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

It’s a shame when scientific issues get politicized. Sure there may be debates as to the validity of a theory or idea, but it seems to me the arguing becomes disingenuous when political parties champion two different views. As seen here, both sides seem to be selective on what data they present and how, which leads me to distrust either of them.

Is there a good site where one can ask questions about climate change? I for one still have reservations about the extend of it being man made. From my interest in geology I’ve taken classes on the ice age cycle and how it helped form the earth as we know it today. (Like how this hunk of granite came to Kansas.) I know we are coming out of a little ice age, and it seems to me the planet warming up would be expected. I guess I am just not convinced that the changes seen and predicted aren’t “normal”.

I also have reservations that a lot of the data is speculative from simulations. I don’t think we know all of the forces involved in order accurately predict the future.

That said, I do support things like research into green and renewable energy. That just makes sense. I don’t like things like the carbon credit scheme. I think we should use our energies to adapt to the change, instead of trying to stop it. For example with the threat of rising sea levels. With the current levels as they are, we have evidence of settlements that are now under water. The coast line fluxes, and those who live there may at some point be forced to retreat, or engineer some grand solution to keep dry.

And as I close, I would just like to point out that in ~15,000 years from now everything north of South Dakota is going to be under a mile of ice. Buy up land near the equator, it will be worth a fortune one day.

2 Likes

You know, the only paper I posted a link to was one that Nik selected, so I don’t think you’re being fair in that at all. But let me please offer an alternative: Google scholar. (Yes, I’d prefer to pick something non-Google based, but I don’t know of any equivalent yet.)

Here you can peruse all sorts of papers on the subject - at least the abstracts, but often many full articles if you try at a university. It should let you see just how much evidence there is, how plausible it is changes are natural, and even estimates of the costs of fighting vs. adapting to climate change.

It may not be a great way of making things accessible to the non-specialist, but it definitely isn’t filtering things, except a bias toward stuff that passed peer review. I think you’ll agree that’s as non-politicized as you are going to get. See what you find.

1 Like

After reading this whole exchange, I’m pretty sure a shuttle-piloting dog has better odds of happening…

2 Likes

Ahem.

The Salon article cited (in very small print) by the petition states that Google, FB, and Yelp are working with ALEC to promote anti-SLAPP legislation.

Granted that ALEC does much evil – is it possible that Google et al are only working with them on this one, laudable issue? And that any funds are only spent on this issue? And if so, should they be punished for this?

My browser does not find “SLAPP” anywhere in this entire comment thread. Did no one read the article?

@synthnseq - David Rose’s original article in The Mail contained a large number of “inaccuracies”. Hayley Dixon’s in The Telegraph deleted some of the most glaring, but a fair few remained. For accurate information about the ‘hole in the Arctic sea ice’, and hopefully a good laugh too, please see:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info

Perhaps once you’ve got some facts straight we can then deconstruct the “Global Cooling” myth?

NikFromNYCeeeee said: …guys like Cowicide can only issue death
threats to try to intimidate skeptics.

Ha, I didn’t catch that part. Yes, Nik is right. I’m going to kill him to death with a phaser. I’m just waiting on a Star Trek phaser to be invented from a science fiction show any day now. I pre-ordered one for a mere 12.5 million dollars from 419-phasers-r-us.com.

I guess this kind of lack of critical thinking and delusional, false-persecution complex is what it takes to come up with Nik’s climate denial fantasies. Well, that and an unhealthy dose of reading libertarian “think tank” drivel after getting loaded on whiskey shots with Ayn Rand’s ghost who partakes in sips of champagne for the hallucinated occasion.

2 Likes

Hmm, well. Seems Google actually did hold a fundraiser for that fugghead Inhofe, which is rather less defensible.

http://ens-newswire.com/2013/08/15/google-cuts-carbon-footprint-but-funds-climate-change-deniers/

1 Like

I’d suggest RealClimate - you won’t find many climate skeptics there, but they’re all serious researchers who’ll honestly answer your queries.

