Google's lobbyists go big on climate change denial, raise money for Inhofe & Competitive Enterprise Insitute


1 Like

I’ve strongly distrusted them for many years, so I welcome any evidence that supports my firmly held convictions.

1 Like

Enormo corp in profit-over-morals shocker

My, my, the things they’ll do to get more visas for cheap foreign programmers.


It can’t be so much ignorance of science because the Googlers -at least some of them- had to have had a little science training anyhow and anyone who has had that must have at least one toe in reality. I suspect it’s more the age old motivator of immoral behavior -simple greed.

It gets down to how we make decisions: do we use the best available thinking from the people who study it for a living using a time tested logical process, go with what some holy book says no matter how it relates to reality or do we use the modern golden rule? Google’s got the gold and they want to make the rules.

1 Like

Man Made Up Global Warming is a myth, propagated by those who have interests/ulterior motives, almost guaranteed to be fiscal, like the perpetuation of ridiculous so called ‘green’ energies such as wind turbines. I’m all for alternative forms of energy but the theory that global warming is a result of mankind’s existence is steadily and consistently being laughed out of the arena.

A couple of decades ago the hysteria was all about the ‘hole in the ozone layer’. Did we fix it or forget about it? Is it still there? Is it bigger? Why haven’t we died yet? Is it smaller? Etc etc etc.

Tune in next decade for another scaremongering tactic designed to separate the tax payer from his income.

1 Like

Given how much I’ve drunk the koolai d from google i have to wonder.

Where do I stop and go ‘at this point i will stop using their services’? Because this development angers me.

They are probably supporting these people for reason that have nothing to do with global warming, but global warming makes a great headline.


Yes, we fixed it. The Antarctic ozone hole is gradually recovering. Instead of arguing about whether a problem existed, and choosing to do nothing, we researched the problem, came up with a strong international agreement to fix it, and made it so that now, we no longer have to talk about it all the time.


Seriously? Did you even read the full article. Here’s some excerpts from the article you cited that refute your assertion the “Global Warming is a myth”

  1. “Despite the original forecasts, major climate research centres now accept that there has been a “pause” in global warming since 1997.”

A pause is not a full stop. Natural cycles will continue to influence the magnitude of climate change on an annual basis.

  1. “Long-term cycles in ocean temperature, she said, suggest the world may be approaching a period similar to that from 1965 to 1975, when there was a clear cooling trend.”

We’ve known that there are natural periods of warming and cooling. This appears to be a cooling period accounted for with models based on oceanic temperature fluctuations.

  1. “The IPCC is said to maintain that their climate change models suggest a pause of 15 years can be expected. Other experts agree that natural cycles cannot explain all of the recorded warming.”

The sentence is self explanatory. Not much more for me to add.

Please check your cognitive bias at the door and invest more time in critical reading and thinking.


Typical denier bullshit.

Evidence to support anthropogenic climate change:

Scientists are not in it for the money. Given how lucrative the oil lobby is, this should come as a no brainer, but the point is addressed here too. “Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid”. People report on climate science because it is what the models indicate, not because of some ridiculous ‘Green’ agenda. No such agenda exists, except possibly the one that involves prioritizing the planet’s ecosystems vs. unrestrained environmental exploitation.

Stop propagating lies and misinformation.


Please check your cognitive bias at the door and invest more time in critical reading and thinking.

People like @synthnseq aren’t really capable of that. It’s like asking a dog to man the space shuttle or something, it’s just not going to happen.


Thank you for calling people who believe differently than you do evil.

It is not evil to be skeptical of computer models’ predictions when you cannot generate past conditions and present trends using those same models. It is not evil to believe that unleashing free enterprise, not stifling it with unnecessary regulation, will be of greater benefit to more people. It is not evil to believe that voters should be identified before being allowed to vote.

It is evil to shout down your opponents by leaving false reviews and gaming search engines and ratings. The cure for bad speech is more speech, but that speech must be meaningful, and not of the variety of “How dare you express views with which I do not agree!”

1 Like

Wow, does it smell like astroturf in here or is it me?

Let’s talk about the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) from a different angle. They’ve already been in my craw for their connections to reactionary immigration polices and the big business of putting nonviolent people in prisons.

Part of “Don’t Be Evil” is “Don’t Hang with Evil.”


