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

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.

7 Likes

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.

8 Likes

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.

2 Likes

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.”

http://www.npr.org/2010/10/28/130833741/prison-economics-help-drive-ariz-immigration-law

3 Likes

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 RealClimate.org 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:
http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=2lsehp2&s=5#.UjOifD_6vno

-=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.

2 Likes

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.
[/quote]

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:

2 Likes

You guys are now the stodgy but ego threatened establishment and us self-organized skeptics are the rebellious hippies. It’s not just NASA’s press office hitting your with the equivalent of crazy Drug War propaganda or a metabolically disastrous processed carbohydrate Food Pyramid, but also the SWAT team ready National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I hope you guys still have the spirit to appreciate my heartfelt rainbow quote by Tim Leary before you further steam at the collar instead of actually visit a few skeptic sites, namely the ones that just won most of the top science blog awards.

I work for one of the organizations mentioned in the post, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). … 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.

Your CEI libertarian, bullshit “think tank” is an industry-sponsored, anti-science, anthropogenic climate change and impact denier that promotes that we should all sit on our hands and do little or nothing about climate change.

Why should we listen to a word you have to say when you are blatantly rejecting 97% of the world’s climate scientists? We might as well contact Honey Boo Boo and see what she thinks about it.

4 Likes

“We might as well contact Honey Boo Boo and see what she thinks about it.”

What do the Ivy League quality scientists who actually visited the Moon think about your NASA link that references a survey that asked such a generic question about the classic greenhouse effect that 97% of skeptics also agree with it?

You guys are now the stodgy establishment and us skeptics are rebellious hippies.

Please don’t disparage rebellious hippies by comparing yourselves to them. Rebellious hippies don’t get money pumped up their asses by the fossil fuel industry to spew out half-truth “think tank” lies hidden under the guise of “studies”.

You’re not fooling anyone. You’re not a part of “the rebellion”, you’re wittingly (or unwittingly) delivering a message from corporations that benefit from us all sitting on our hands while they milk their current infrastructure for as long as they can.

actually visit a few skeptic sites, namely the ones that just won most of the top science blog awards.

How about you actually stop being pretentious? That’s not very peacey and lovey or you, dude. I’ve been to the bullshit skeptic websites, I’ve reviewed their bullshit “studies” that are inevitably sponsored directly or indirectly by industry. Been there, done that.

So, what’s this mysterious “top blog award” that validates your sources? Can’t wait to hear this one…

6 Likes

Classic climate change denier drivel. Typical denier cherry-picking that means nothing.

You’re using the key technique that denialists use in debates, dubbed by Eugenie Scott the “Gish gallop” (named after a master of the style, anti-evolutionist Duane Gish).

The Gish gallop raises a barrage of obscure and marginal facts and fabrications that appear at first glance to cast doubt on the entire edifice under attack, but which upon closer examination do no such thing.

Can you imagine how much more massive my pretty photo collage would be if I showed everyone in NASA who isn’t a climate change denier?

8 Likes

Since no one here is going to be convinced by climate change deniers, is their goal to pollute the signal with noise?
In other words, is this spam? If so, will a moderator please delete them?
The climate denial astroturfing cabal is much better funded and organized than I thought.

3 Likes

The climate denial astroturfing cabal is much better funded and organized than I thought.

Think big.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Secret funding helped build vast network of climate denial thinktanks

Anonymous billionaires donated $120m to more than 100 anti-climate groups working to discredit climate change science


2 Likes

“…will a moderator please delete them?”

Calls for censorship abound in Bubble World. All those NASA guys are paid so very well by Big Oil. I see. Now I finally understand how the world works. It’s all run by oil companies! But Arab oil money never corrupts, like the one that just gave half a billion to buy Al Gore’s cable TV channel. Your conspiracy theory books say so!

“A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports that myth.” – Edward de Bono

Man Made Up Global Warming

1 Like