ClimateProgress (part of ThinkProgress) is decidedly leftist, but they’re a good go-to for policy issues.

1 Like

Folks, it’s not that Google is lobbying to deny climate change, it’s that Google is giving money to politicians to do what Google wants.

Did all of you miss that? This article could have been written with a focus on any number of conservative causes. Conservatives are pro-big-business in the sense that they deregulate, remove taxes, and bust unions. THAT is why Google is lobbying them

The down side for Google of course is that these groups are also anti-immigrant, anti LGBTQ rights, and pro-net regulation.

If we wanted them to stop, we could let Googles immigrant and LGBTQ employees know that their employer is funding people who want to choke back immigration and destroy civil rights.

I disagree. You’ll never convince a troll to change but the bad information they’re spewing needs to be countered. Not to educate the troll but to educate others. There are several views I held strongly when I was younger that I now hold an opposite view because someone bothered to counter the views of those I use to believe to be true. It wasn’t an overnight thing but when there was an a constant stream of various views easily available, I was able to read them all and decide for myself. Allowing trolls to crowd out the discussion space with their rubbish means many who are silently reading only will get one side of the story. Trolls are unpleasant and quite often don’t even believe whatever it is they’re screaming but as long as they’re doing it, it’s important for their made up or cherry picked garbage be countered with well thought out and researched facts. It’s an exhausting process because making up garbage is easy while researching facts is time consuming but that doesn’t make it any less necessary.

1 Like

Has anyone posted the Vostok ice core sample data yet? You know, as in the results which show huge fluctuations in global CO2 levels AND corresponding temperature variations from 150,000 then 250,000, then 350,000 years ago. Which kind of man was resposible for those…HMMM?

Nobody has brought them up here, but they have been mentioned on the internet many, many times. Generally they’ve been cited as good evidence for the link between carbon dioxide and temperature - just like climate scientists predicted!

On the other hand the existence of natural changes, the very largest of which are drops of about 100 ppm over the course of tens of thousands of years, does not speak much to the origin of the current rise, which is surpassing that in maybe 1-2% the time. Anyone who proposes it can be accounted for by variations as seen in Vostok is either ignorant of the vast difference in scale, or hoping their audience is.

By the way, are you going to comment on your nonsense here, or are you hoping we’ve forgotten? Because it’s only been a day.

2 Likes

As seen here, both sides seem to be selective on what data they present and how, which leads me to distrust either of them.

It’s funny you should say that. I’m only selective in that I reject studies (or interpretations of studies) that have been roundly disproven as industry-sponsored half-truths that rely on selective, cherry-picked data to push an industry agenda.

You may have missed this post I made on the rise in sea levels that a ridiculous denier keeps trying to say is “lies”, etc. You know how I found those charts? I simply searched scientific charts and pulled up what most of the entire world is recording along with general, scientific consensus based upon proper research. I didn’t seek out a single website and it’s not some selective, fringe science I had to dig up just to prove my point.

On the other hand, If you want to find truly selective data, type in crazy-pants things like “sea levels hoax” and shit. There you’ll be “taught the controversy” with selective (as in cherry-picked) data, half-truths and fringe “studies” that are rejected trash. They simply lie and say they’re peer-reviewed when they’re not. There is not a single, properly widespread peer-reviewed study that rejects 97% of climate scientists. If your mission is to truly look at the science, then you can’t possibly ignore that.

I assume you’re not anti-evolution. (if you are, stop reading here, and let’s just agree to disagree, thx)

How did you come to find that evolution is valid science without removing some religion-sponsored, half-truths and fringe “studies” from your final conclusion? Do you think public schools should “teach the controversy” based upon roundly disproven myths or should we focus on actual science? There is not a single, properly widespread peer-reviewed study that rejects evolution. If your mission is to truly look at the science, then you can’t possibly ignore that.

I guess I am just not convinced that the changes seen and predicted aren’t “normal”.

You don’t have to be. It’s time you refer to true experts in their field who aren’t just studying climate science part-time, but are dedicated scientists.

97% of actual climate scientists agree (which is an incredible amount) that climate change is real and that it’s very likely due to human activities. What valid research have you done or found that rejects what the vast majority a climate scientists have determined that isn’t cherry-picked rubbish?

If you do more research you’ll find that the overwhelming majority of those that are deniers tend to be anything but climate scientists. This video below is humorous, but it represents a lot of the frustration that actual climate scientists are having with all the anti-science dolts that are rejecting their consensus for no other reason than that they’ve been “taught the controversy” by industry-sponsored, libertarian “think tanks” that have little or nothing to do with actual science and more to do with propaganda.

I commend you for taking some classes, but until you become an actual climate scientist I hope you learn that good science is also based upon being humble and listening to those who know more than you. That’s not me or anyone else, it’s the world’s climate scientists.

It’s the height of arrogance and ignorance to ignore them and think you know better without doing equally rigorious and truly peer reviewed studies to back you up. I encourage you to question any science and start your own studies to disprove them if you can, but posting conjecture that they’re wrong without backing yourself up without rigorous studies and becoming an solid, seasoned expert in the field is ignorant and disrespectful to those that do.

If you’ve got valid data that turns upside down what 97% of the world’s climate scientists are studying, then you need to come forward with that data and get it peer-reviewed by said scientists. Sorry, that’s how science works. Otherwise, you’re off to a really rough start on getting educated on climate science and climate change as it applies to our modern world with our human activities.

3 Likes

This term “denialist” needs to be abandoned by climate science journalists. It bears no meaning when the models are under-performing. If you are a fan of science, then you should respect somebody’s – even an organization’s – right to disagree with a model that is not working so great. If you don’t see that the models aren’t working so great, then good arguments can be made that you are not listening to the critics. Critics serve an important role in our society; there is no sense to simply ignoring them.

It’s important for people to realize that “thinking like a scientist” is no longer just a collection of methodologies and values. Ideology is now an important aspect of education. You don’t agree with climate change theory? It’s going to be a hell of a lot harder to get a PhD, to begin with. Soooooooo … What does this say about the meaning of consensus? Is consensus something that simply emerges independently in the minds of each scientist? Or, is it an artifact of the university system itself? Jeff Schmidt seems to answer this question in his important critique of our PhD system, Disciplined Minds.

[quote=“chenille, post:78, topic:9709”]By the way, are you going to comment on your nonsense <a href=“Google’s lobbyists go big on climate change denial, raise money for Inhofe & Competitive Enterprise Insitute”>here</a>, or are you hoping we’ve forgotten? Because it’s only been a day.
[/quote]

No because my being wrong makes you look better, doesn’t it? (don’t mention it!)

But I will clarify - I don’t dispute fluctuations in: temperature; CO2 levels; ice growth and melts. These things have been happening for millenia - ergo, man cannot be responsible.

If you think that you have used logic in the statement “These things have been happening for millenia - ergo, man cannot be responsible” then you are truly a fool. The millenias old events are coupled with massive CO2 spikes, albeit from natural occurences such as volcanic activity and perhaps asteroid strikes. No human involvement, true. The 20th and 21st centuries, however, are puncutated by massive CO2 spikes that are industry driven. See how that works? Stop being a shill. Greener polices and industries do nothing to hurt, they only benefit the planet. Not Big Oil, but then they are already in an end game, hence the ridiculous fracking we are witnessing.

3 Likes

[quote=“creesto, post:82, topic:9709, full:true”]
If you think that you have used logic in the statement “These things have been happening for millenia - ergo, man cannot be responsible” then you are truly a fool. The millenias old events are coupled with massive CO2 spikes, albeit from natural occurences such as volcanic activity and perhaps asteroid strikes. No human involvement, true.[/quote]

I think you’ve just shot yourself in the foot.

As far as fracking goes, I was wondering how long it would take someone like you to raise it. Bingo!

