Google joins the conspiracy: Google employs “science fellows” to communicate science, including climate change

Clearly the AGW conspiracy of which myself, and many others have joined, is expanding.

Now it seems Google has joined our ranks:

In an effort to foster a more open, transparent and accessible scientific dialogue, we’ve started a new effort aimed at inspiring pioneering use of technology, new media and computational thinking in the communication of science to diverse audiences. Initially, we’ll focus on communicating the science on climate change.

We’re kicking off this effort by naming 21 Google Science Communication Fellows. These fellows were elected from a pool of applicants of early to mid-career Ph.D. scientists nominated by leaders in climate change research and science-based institutions across the U.S. It was hard to choose just 21 fellows from such an impressive pool of scientists; ultimately, we chose scientists who had the strongest potential to become excellent communicators. That meant previous training in science communication; research in topics related to understanding or managing climate change; and experience experimenting with innovative approaches or technology tools for science communication. This year’s fellows are an impressive bunch…

Muh ha ha ha!

With Google on our side we will win the propaganda war!

“We” will tweak the search engine so that no one will ever, ever find a climate “sceptic” blog or website again!

Victory is ours!

Fear us deniers, fear our ability to make even mighty Google bend to our desires and accept “climate change”.

Either the management of Google accepts the science because there is some validity to it or they are in on the conspiracy.

Please, climate sceptic: tell me which one it is?


17 thoughts on “Google joins the conspiracy: Google employs “science fellows” to communicate science, including climate change

  1. john byatt says:

    nearly three years ago if you put climate change into google it threw up about twenty sceptic, god i hate using that word (morons is better } sites at the top of the list
    I have noticed that you do get actual science sites nowadays,

    Ve haf ways un meens .

  2. Adam says:

    Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do, we do!
    Who keeps Atlantis off the maps? Who keeps the Martians under wraps? We do, we do!
    Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star? We do, we do!
    Who robs cavefish of their sight? Who rigs every Oscar night? We do, we do, we do!’

  3. john byatt says:

    and now we send the Inuit out at night with blow torches to melt the arctic

  4. Sou says:

    Not to worry, I can make ice cubes in my fridge so I’m sure we’ll get the technology soon to re-ice the arctic. /s

  5. Geoff Brown says:

    John Byatt; “twenty sceptic, god i hate using that word (morons is better } ”

    This is the person who claimed his responses are always civil.

    Moderators – Please

  6. john byatt says:

    must have been geoff i did not get a warning,

    anyway your presence here to answer a few questions might regain you some cred,

    No geoff i did not claim my respones were always civil you claimed that they were nasty when i was on your just grounds forum , post one here

    in fact it was ridley that remarked how civil he thought i was, remember ?

  7. john byatt says:

    re scientist Geoff and just grounds

    They seem to debate pro agw types on their just grounds forum for a while then ban them and start claiming that they had run away, noticed that when i got there ,

    It has taken them over a month and i still get mentioned there , mum told me not to play with peoples minds, its a bad habit i know , played with ridleys, dropped it a few times and he still has nighmares

    poptech i am glad to say finally recovered, god that was fun,

    yer i know i am a sicko

  8. Geoff Brown says:

    John Byatt; “They seem to debate pro agw types on their just grounds forum for a while then ban them…”
    a) I didn’t know that you had been banned on Just Grounds; and
    b) I am sorry that you and your partner Ross Brisbane are not commenting there because it was much easier to refute the falsified hypothesis of co2 caused AGW with some of you r posts.

    Incidently, TCS president Leon Ashby has comment here – it still has not appeared. AND the man you have made many uncivil remarks about, Anthony Cox has als o made several comments – they have not appeared.

    Moderators, Please.

  9. john byatt says:

    you are no doubt talking about unleashed where civility is not required ,
    my reply to leon ashbys letter in the gympie times was printed on wednesday, the editor did not seem to think it uncivil, I find that anthony cox (cohenite) has a real problem one day he claims that ENSO is the cause of current warming the next he claims TSI, I have no respect whatsoever for either of those two Cox nor Ashby, but tell leon to keep the letters coming in his multi mail out propaganda campaign, as for Viv , calling the Australian Gum tree a pest species. sounds like he has a real problem .