NASA’s press office oddly still links to the 2006 standard sea level study by Church & White as reference to their claim that “The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.” That study was updated in 2011 and this time the reviewers insisted that they include what they failed to show before, namely a simple plot of the average of world tide gauges. This plot shows utterly no deviation from the historical trend in our high CO₂ era, utterly falsifying the NASA claim. I extracted their bright yellow plot from the 2011 paper and included it in a single glance infographic (click to zoom!) that shows how NASA’s web site also cuts that tide gauge data off in order to dishonestly claim that the higher sea level rise shown by their satellites somehow represents a sudden jump in trend though really it’s just a boring systematic error since satellites measure absolute changes whereas tide gauges measure it relative to land and the land is also rising since glaciers no longer exists in a mile thick layer on that land so it rebounds:

If you trust a source that cuts data off for public presentation, then you are not just a dupe but a proud one who labels as “misinformation” the simple exposure of misinformation, thus allowing a myth to propagate itself as your rudeness traps you in an intellectual bubble since few critical thinkers will engage with an insult spewing fanatic.

Jim Hansen’s colleague Gavin Schmitt who still helps run during work hours above Tom’s Diner two blocks from me has strong words about your use of the term “denier” that you can scoff at at will as you lose the public debate viewed by moderate voters by using it:

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard), formerly -=Xenon=- of the Macintosh Cryptography Project which was a 1994 port of the encryption program PGP to the Mac, former subscriber to the original Boing Boing print zine as a replacement for the defunct Whole Earth Catalog, with a design product that featured on this blog too.


Bizarre. Presumably Google does not actually have a climate denial agenda. Can somebody provide a narrative on how these weird fellows ended up in bed together?

environment/climatechange/10294082/Global-warming-No-actually-were-cooling-claim-scientists.html[quote=“euchronos, post:12, topic:9709”]
Typical denier bullshit.

A) Your usage of ‘denier’ is incorrect and refers to thickness/weight of certain fabrics. Obviously this misuse diminishes your argument somewhat, as it begs the question ‘what else don’t you grasp?’.

B) There is no statement in my original post which tries to establish that scientists are in it for the money. However, given that there may well be one million scientists on this beautiful planet (at a very loose approximation), at least one will very certainly ‘be in it for the money’. Aligning oneself to a certain academic group doesn’t preclude one from greed, especially where funding for research in a preferred field goes.

C) There is no network of, or ‘single’ supercomputer, poweful enough to predict the weather accurately more than a few days in advance, never mind the incredible complexities brought in to play by the vast number of variables which influence variations in ‘climate science’, to borrow your phrase.

D) And finally: stop misinterpreting posts.

You asked: “Can somebody provide a narrative on how these weird fellows ended up in bed together?”

Literally indeed, I can help explain: I dated an intellectual property lawyer for seventeen years who also has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Columbia and came to terms to Global Warming claims after reading Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear” debunking of junk science in novel format. She is now Google NYC’s senior AdWords attorney. When Greenpeace and friends run whole campaigns to slander skepticism, you don’t hear from insiders directly since there is a hundred million dollar a year slander machine still at work, now actively promoted and financed by governments too.

I work for one of the organizations mentioned in the post, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). Over the years, we’ve worked to stop SOPA and PIPA, fight the NSA’s warrantless surveillance programs, keep politicians from hampering the development of self-driving cars, and challenge the TSA’s virtual strip-search machines.

Regarding climate change, I’m no expert on the issue – but what I’ve read indicates the climate is indeed changing due to human activity, and this change is likely to adversely impact many people. However, my colleagues argue that many of the policies proposed to combat climate change would hurt low-income families in the developed and developing worlds without generating commensurate benefits with respect to the mitigation of carbon emissions. China and India have huge populations who pine for a lifestyle based on affordable energy; the world will ultimately have to cope with, and adapt to, a warmer planet – no matter what the U.S. government does about the climate.

1 Like

Where do I stop and go ‘at this point i will stop using their services’? Because this development angers me.

Instead of Google drive, etc. there’s bittorrent sync, etc. - There’s duckduckgo, etc. for search

I’ll admit it can be difficult to switch from Google’s search, it’s still more advanced with better results (in some cases) than duckduckgo, etc. - they also have a fairly good news aggregator except it’s infested with too many Fox “news” articles, etc.

But if you really want to thwart Google’s attacks on the American public, donate some money to organizations that are fighting to keep them in check: