.”

What will you learn?

As of early May, a search for “climate change facts” will lead you to the webpage There, you’ll be told that the link between carbon dioxide and Earth’s temperature is unproven, that many scientists agree that the sun is responsible for rising global temperatures, and that Earth may soon begin to cool.
The clear implication is that Google must do something so that only the side of the author is represented in the search results, for the greater good of those yobbos who don’t know any better. Generally we all understand that there are views out there that we may not agree with.

Obviously, some people are offended to see that which they would rather not have out there in front of the public, for the public good of course. Elitists always argue on behalf of others not gifted with the towering intellects they attribute to themselves. The fact is that there are many people out there who feel they should be free to peruse their own ideas without that annoying opposition.

The term for them is “neurotics.”


  1. I read that lil' gal's whole article. Quite heavy in the use of the standard climate science "facts", such as "peer reviewed", "scientific consensus" and "in line with".

    She also mentions twice the need for search engines to direct us peasants to the only "credible" sites on the or government sites.

    Somehow, when these people go on about their vague "overwhelming body of evidence" I am always reminded of the final scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    Maj. Eaton: We have top men working on it now.
    Indiana: Who?
    Maj. Eaton: Top... men.

  2. Bawb, you should really respect these people for their patience and forbearance, and their deep concern for us. It is after all for our benefit.

    From their writing it is obvious that they understand that we are inbred pricks from out in the sticks, with six fingers and toes on each side, or some variation, depending on whether our dad married a cousin or a sister.

    Despite this they are quite prepared to take into account our inherent mental instability and make sure that we don't encounter views that conflict with theirs, that will only confuse us.