    The ABC is not biased , many posts do not get printed including my own, they seem just to have too big a work load,
    you lot see conspiracy everywhere you look , but you are always good for a laugh

    Also saw Jeff and cox on unleashed playing sockpuppets ,
    don’t think it wasn’t half obvious

  10. john byatt says:


    are you going to go there and show us how you have falsified the theory geoff, you did say Because it was much easier to refute, or is that just talk

    ross was also banned , that you did not know shows that you saw no reason for that

  11. Come on Mike – you know the ‘sceptics’ are too smart for us; catching us out at every turn and with every reference.. No, their on to us and I seriously had hopes of being at least a high ranking official in the one world government.. lol

  12. john byatt says:

    Geoff, please go and explain to us mere mortals how the theory has been falsified
    here is your list of six tests, i am sure that all will be delighted to learn from you

    When geoff brown states that the theory has been falsified he is referring to this Test of the theory claimed by Bob Carter,

    Warning, place head in vice before viewing


  13. Adam says:

    That website you have linked to is unbelievable John.
    Can it be any more embarrassing?

    Ask Mr Carter to play the temperature money test.
    Add the max and min temperatures for the days since Jan 1st 1998 to now and assign to a dollar value. Add up the same number of days prior to Jan 1st 1998.
    If Bob reckons it has not been warming since 1998 then he should accept a challenge to pay you any positive difference minus $100 ? (A negative result would mean that you pay him)

  14. zoot says:

    That meant previous training in science communication…

    Does that mean Ms Codling gets a guernsey?

    …research in topics related to understanding or managing climate change; and experience experimenting with innovative approaches or technology tools for science communication.

    Oh. Guess not.

  15. Watching the Deniers says:

    Please, everyone keep it civil.

    Work for me is very busy, so I’m not on the blog as much.

    Mike @ WtD

  16. The Climate Sceptics (TCS) Blog:
    “Scepticism is defined as any questioning attitude or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.
    • Dedicated to expose the fallacy of Anthropogenic or man-made Global Warming (AGW)
    •Committed to oppose all forms of a Carbon Tax including all Carbon Trading Schemes
    •Pledged to resist all climate-related Government policies that are not based on independent and verifiable science”
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    So what does an impartial weighing of evidence have to do with a mission statement proclaiming: “Dedicated to expose the fallacy of AGW?” Add to that the rest of the points and it sounds pretty committed to a political stance rather than an examination of scientific evidence. But they think they are impartial. . . or is it the Greek form of a skeptic, one who won’t believe anything he doesn’t want to believe?

  17. Sundance says:

    It is hard to fathom why the wtd author of this blog has decided to approach this topic with such an extremely narrow and childish POV in analyzing Google’s activities.

    Google had decided last year to get into the energy transmission business which will require off-shore wind farms to be built. With billions of dollars on the line, is it any wonder that Google decided that, “Initially, we’ll focus on communicating the science on climate change”. Well Duh! I own Google stock and I think wind farms in the Atlantic are viable and hope Google motivates the private sector to put forth the money needed to build the wind farms that Google needs to be hooked up to their transmission systems. So hiring climate boffins for marketing and creating demand for the Google energy transmission division, is a cheap and brilliant PR move.

    The wtd author’s is misguided in thinking that Google’s actions somehow indicate that they are now joining the ranks of the religious warmistas at this website. Google will be making billions from promoting the climate scare, and have nothing in common with the religious warmistas here at wtd. As you can see Google is still willing to make money transmitting coal based energy too, which reinforces the fact that they have little in common with religious warmistas and instead are just smart business people looking for a return on investment for their stockholders like me. :*)

    ‘Google to invest in offshore wind power project’

    “Google and Good Energies will each own 37.5 percent of the project and Google said it plans to find other investors. Marubeni will own 15 percent. A group led by Trans-Elect will own the remaining 10 percent, Mitchell said.

    Longbow Research analyst Eli Lustgarten said the project could be critical for the offshore wind industry, bringing investors with deep pockets and a plan to add an extensive transmission network.

    But the project’s success if far from certain, he said. It still needs regulatory approval and is expected to take a decade to build. During that time, organizers say it may transmit at least some electricity that was generated from coal.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: