Feeds

back to article Google's Schmidt calls climate-change deniers 'liars'

Google chairman Eric Schmidt has a low opinion of climate-change skeptics and global-warming deniers. "You can hold back knowledge, but you cannot prevent it from spreading," Schmidt told his audience at his company's "How Green Is the Internet? Summit" in Mountain View on Thursday. "You can lie about the effects of climate …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
Stop

What's his angle?

Could it be "put all your computing in our cloud, it's eco-friendly"? Probably. Someone tell Eric the problem is not denial of climate change, it's the FACT that there is no conclusive evidence that human acticity has fudge all to do with it. But if he wants to see a real liar, can I just say he is a very distinguished looking gent with an obvious and deep knowledge of climate science, and those glasses don't make him look like a cross between Himmler and a child molester.

17
22
Silver badge

Re: What's his angle?

"there is no conclusive evidence that human acticity has fudge all to do with it"

You are right, there is no CONCLUSIVE evidence (I guess that means 'proof'). But there sure is OVERWHELMING evidence.

31
27
Boffin

Re: What's his angle?

@MB sez ' ..it's the FACT that there is no conclusive evidence that human acticity has fudge all to do with it.'

OK, against my better instincts, I'll bite. Which one of these schoolboy physics facts (note that I don't shout) do you think is wrong :-

(a) Greenhouses trap heat

(b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas

(c) Human activity emits significant quantities of CO2

20
13
Bronze badge

Re: What's his angle?

The fact that the ocean's height hasn't changed in all the time the water level has been recorded shows where the evidence points.

Oh, and yes the research who found this out DID get fired. When there's billions of dollars out there looking only for in favour of global warming, guess what the only thing you find is?

11
17

This post has been deleted by its author

Re: What's his angle?

There's 1000x as much money involved in making greenhouse gases then there are in stopping people from making them. The economics argument never worked.

8
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's his angle?

@fb you're assuming that a rise in sea level is an inevitable outcome. It isn't.

Hint. If you want to assert that global warming will have no significant impact then I won't argue, but to assert it isn't happening requires you to deny basic physica.

4
3
Silver badge
Boffin

@Nicho: not so simple

The tricky part is showing how much the effect is. Otherwise, you can replace CO2 with methane, and blame it all on farting pigs. In fact, a common way to "buy carbon offsets" consists in trapping the farts of pigs.

3
0
Bronze badge

Re: What's his angle?

Clarify point (c) because if you are referring to human activity such as cars, etc then that's wrong seeing as the UN concluded that cattle produce more greenhouse gasses than all forms of transport combined. If you conclude that cattle raising is a human activity then its not wrong.

2
0
Silver badge
Meh

Re: But there sure is OVERWHELMING evidence.

Present it.

8
4
Silver badge
Meh

Re: What's his angle?

It does if you get paid to tell people to stop them. and then sit back and watch .

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Nicho: not so simple

There is a lot of methane trapped in the ice caps and they're melting. This is a lot more disastrous than CO2.

3
2
JC_
Bronze badge

@hplasm

Present it.

Look for it. The evidence for anthropogenic climate change is in every single relevant scientific journal; the overwhelming consensus of the scientists who study climate is that it's happening.

If you disagree, then the obligation is on you to show some evidence that makes your case credible, because it certainly isn't now.

8
10
Bronze badge

Re: @Nicho: not so simple

"trapping the farts of pigs"

Please explain how this actually works. All the methods I can think of are impractical, disgusting, immoral, or illegal. Most are all four.

1
0
FAIL

Re: What's his angle?

Let me get that for you.....

(a) Greenhouses trap heat and are a very poor model for the atmosphere

(b) CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas

(c) Human activity emits insignificant quantities of CO2

Eric talks about fact-checking whilst Al's mates peer-review each others papers. Beyond mirth.

7
7
Thumb Down

Re: @hplasm

One could equally say - look for the contra evidence. It's there, just not screaming "We are all going to die if you don't do what I tell you".

This overwhelming evidence bollox has to stop. Like the man said - present it.

8
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's his angle?

@mattevansc3 - you're right but the cattle produce mostly methane, not CO2. Still, I'll drop the word 'significant' if it bothers you. I don't believe it affects the argument. If the greenhouse effect is real then we are warming the planet. The open questions are:-

(A) should we be concerned (or does the planet deal with it at no cost)

(B) if we need to be concerned, can we do anything about it (or is our contribution to small to matter)

2
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: @hplasm

I make no case. You make a claim, the onus is on you to prove it.

2
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's his angle?

@mr nobody 1

(a) fair enough

(b) That's not what I asked - The question isn't one of degree but of kind

(c) are you sure? There's an awful lot more than there used to be so where's it coming from ?

0
1
JC_
Bronze badge

Re: @hplasm

This overwhelming evidence bollox has to stop. Like the man said - present it.

Okay, here you go:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

Now, for you deniers: put up or shut up.

7
6
Silver badge

Re: @hplasm

Here's a summary of the overwhelming evidence:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

3
5
Silver badge

Re: What's his angle?

"Human activity emits insignificant quantities of CO2"

Yeah right

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/image/9/1/carbon-variations.gif

3
5

Re: What's his angle?

@Nicho, They may be facts but taken by themselves or in combination they add up to diddy squat.

a) Greenhouses trap heat Agreed, so you are saying the earth is in a large glass sphere?

(b) CO2 is a greenhouse gas Yes, they use about 800 ppm in greenhouses to help the plants to grow. You did know it was a plant food didn't you? In fact the increase in CO2 is the driving force behind the greening of the deserts.

(c) Human activity emits significant quantities of CO2 Significant compared to what? One active volcano outputs more CO2 with one eruption than mankind has since the industrial revolution.

3
5
Silver badge

Re: What's his angle?

"One active volcano outputs more CO2 with one eruption than mankind has since the industrial revolution."

Wrong. Very wrong.

7
6

Re: @hplasm

@JC_ If you are referring to the now discredited Cook paper try reading http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to the scientists that published them/ you might learn something about how the church of warming tries to twist everything in their favour.

4
0

Re: @hplasm

"

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

"

They are spinning ... lying. The study actually found that 97% (of those who expressed any opinion) had an opinion that humans are to blame for SOME global warming. ***SOME*** COULD BE ANY TINY FRACTION.

3
2
Silver badge
Meh

Re: What's his angle? (@Mr.nobody 1)

"(c) Human activity emits insignificant quantities of CO2"

Given that in the last 50 years the atmospheric concentration has risen from ~300 PPM to ~400 PPM, I wouldn't call the amount of CO2 emitted by humans 'insignificant'

AGW Deniers seem to think that carbon sinks and forcing will keep global warming in check forever, but that is just wishful thinking. Even if the actual amount of atmospheric CO2 weren´t big enough to cause Global Warming, those 2 billion people that soon will reach First World CO2 (and methane) production levels will make things different, so Schmidt has a valid point.

"(b) CO2 is an insignificant greenhouse gas"

CH4 is a by-product of many human activities - e.g. cattle raising, mining, oil extraction, heavy industry... - and much of it is related to energy consumption, just like CO2. What's more, when CH4 burns or is dissociated by sunlight, it produces CO2, so both problems are related and and have the same solutions/workarounds.

There exist also several methane sinks, but when they fail they fail catastrophically, e.g. permafrost and methane hydrates (google 'Storegga' for more details).

4
3
Silver badge
Unhappy

Re: What's his angle?

Does it matter, we have polluted oceans and seas, and that can be easily proved. Global warming or not, due to us or something else, why should we not try to stop polluting the air too. We are so damned good at polluting, any normal person will have some one hundred chemicals in his blood because of us, and nobody else.

2
1

Re: What's his angle?

@Nicho

Okay, I'll bite:

C is wrong

Human activity accounts for @5.5% of CO2 emissions. However, this is not the issue: It's the increase in fossil fuel CO2 that is, and that's only a proportion of the 5.5%, and while it might be a significant proportion, and is on the increase, that does not mean that human activity overall is a significant contribution to CO2 emissions.

1
1

@JC_

From your own quote.

66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW

32.6% endorsed AGW

So do explain how 97.1% endorse humans are causing AGW?

Or is that 97.1% of the 32.6% in which case we're not looking at overwhelming evidence of AGW. Instead the overwhelming evidence is that science doesn't yet have a position (66.4%)

Or, to quote an aged saying: Lies, damn lies and statistics.

1
1

Re: What's his angle? (@Mr.nobody 1)

"Given that in the last 50 years the atmospheric concentration has risen from ~300 PPM to ~400 PPM, I wouldn't call the amount of CO2 emitted by humans 'insignificant'"

That is somewhat debatable. Records of atmospheric CO2 preindustrial revolution put CO2 at @400ppm. We are currently at 387ppm. Those initial readings were from scientists who were nobel prize winners, yet they have been ignored in the push to promote a sharp rise in CO2 since 1850. Indeed, most who wish to promote the increase claim CO2 stood at @290ppm in 1850.

1
3
Bronze badge

Re: What's his angle?

"The fact that the ocean's height hasn't changed in all the time the water level has been recorded shows where the evidence points."

There's archaeological evidence aplenty of flooded cities now underwater if a long enough period of measurement is considered. The historical evidence of inundations resulting from sea level rise after the last ice age includes the Atlantis and Noah flood legends. The evidence for ice ages also demonstrates massive potential for sea level rises and falls.

2
0
Thumb Down

Re: @hplasm

Cook's article , http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article , was almost instantly debunked by a number of the authors he classified as AGW supporters in it . See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/21/cooks-97-consensus-study-falsely-classifies-scientists-papers-according-to-the-scientists-that-published-them/ .

The quote from Cook's paper itself says of the papers examined only " 32.6% endorsed AGW" .

Schmidt needs to take a more skeptical look at his pals if he wants to see which side of the debate stinks with mediocrity , mud slinging and outright dishonesty .

2
1
FAIL

Re: What's his angle?

What's that got to do with the building block of life , CO2 ?

Focus , Lars , focus .

0
1

Re: What's his angle?

"...One active volcano outputs more CO2 with one eruption than mankind has since the industrial revolution,,,"

Complete and utter denierblog garbage. Just laughable nonsense as any ten year old could tell you.

Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than all the Earth's volcanos - both surface and subsea - combined.

Volcanos = on averge 300 million tons per annum

Humans = 35 BILLION tons per annum.

This is a simple observable measurable fact that anyone can look up in seconds.

This 'volcanos meme' is usefull for showing up the jaw-dropping ignorance and gullibility of some of the more extreme denialist cult devotees. It is so completely obvious that it is total junk that it hardly even merits a serious reply.

It orginates in Ian Plimers laughable 'book' (like a lot of the deniermyths' but even he doesn't say that. He was refering to the Siberian Traps volcanic event - the largest known volcanic event of the last 500 million years of Earth's geological history.

They continued for a MILLION years and spanned the Permian–Triassic boundary, about 251 to 250 million years ago.

That the denia machine have somehow managed to twist this even into the 'volcanos meme' is bad enough but the fact that there are a few mind-meltingly ill-informed bozos out there who not only fall for this junk but make idiots of themselves by repeating it - well - it's just shaming to the whole country.

At least get yourself familar with the absolute basics because as it stands your ignorance is an embarrasment even to the denial industry.

4
1
Paris Hilton

Re: What's his angle?

@ivan 4 - <sign> I knew it was a mistake to bite on this - for some reason it brings out the idiot in people.

OK for the record , no I do not think earth is in a big glass sphere.If it was the first sputnik would have showered us with broken glass - or bounced. You second point is irrelevant. CO2 is either a greenhouse gas or it isn't. That is a matter of basic physics and plants do not alter the answer. As to the third, significant means enough to have a measurable impact on the atmospheric concentration.

So if we can agree on the basic physics ( and yes, modelling the atmosphere as a greenhouse is simplistic and I'm quite open to an alternative - backed by facts and research if you please) then there can be no question that the planet is trapping more energy. All that is left is to argue whether there is any noticsble effect and if so, whether we can or should do anything about it.

Paris, because I should never have entered her either ..

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's his angle?

@patientone - why do you believe we should only count fossil fuels ? I can assure you that CO2 is magnificently fungible and doesn't care where it comes from.

For the record, if you're correct about the 5.5% then I'd agree that's not really significant. Got a reference to back that up?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: What's his angle?

@Nicho,

Ok, against my better instincts, I'll bite. Which one of the following schoolboy physics facts (note that I don't shout) do you think is wrong :-

(a) limestone traps the most carbon from the atmosphere, not trees or fossil fuels. limestone formation significantly increases during high carbon periods across geological time (note high carbon periods have repeatedly existed across geological time) providing significant negative feedback

(b) the biggest greenhouse gas is water vapour. water vapour is ridiculously hard to model because as clear vapour it is a greenhouse gas with a potency significantly higher than CO2, but as clouds it contributes to cooling. greenhouse forcing through CO2 is negligible against things like water vapour

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: @hplasm

Not the Famous 97% !

Apart from the outright lies and distortions in that paper, the faulty statistical treatment and the biased interpretations make that perhaps the most over-rated and deceitful "scientific" paper published since Nancy Oreskes was a girl.

You put up a complete dud my friend.

0
0

Re: What's his angle?

@Nocho

Fossil fuels keep coming up as the largest component of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, followed by deforestation. And cutting CO2 emissions from power generators and transport is supposedly the main way to meet our targets for reducing CO2 emissions.

Now, personally I think we should plant trees to replace those cut down, but that's as much to do with engineering as CO2. Trees are really important to the environment, and to engineering, so we really don't want to keep cutting them down else we'll see massive increases in flooding and droughts... oh, we are, aren't we... and we've been cutting down a lot of trees in those areas, too... ah, well, hopefully the survivors will learn.

As for the 5.5% - that's the figure I see quoted most often when I read up into what we're producing and what impact we're having. So, have you considered looking it up yourself?

Seriously, that's all I did: I took some time to do some research to find out what I didn't know. And to check up what I thought I knew. You just have to be careful and double check figures, which is a pain, but the internet is there to help you after all.

0
0

Cuts both ways, Schmidt.

"You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you'll be seen as a liar."

The angry watermelons and angsty chicken-licken hippies ought to take note.

9
6

Re: Cuts both ways, Schmidt.

"Angry Watermelons"? Weren't they a ska band out of Bristol in the late 70s?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Cuts both ways, Schmidt.

watermelons is a label that became popular among climate deniers. I am sure most of them don't even realize its racist roots.

2
8
Thumb Down

Re: Cuts both ways, Schmidt.

Watermelons are green on the outside red on the inside. That's a political metaphor. Radical marxists in green clothing. There's no insinuation of race in that statement.

The usage of lefty-whine touchstones, a glib association of 'deniers' with 'racists' paints a very clear picture of your shallow hate-thought - as ever, this subject brings the green ideologue bile to the surface.

Dontcha just hate it when rightfully held alternative opinion, science and fact gets in the way of agenda and diktat comrade?

4
0
Flame

Climate change deniers

"Your plane has only 10% chance of crashing.

Have a nice flight!

In the mean time I hope my CO2 rich stock shares go up."

It it the good old: "Après moi, le déluge".

4
5
Anonymous Coward

Whether Google's Schmidt really believes this or not....

...There's sure to be a Google Business plan and Data Collection angle. Whether its from monitoring and compiling map data. To Google Probes in the wild sending back data to feed the G monster....

5
0
Silver badge

Re: Whether Google's Schmidt really believes this or not....

Perhaps Google can predict the climate by analysing search results. Hey, don't knock it. With market stats all you need is a buyer.

0
0
Silver badge

Open letter to Eric Schmidt

You can lie about the effects of privacy invasion, but eventually you'll be seen as a liar. In your case Eric, that was months ago.

9
1
Happy

Climate Blame was Liberalism's Iraq War and Science gave us Pesticides dont' forget.

Get up to date:

*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by politicians."

I’d say stop scaring our kids but even they are laughing and the only crisis you remaining believers have to fear is how your grandkids will explain how you threw them under the bus at the grunt of a headline.

Science agrees climate change itself is; “real and happening” but only COULD be a crisis. If they can’t say it WILL be a catastrophic crisis after 28 years then it’s just proof it won’t be a catastrophic crisis.

They can’t say their comet hit of a climate change crisis is as real as they love to say comet hits are.

"Former" climate blame believers are better planet lovers, we don't fear monger our own kids just to make sure they stay environmentally aware and turn the lights out more often. Now who's the neocon again here? Did bush utter CO2 death threats to my kids?

7
3
Pint

The Sky is Warming!

There's really little doubt Earth has warmed somewhat -- as it did during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Cretan warm period ...

There's even a possibility humans may have a hand in it.

But whence the tooth-gritting, neck-tensing insistence that this will be a catastrophe? The Middle Ages were a happier place before the Little Ice Age settled in, and the Holocene Climatic Optimum was even better -- and warmer. The Sahara was green. We're a lot cooler now, and I see no reason a bit warmer world would be a bad thing.

18
12

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.