What does this say about the meaning of consensus? Is consensus something that simply emerges independently in the minds of each scientist? Or, is it an artifact of the university system itself?

I’m sure it’s a bit of both and that’s why you don’t take seriously many scientists until their research has been rigorously peer-reviewed by a large number of other scientists so that a cog in their research can be found. If studies hold up after proper peer-review then we can make a reasonable assumption that the studies have value and can be used as precedent. That’s also very much how open source software works and that’s why openness and transparency is the best disinfectant to institutionalized decision-making.

That’s why climate scientists are continuing to study climate change. They all haven’t stopped and said it’s all settled and they know exactly how climate change is going to specifically affect the weather, sea levels, droughts, ice melt, etc.

The lie that climate change/impact deniers often propagate is that climate scientists refuse to even discuss climate change and global warning from a critical point of view anymore when that’s the furthest from the truth. There is ongoing, widespread research from climate scientists all over the world to continue to study climate change and bring new models forward for peer review.

On the other hand, you have fringe elements that manufacture consensus by positing fake peer-review and if they conduct real science they lose their funding from industry. Have you considered that’s what Jeff Schmidt is also warning about? That if scientists don’t tow the industry line, they can get rejected? These industry-sponsored “think tanks” thrive on being closed and having a lack of transparency. Why would you give these people equal credence to 97% of the world’s climate scientists who mostly work in the open with full transparency and proper “open source” peer review?

It’s a great way to muddle the waters instead of focusing on real science, that’s for sure.

This term “denialist” needs to be abandoned by climate science journalists. It bears no meaning when the models are under-performing.

Models always under-perform. There’s no such thing as exact science especially when dealing with something as vastly complex as climate science.

To start a semantic debate on what to call people who reject scientific consensus is useless. For example, there are studies that say that hurricanes may be pushed further east away from the East Coast due to climate change’s effects on the jet stream. No one is saying that’s climate change/impact denial, it’s the study of climate science and scientists are looking into it now (as they should).

On the other hand, the ones called climate change/impact deniers are typically people that aren’t climate scientists and they’re sponsored directly or indirectly by industry and their “studies” don’t hold up to true peer review so they (or their handlers) attempt to manufacture consent with “think tanks” that have very little to do with actual science and everything to do with a political and industrial agendas.

It’s important for people to realize that “thinking like a scientist” is no longer just a collection of methodologies and values. Ideology is now an important aspect of education.

You know what’s vastly better than “thinking like a climate scientist” and focusing on ideology? It’s being a climate scientist, rejecting ideology and focusing on true, properly peer-reviewed studies so we all can get somewhere instead of spinning our wheels in industry FUD.

What do you propose is better than peer-reviewing each other? Just taking each other’s conjecture on things and calling that science?

2 Likes

[quote=“synthnseq, post:81, topic:9709”]
No because my being wrong makes you look better, doesn’t it? (don’t mention it!)
But I will clarify - I don’t dispute fluctuations in: temperature; CO2 levels; ice growth and melts. These things have been happening for millenia - ergo, man cannot be responsible.[/quote]
Holding you to your misrepresentations isn’t some kind of cheap shot to make myself look good, the way you’re trying to paint it. It’s to discourage that sort of dishonesty, or at least make it clear it won’t get you anywhere.

It looks like that lesson hasn’t sunk in yet. I just finished noting how anyone who proposes what we’re seeing today is comparable to the variations as seen in Vostok “is either ignorant of the vast difference in scale, or hoping their audience is”. And you’re still trying to pretend the one, which everyone agrees is natural, is just like the other, a rise nearly two orders of magnitude faster than the largest falls? Not impressed.

2 Likes

‘Dishonesty’…‘lessons’…‘ignorant’…‘confusion’…‘misrepresentations’.

There is no confusion.

Global temperatures have been fluctuating since waay before man walked the earth.

They will continue to do so long after we’ve gone.

You can support your argument with as many barbed comments you can muster but the fact that things don’t stay the same can’t be attributed to man.