Googlegate?

[DarrinS]

Strange stuff

http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/google-gate/

[spursncowboys]

It sucks. It's either google, having to comb through huffpos and salon crap with any google or deal with bing and microsoft.

[spursncowboys]

Isn't google for net neutrality?

[lefty]

Old news

[PixelPusher]

I don't suppose any of you bothered to try it out on google yourselves.

(hint: it's actually the first and fifth suggestions long before you get to the "g")

[PixelPusher]

lol manufactured outrage

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/google.jpg

[DarrinS]

Yes, pixel, it does give you "climate gate", but it used to suggest climategate (one word). Just like if you type "waterg" it gives you watergate (one word). Also, if you type in the whole word, it gives 30,400,000 results. If you type it in with the space, you get 11,100,000 results (a third of the original).

No outrage, just wierdness, because it WAS suggesting the single word version on the typing of "clim" just a few days ago.

[DarrinS]

Does anyone actually use the phrase "water gate" to refer to the Watergate scandal?

[Wild Cobra]

lol manufactured outrage

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/google.jpg
No it's not.

I couldn't get that until I already went to "climate gate," then it remembered it.

If you want an intuative search engine, Bing is way better:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/Climategate-bing.jpg

I personally prefer Altavista (http://www.altavista.com/), because they don't place preferences like Google or Microsoft does. Nor the constant advertisers and added cookies. They however don't have intuitive selections either.

[sabar]

This is more ridiculous than the 9/11 truthing. Google gives inane suggestions for thousands of things. There's a whole website with lists of them. That's what happens when you automate it with some algorithm.

[exstatic]

Does anyone actually use the phrase "water gate" to refer to the Watergate scandal?

Actually, it refers to the name of the hotel in which the GOP burglars broke into the Democratic headquarters, and since the hotel name is one word...

My guess would be that it's based on actual Google searches, and that most internetters aren't old enough to remember Watergate, so they type in Climate Gate as two words. I think all of you butt hurt righties should have tea parties to just type Climategate into Google until you get that shit fixed!!

[DarrinS]

Interesting.


Today it works again. I type in "cl" and Google suggests the one word version again and returns over 30 million results.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

Heard about this, thought it possibly couldn't be true.

I tried it just now...

Anything from

climat
climate
climateg
climatega
climategat
climategate

climate g
climate ga
climate gat

Doesn't return climate gate or climategate as a suggestion.

Pathetic.

[EmptyMan]

Suggests Climax for me. :hat

[Wild Cobra]

Suggests Climax for me. :hat
Hmmm...

Do you not get enough?

[ChumpDumper]

lol

You guys can't finish typing a word by yourselves?

[Ignignokt]

lol

You guys can't finish typing a word by yourselves?

Lol.:lol

This guy doesn't get the thread topic.

[ChumpDumper]

No, I got it. There's just nothing but conjecture and conspiracy theories.

lol at your stalking me, though. You are so into me.

[Ignignokt]

No, I got it. There's just nothing but conjecture and conspiracy theories.

lol at your stalking me, though. You are so into me.

You need to stop plaigarizing Yoni.

[ChumpDumper]

There you go again. You just can't leave me alone.

Here comes another post from you....

[Ignignokt]

There you go again. You just can't leave me alone.

Here comes another post from you....


Lol, this place is not your house, but a public forum. There's no need to stalk a guy that avgs 1000 posts a day and has no life. It be pretty hard to avoid you.:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Yeah! There it is. You can't help yourself, I understand. :lol You want to make it all about me because you fancy me. Thanks but I'm taken. Keep replying to me though. It definitely makes you look like you want nothing to do with me. :lmao

[Ignignokt]

Yeah! There it is. You can't help yourself, I understand. :lol You want to make it all about me because you fancy me. Thanks but I'm taken. Keep replying to me though. It definitely makes you look like you want nothing to do with me. :lmao

:lol. Hey, if you're so disgusted and scared of a "stalker" you could leave to another board or another place on the internet. I promise you, nobody would follow you.:lol

Try it. Prove me wrong.:toast

and as much as anyone will miss you. Try not to come back.:wakeup

[ChumpDumper]

Fantastic!

Still posting about me!

I am neither disgusted nor scared. Amused at the schoolgirl crush you have on me is more like it.

I see that you are so afraid of your feelings for me that you want me to leave the board to spare you the torture of seeing my posts so often, knowing you can't have me.

:lol If you really are not into me, then it should be easy to stop posting about me to the exclusion of the thread topic. :lol

Try it. Prove me wrong. :toast

I know you won't be able to do it. The next post or so should show that much. :wakeup

[Ignignokt]

Fantastic!

Still posting about me!

I am neither disgusted nor scared. Amused at the schoolgirl crush you have on me is more like it.

I see that you are so afraid of your feelings for me that you want me to leave the board to spare you the torture of seeing my posts so often, knowing you can't have me.

:lol If you really are not into me, then it should be easy to stop posting about me to the exclusion of the thread topic. :lol
Try it. Prove me wrong. :toast

I know you won't be able to do it. The next post or so should show that much. :wakeup

If you're really not into being stalked you should leave spurstalk forever.:toast


It's for the best of us.:lol

[ChumpDumper]

If you're really not into being stalked you should leave spurstalk forever.:toast:lmao

Told you.

Thanks for admitting you are stalking me. :rollin

[Ignignokt]

:lmao

Told you.

Thanks for admitting you are staking me. :rollin

LoL, staking.

Spell fail!

[ChumpDumper]

:lol Thanks for admitting you are stalking me and care deeply about my missed keystrokes.

[Ignignokt]

:lol Thanks for admitting you are stalking me and care deeply about my missed keystrokes.

Why are you desperate for male affection?:lol

[ChumpDumper]

Why are you desperate for male affection?:lolI am not. Your desperate hope to give me some does not make it true. Neither does your admitted stalking. :lol

[Ignignokt]

I am not.

Yes you are.

THis whole act of whining like a little girl about being stalked because you ran out of tricks 3 yrs ago ever since whott has owned you is pretty pathetic.

You get called out for being a moron on a thread, and you instantly turn it into messed up attention whoring thread.

If that isn't the case and it's just that you're desperate for male attention and affection. I expect you to post next, and i'll leave since this is a sad scenario.

[ChumpDumper]

Yes you are.Nah.


THis whole act of whining like a little girl about being stalked because you ran out of tricks 3 yrs ago ever since whott has owned you is pretty pathetic.Nah, I'm just noting what you are doing. There really isn't much more of an explanation for your continued obsessive posting about me, is there.


You get called out for being a moron on a thread, and you instantly turn it into messed up attention whoring thread.Nah, you couldn't help yourself to make a post about me because that's what you want to do when you see me here, and you are now spending all your time reinforcing the fact that you can't help posting about me.


If that isn't the case and you're just desperate for male attention. I expect you to post next.Quit stealing from me. If you didn't want to give your male attention to me you would have stopped posting about me when I gave you the chance.

Too late.

You failed.

Now I'm leaving for the night. I'm sure you will refrain from posting about me again because you are not obsessed with me and want to give me attention.

But of course, you are going to post about me again, because you fancy me and want to give me attention. Sorry, I just don't feel the same way about you.

[Ignignokt]

Nah.



:depressed.. sorry that you crave so much attention, and your 47,000 posts here prove it. I'm gonna leave and set you up with some help.

http://www.bigmentor.org/

you're in good hands now.

[whottt]

Google most definitely has a political agenda. This was pretty obviously proven about a day or so after Sarah Palin was nominated for VP. When she was initially nominated you got typical results, within a day or so after her nomination when it was revealed how popular she was you would immediately get back similar type links but the excerpts from those links would be these trumped negatives that were non-existent prior to her nomination added into the articles about her. For example...when you typed her name and it brought up her wiki bio, the excerpt was from the negative part of that bio, an excerpt that wasn't even part of her bio right after she was nominated. It wasn't the top of the page, it wasn't the bottom of the page, it wasn't only the new information added, yet it was the part Google excerpted. And I made a post about it on this forum after they did it.

Google also supported Obama for President..and they made contributions to his campaign.

Wikipedia has an agenda as well, it is pretty much the future of textbooks and it's primary authors on subjects of historical and political nature are liberal college professors...this is only going to get worse as liberals overwhelmingly outnumbers conservatives on the internet, and it gives them first shot at the kids. If the conservatives really want to do something about they can start getting on the internet more.

It's pretty obvious that most of the multinational corporations, particularly the media owned ones, were behind Obama, was it just the digital rights legislation? Or something more sinister...like dismantling the economic and military power of the United States of America, the worlds last remaining Superpower and pretty much the only obstacle to the UN, uberich like Bill Gates, George Soros and Warren Buffet and their respective charities, and the EU covertly becoming the de-facto world government. The difference between Bush and Obama is that Obama has global money behind him, in addition to the American money Bush had. He's also a lawyer, which means he is totally for sale...it's a huge problem for anyone that likes the US being the leader of the free world(which I do), especially if the alternatives are the EU and or the UN...not to mention Bill Gates and his ilk.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

The President of Google is an adviser to Obama. Sadly, looks like more of the Chicago political machine in action.

[DarrinS]

When I type in the entire word "climategate" today, Google suggests

climate guatemala
climate guatemala city

[boutons_deux]

yep, Google is the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you betcha.

You guys don't like your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy getting push back? nope, conservative and Repugs are all bunch of pussies when their bluff is called.

[DarrinS]

yep, Google is the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, you betcha.

You guys don't like your Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy getting push back? nope, conservative and Repugs are all bunch of pussies when their bluff is called.


I present you with hypothesis and the data and means to test that hypothesis. Clearly, this is a foreign concept to you.

[PixelPusher]

Bing.com only seems to offer the "climate/hyphen/gate" (climate-gate) spelling in their suggestions, no "climategate" or "climate gate".

It's a conspeeeeaaaarrracy maaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!!!

[boutons_deux]

the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy is well documented.

[PixelPusher]

Google does have all the links and metadata for climategate, but those Google engineers are sneaky bastards. You can bypass their "security through obscurity" with a little java scripting.

Here, this is how you get to it. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=climategate)

[spursncowboys]

So it is just a coincidence that huffpost gets on the page one of every type of search?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Results 1 - 10 of about 31,000,000 for climategate

[Oh, Gee!!]

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,200,000 for climate gate. (0.21 seconds)

[Oh, Gee!!]

type it as one word or two and you get a crapload of hits. what's the beef? do ya'll give up after "climategat?"

[admiralsnackbar]

So it is just a coincidence that huffpost gets on the page one of every type of search?

Maybe it's a huge left-wing conspiracy to inconvenience conservatives by making them enter more specific search terms, but I'd wager it has more to do with page hits. A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change, compared to an overwhelming majority of liberals. Given the population is basically split 50/50, libs win the higher proportion, and their news source of choice reflects it.

[Oh, Gee!!]

how did neocons find anything whatsoever on the web before the invention of "Query Suggestions?"

[spursncowboys]

Maybe it's a huge left-wing conspiracy to inconvenience conservatives by making them enter more specific search terms, but I'd wager it has more to do with page hits. A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change, compared to an overwhelming majority of liberals. Given the population is basically split 50/50, libs win the higher proportion, and their news source of choice reflects it.

Then how do you explain the op? there is no way huffpost gets more hits than wsj, or foxnews.

[admiralsnackbar]

Then how do you explain the op? there is no way huffpost gets more hits than wsj, or foxnews.

Don't you think it's at least plausible that those particular pages get more hits on HuffPo than they do on Foxnews or the WSJ for the reasons I stated in my last post? Honest question.

I'll be the first to admit I'm basing my proportions of interest between libs and cons on climate change on my personal experience with people in both groups and that I may, in fact, be totally wrong. But I do think it's plausible.

[Oh, Gee!!]

I'm surprised the neocons can even find google. don't they give up after "goog?"

[ElNono]

Has it even crossed your minds that the suggestions might change depending on a multitude of things like your geographic location, previous searches, etc, etc, etc?

[DarrinS]

Maybe it's a huge left-wing conspiracy to inconvenience conservatives by making them enter more specific search terms, but I'd wager it has more to do with page hits. A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change, compared to an overwhelming majority of liberals. Given the population is basically split 50/50, libs win the higher proportion, and their news source of choice reflects it.


A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change? I'd beg to differ.


Strangely enough, if you type in "climategate" you get over 31 million hits (no auto-suggest, even after typing in the whole word).

Contrast this with Googling "Tiger Woods" (you get the suggestion after typing "tig") which gets 13.3 million hits (with name in quotes).

It doesn't really add up if Google works as advertised.

[PixelPusher]

A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change? I'd beg to differ.


Strangely enough, if you type in "climategate" you get over 31 million hits (no auto-suggest, even after typing in the whole word).

Contrast this with Googling "Tiger Woods" (you get the suggestion after typing "tig") which gets 13.3 million hits (with name in quotes).

It doesn't really add up if Google works as advertised.

Actually, it shows Google works perfectly. More people are typing "Tiger Woods" into the search bar than "Climategate", because far, far more Americans are interested in Tiger's affairs than climate change, pro or con.

...and more people have been googling "Tiger Woods" for the past decade.

[ElNono]

A vocal minority of conservatives care about climate change? I'd beg to differ.


Strangely enough, if you type in "climategate" you get over 31 million hits (no auto-suggest, even after typing in the whole word).

Contrast this with Googling "Tiger Woods" (you get the suggestion after typing "tig") which gets 13.3 million hits (with name in quotes).

It doesn't really add up if Google works as advertised.

Here's a historical and topographical breakdown of the climategate word search in Google:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=climategate&geo=US&date=today%201-m&cmpt=q

Unfortunately, Tiger Woods is indeed way more relevant...

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#geo=US&date=today+1-m&cmpt=q&q=tiger+woods

[DarrinS]

Actually, it shows Google works perfectly. More people are typing "Tiger Woods" into the search bar than "Climategate", because far, far more Americans are interested in Tiger's affairs than climate change, pro or con.

...and more people have been googling "Tiger Woods" for the past decade.



And yet there are more than twice as many hits for climategate (only a couple of weeks old) than there are for Tiger Woods. You have pointed out the paradox. Thanks.

[DarrinS]

Here's a historical and topographical breakdown of the climategate word search in Google:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=climategate&geo=US&date=today%201-m&cmpt=q




That's pretty interesting. Thanks.

[PixelPusher]

And yet there are more than twice as many hits for climategate (only a couple of weeks old) than there are for Tiger Woods. You have pointed out the paradox. Thanks.

There's more hits because there's a shitload of obscure political blogs linking to each other. That isn't the same as pageview traffic though. There may be relatively fewer links to the Tiger Woods affair but there are more eyeballs looking that them.

[boutons_deux]

For all of you righties shilling for the corporate GW denier-gate, here's some Vast Right Wing/Corporate Conspiracy evidence



James Hoggan

Co-founder desmogblog.com
Posted: December 7, 2009 02:24 PM

The Oily Echo Machine Behind "Climategate"


The most vocal organizations around the University of East Anglia hacked email story (aka. "climategate") have been involved in a decade-plus campaign to delay action on climate change.

The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded "free-market" think tanks and pseudo-experts that would bring into question the scientific realities of climate change, create doubt with the public and politicians and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policy in the United States.

It's no coincidence that the groups pushing this story the hardest have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists.

What I wouldn't do to have a few of these organizations private emails over the years!

Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources:

Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.

Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still receive grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.

National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

While these are some of the most vocal, there are more. So please leave a comment below if you think there's anyone else who should be added to this list and we'll do the research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/the-oily-echo-machine-beh_b_379348.html?view=print

==========

As you dishonest jokers really thought anybody thought you were sincere, or that nobody knew what your game is.

Slimey corporate shills, every one of you (whether you realize it or not)

[DarrinS]

For all of you righties shilling for the corporate GW denier-gate, here's some Vast Right Wing/Corporate Conspiracy evidence



James Hoggan

Co-founder desmogblog.com
Posted: December 7, 2009 02:24 PM

The Oily Echo Machine Behind "Climategate"


The most vocal organizations around the University of East Anglia hacked email story (aka. "climategate") have been involved in a decade-plus campaign to delay action on climate change.

The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded "free-market" think tanks and pseudo-experts that would bring into question the scientific realities of climate change, create doubt with the public and politicians and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policy in the United States.

It's no coincidence that the groups pushing this story the hardest have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists.

What I wouldn't do to have a few of these organizations private emails over the years!

Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources:

Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.

Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still receive grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.

National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

While these are some of the most vocal, there are more. So please leave a comment below if you think there's anyone else who should be added to this list and we'll do the research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/the-oily-echo-machine-beh_b_379348.html?view=print

==========

As you dishonest jokers really thought anybody thought you were sincere, or that nobody knew what your game is.

Slimey corporate shills, every one of you (whether you realize it or not)




Did any of these people/groups hide or delete raw data?
Or try to control the peer-review process?
Or create crappy computer models that apply "very artificial corrections" or "fudge factors"?


As far as I know, Stephen McIntyre just a retired mathematician.

[spursncowboys]

For all of you righties shilling for the corporate GW denier-gate, here's some Vast Right Wing/Corporate Conspiracy evidence



James Hoggan

Co-founder desmogblog.com
Posted: December 7, 2009 02:24 PM

The Oily Echo Machine Behind "Climategate"


The most vocal organizations around the University of East Anglia hacked email story (aka. "climategate") have been involved in a decade-plus campaign to delay action on climate change.

The goal of this campaign, which began around the time of the first Kyoto Protocol negotiations, was to assemble a group of like-minded "free-market" think tanks and pseudo-experts that would bring into question the scientific realities of climate change, create doubt with the public and politicians and effectively delay the introduction of clean energy policy in the United States.

It's no coincidence that the groups pushing this story the hardest have a long history of taking money from oil and coal companies to attack the conclusions made by climate scientists.

What I wouldn't do to have a few of these organizations private emails over the years!

Here's a few of the groups I'm talking about and a very brief background on their previous activities, as well as funding sources:

Center for a Constructive Tomorrow: owns and operate ClimateDepot.com, which has been a main clearinghouse for the right-wing climategate echo chamber. ClimateDepot.com is managed by Marc Morano, former aide to Republican Senator James Inhofe. CFACT has received grants from Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and well-known right-wing foundations like the Carthage Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation.

American Enterprise Institute: Offered to pay "experts" $10,000 to write papers that countered the IPCC reports. AEI has received close to half a million from oil-giant ExxonMobil, former Exxon Chairman Lee Raymond sits on AEI's board of directors.

Media Research Center: run by Brett Bozell, this group also operates the popular right-wing blog, Newsbusters.org. The Media Research Center has received over $257,000 from oil-giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Cato Institute: Is the main front group for the most prolific climate denier, Patrick Michaels. Cato is the second largest recipient of funding the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heartland Institute: Organizes a "denier conference" every year for the past three years. Used to receive funding from ExxonMobil, still receive grants from tobacco companies and are also a major recipient of grants from the foundations run by Koch Industries Inc. (the largest private energy company in the United States).

Heritage Foundation: Heritage is massive and operates on about $50 million a year. They have received significant funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Industries and other fossil fuel companies.

National Center for Policy Analysis: the NCPA is a small, but very vocal Dallas, Texas-based freemarket think tank and has received over $540,900 from oil giant ExxonMobil since 1998.

Competitive Enterprise Institute: The CEI is well-known for its public efforts to aggressively counter the scientific evidence for human-induced climate change, especially after their infamous set of television ads with the tag line "C02, We Call it Life." Since 1998, the CEI has received over $2 million in funding from oil-giant ExxonMobil.

While these are some of the most vocal, there are more. So please leave a comment below if you think there's anyone else who should be added to this list and we'll do the research.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-hoggan/the-oily-echo-machine-beh_b_379348.html?view=print

==========

As you dishonest jokers really thought anybody thought you were sincere, or that nobody knew what your game is.

Slimey corporate shills, every one of you (whether you realize it or not)
Sweet, thanx for all the sites

[Wild Cobra]

So it is just a coincidence that huffpost gets on the page one of every type of search?
Google makes money by prioritizing search results. The Huff and Puff post must cut Google a monthly check.

[Mr. Peabody]

type it as one word or two and you get a crapload of hits. what's the beef? do ya'll give up after "climategat?"

I'm upset because I typed in "climate gait" and "clamato gate" and all I got were hits discussing shoes and tomato sauce recipes. Damn you Google!

[Nbadan]

The Huff and Puff post must cut Google a monthly check.

:lmao

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c50/sharibrown/mini-023_fail.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Dan, didn't you know? That's how Google makes their billions. Advertisements. Payment for priority service is part of their operating practice.

If the Huffington Post pops up mare often than others, there is a pretty good change they pay Google for advertisement.

[ChumpDumper]

So this is climategategate?
Dan, didn't you know? That's how Google makes their billions. Advertisements. Payment for priority service is part of their operating practice.

If the Huffington Post pops up mare often than others, there is a pretty good change they pay Google for advertisement.Advertised links show up in....




....wait for it....



....the advertised links section.

So for climategategate, you are trying to make us believe that Google wants to avoid collecting money from advertisers like www.ClimateGatePetition.com or www.FightCleanEnergySmears.org (with the link titled Climategate Hoax) or www.noteviljustwrong.com (link title: Al Gore is Wrong).