back to article Google scientists rebel over company's support for 'climate-hoax' Senator

In 2011 Google appointed 21 Google Science Communication Fellows (GSCF) – academics representing the cream of US climate-change science – and tasked them with exploring new ways of communicating the issue to the public. On Thursday, 17 of the GSCF did just that, and called out Google for its own failings in an open letter. This …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Such is the price of food...

I applaud all who stand up for truth, and especially against corporations like Google who have become parodies of their founders' original ideals. "Don't Be Evil" has been a laugh since Brin and Page sold out to Wall Street.

13
8
Facepalm

Re: Such is the price of food...

"I applaud all who stand up for truth"

So, you'll be applauding Inhofe, then.

5
27
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: Such is the price of food...

"So, you'll be applauding Inhofe, then."

erm - isn't he the one denying the overwhelming observable evidence for climate change? I must have missed the truth bit in there...

9
6
Silver badge

Re: Such is the price of food...

It would seem he is ignoring it in favour of a bible quote.

The question is not so much, is our climate changing, but are we causing or affecting the change. It has changed in the past, it would be foolish to believe it will not change in the future. There is a valid question over us influencing a very complicated system, but a quote from the bible must be the purest definition of faith, and even less reliable than a purely statistical model.

4
0
Thumb Down

Another one sided article

We have a choice - fight the natural tide of global warming by destroying our economies or rationally spend some money figuring out how to live in a warmer world. Green house gases are an unproven source of global warming although they probably exacerbate the natural processes. Computer models are guides, not proof.

For those who think man made green house gases are the ONLY reason for global warming, please explain why the glaciers that covered Canada and the northern US 15,000 years ago have melted. Climate change is a natural process for many reasons and trying to fight nature is always a losing proposition. Charles Darwin might say Adapt or Die.

Unfortunately, the alleged Climate Scientists cannot perform controlled experiments with climate as medical scientists can perform double blind medical experiments. Without experimental proof, they have only theory. The climate long range projections are subject to insufficient and imperfect data, a mass of assumptions that may not be correct or are numerically wrong, and the biases, some financially induced, that are embedded into the computer programs. The Climategate email revelations and subsequent whitewash "investigation" did enormous damage to the credibility of any "climate scientist".

25
32

Re: Another one sided article

Another sceptic who's copying and pasting from the WUWT crib sheet.

23
13
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another one sided article

Sorry todisagree TAT.

A sceptic is someone who examines all available evidence before reaching a decision.

A denier is someone who doesn't.

20
2

Re: Another one sided article

You're right AC, I meant to put "sceptic" in quotes.

5
4

What about the comet impact at the end?

Are you saying the meteor/comet impact didn't change things?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1843831/posts

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Another one sided article

"You're right AC, I meant to put "sceptic" in quotes."

You do mean "septic", eh...?

1
2
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: Another one sided article

"Green house gases are an unproven source of global warming "

erm - no - we know they cause global warming with 100% certainty. The only question is the relative degree...

"please explain why the glaciers that covered Canada and the northern US 15,000 years ago have melted"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

8
2
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Another one sided article

In the specific case of Senator Inhofe it hardly matters whether man-made climate change is real or not. Sen Ihhofe thinks man-made climate change does not exist because it says so in the bible.

Therefore he is automatically wrong, whatever the truth about climate change is.

13
1
Alert

Re: Another one sided article

Apparently you missed the announcement from NASA stating that CO2 in the atmosphere is REFLECTING solar radiation back into space or that their instrumentation has confirmed that every planet in our system has had an increase in temperature. "100% certainty" is held mostly by those who will profit from "carbon tax credits"; you know, the same ones who promote wars against things (war on drugs) or concepts (war on terror). Its important to be a skeptic when the people in charge are septic. Just sayin.......

2
0

Good for them

Saying that Inhofe's "position is part of a deliberate strategy to promote dysfunction and paralysis" is a polite description of a politician who's a paid lobbyist for the US oil and coal industries.

25
7
Bronze badge

Re: Good for them

Oh, those industries have already their hands in the "green" pie, elbow-deep. It is a big business these days.

5
3

Re: Good for them

I read that at an AGW denier blog as well, so it must be true.

3
5
Bronze badge

Re: Good for them

Well, there are different styles of doing business.

One is the brand-oriented, ivory-tower-style vertical business. Sometimes with a cult following. Like Apple. Other is more pragmatic - whatever brings the money in. Lots of different brands, lots of related companies. Big international conglomerates.

Now which way is more suitable for the energy business?

1
2
Silver badge

Re: Now which way is more suitable for the energy business?

Neither.

Given the regulator environment for energy companies the only option is to be as aggressively political as your opponents. The Greens decided oil was bad long before they took the name "Greens" and have politicized and demonized the oil companies ever since. AWG is just their latest fad in that defamation. The disadvantage for the oil companies is that in addition to buying Congresscritters the way the Greens do, they also have to make a profit and pay their shareholders.

2
2
Silver badge

Re: Good for them

@TAT,

IF you are refering to his campaign donations then yes, he gets plenty of money from oil and gas. Check back for previous 2 year cycles and oil and gas is at the top each and every time. He is bought and sold, not that he is any different to most of them. That is the world we live in.

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00005582

0
0

God?

Did that dude really say that God will sort out global warming? I'm sure that'll happen considering the track record God has on sorting out all the other issues that plague (no pun intended) the planet!

Ohh lightening.

30
3
Bronze badge

Re: God?

He sort of did, he's fucking nuts. If you read it again, he's actually stating god controls our immediate weather. So we now know 2 things...

1. Every time a bell rings, an angel gets its' wings.

2. Every time it rains, god cries on you.

7
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: God?

I thought the weirdest thing was the whole "Its a UN commie pinko conspiracy!" line. There seems to be a startling number of people in the US who believe that the UN is some kind of sinister world government and that its only a matter of time before they invade the land of the free and take away everyone's guns and give them social healthcare or something.

I don't really understand where this idea came from, especially the notion that the UN could be this organised and effective. Anyone care to enlighten me?

8
1

Re: God?

"2. Every time it rains, god cries on you."

That's not tears...

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Anyone care to enlighten me?

Sure. The definitive work is probably:

http://www.amazon.com/Witness-Whittaker-Chambers/dp/0895267896/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1375444318&sr=1-3&keywords=Witness

Although given your comment, I'm doubtful you'd even pirate a copy for you Kindle.

0
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: God?

It's the far right/conspiracy crowd. They believe the UN is a front for the Illuminati/Jews. Here, enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAVj_GxBR_A

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Can someone explain the origin of Inhofe's viewpoint. is it because:

1) his religious convictions which mean that possible climate disasters do not tally with his covenant with God

2) nationalist values which see a global community threatening to limit the USA's control over its own energy policy

3) a large brown envelope stuffed with cash

4) whichever of the first three is expedient at the time.

23
3
Silver badge
Meh

Inhofe being a US american politician... All of the Above, most likely. Like TV evangelicists, they tend to be most...pragmatic when it comes to their special brand of proselitising.

16
1
Silver badge

Worse than that, he is uneducated, stupid and religious where the lethal thing is being all of that at the same time. The fact that a person like him is also a US Senator does not surprise me any more and that makes me sad. Perhaps he believes the world is now some 5000 years old too. The fact that "Google scientist rebel" Is fine.

13
2
Gold badge
Unhappy

@Grikath

"All of the Above, most likely. "

Inhofe has my vote.

For Swivel Eyed Loon of the year (so far).

BTW Isn't "OK" Oaklahoma, part of "Tornado Alley" ?

No signs of extreme weather events there?

2
2
FAIL

The concept of "evangelicists" "proselitising" might be a very interesting one, if perchance "Grikath" were to define the meaning of the said words.

0
0
Silver badge

> "In 2002, I was alone in exposing the global-warming hysteria as a hoax," he writes, saying that the climate debate stems from the United Nations' wish to establish control over what kind of energy sources the US can use, and to "redistribute wealth."

OK, so I was warming (not globally) to this guy's opinions, until we got to:

> In Genesis 8:22, God promised "as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night," he quoted.

And then he lost me.

11
3

Glaciers come, glaciers go, the climate changes

A while back I was looking at the emissions of Washington state, and Mt. St. Helens was spewing just as much as the state's combined industrial emissions. 1 volcano = all of the state's industrial output. The Seattle Times ran a diagram of glacier melt on Mt. Ranier. Did you know that glacier has been receding since the late 1800s? There was a recent report about earthquakes causing methane to be released from the ocean floor. Plus the methane from ant farts.

And we're supposed to believe that switching to CFL/LED lighting is going to keep the oceans rising ten feet?

We live in an industrialized society. If you want to see us go without industry, then the solar flare from two weeks ago would have done it. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2382527/A-near-miss-Earth-Devastating-electromagnetic-pulses-knocked-power-cars-phones-occured-weeks-ago.html) And from what I've read, even a total shutdown of industry wouldn't have stopped "climate change."

7
21
Facepalm

Re: Glaciers come, glaciers go, the climate changes

Not that I'm going to get into it with you but the following sentence is idiotic:

'The Seattle Times ran a diagram of glacier melt on Mt. Ranier. Did you know that glacier has been receding since the late 1800s?'

Care to tell me when the Industrial Revolution started?

11
5
Bronze badge
Facepalm

Re: Glaciers come, glaciers go, the climate changes

murph, the IPCC says that human-caused greenhouse emissions only really started measurably affecting the global temp in the 2nd half of the 20th century, so for IPCC purposes, the Industrial Revolution started in 1950. Unless I miss my guess, that's well after the 1890s.

However, don't give up yet! The IPCC can't explain why global temps are essentially unchanged over the past 15 years, so they might also be wrong about the "no effect until 1950s" bit.

7
9
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: Glaciers come, glaciers go, the climate changes

"The IPCC can't explain why global temps are essentially unchanged over the past 15 years"

Surface temperatures haven't changed much - but the oceans are still measurably warming....

3
3
WTF?

Re: Glaciers come, glaciers go, the climate changes

Let's see; during the same time as the eruption of Krakatoa? You know, the one that effected weather for the ENTIRE PLANET! [Ice cores are used to obtain a high resolution record of recent glaciation. It confirms the chronology of the marine isotopic stages. Ice core data shows that the last 400,000 years have consisted of short interglacials (10,000 to 30,000 years) about as warm as the present alternated with much longer (70,000 to 90,000 years) glacials substantially colder than present. The new EPICA Antarctic ice core has revealed that between 400,000 and 780,000 years ago, interglacials occupied a considerably larger proportion of each glacial/interglacial cycle, but were not as warm as subsequent interglacial s.] I guess its a good thing mankind dates back almost a million years [sarcasm] or we might never have thawed out, since only HUMANKIND is responsible for global warming. Or is every other interglacial warming period an anomaly to be disregarded?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Although it's not what I think he really believes that God bothering nonsense is fucking madness, isn't it? The fact that dangerous fundamentalist nonsense not only exists but thrives in the US government in the 21st Century is insane.

The US has some nerve preaching to Pakistan and India about 'fundamentalists in control of Nukes' when they have these kind of 'God told me to do it' nutjobs in their Senate.

30
4
Silver badge
Meh

Well, God did tell Bush MkII to invade Iraq. Seeing as how that didn't work out so well I wonder if they're praying to the wrong god?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

11
2
Gold badge
Unhappy

"dangerous fundamentalist nonsense.." ".. US government in the 21st Century is insane."

Not all the fundamentalists are in Tehran.

Something to keep in mind.

4
1
Paris Hilton

It's nothing to do with

fucking, as far as I can see.

Paris, because she knows that.

0
2

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Unbelievable

There are STILL supposedly intelligent people who accept the distractions put out by oil/coal companies (e.g. UN lunacy, pet psychologists expressing doubt about the overwhelming consensus amongst those who study the topic, East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, invalid models, research grants, cost of windmills, volcanos, etc etc etc)?

There's still not one published peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt on anthropomorphic climate change.

BTW, who would get a better pay-off, a research scientist supporting the currently accepted knowledge or a research climatologist handing a piece of research that goes against that knowledge to (e.g.) the Koch brothers?

10
9
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Unbelievable, indeed!

Of course there's no paper, peer-reviewed or not, that "...casts doubt on *anthropomorphic* climate change.".

That's to be expected, because "anthropomorphic" means "resembling or made to resemble a human form."

Perhaps some additional years of schooling might put you into form to be able to intelligently comment on the climate debate?

3
10
Anonymous Coward

Re: Unbelievable, indeed!

Yes I made a mistake by typing 'anthropomorphic' instead of 'anthropogenic' when mentioning the lack of evidence to support the deniers.

See what I mean about distractions?

13
2
Silver badge

Re: Unbelievable

> There's still not one published peer-reviewed paper that casts doubt on anthropomorphic climate change.

Do you think anyone would publish it in the current "climate"?

Do you think anyone would be able to get any kind of funding to produce such a paper?

I think not.

The "evidence" (I mean real evidence) is tenuous at best and anyway the onus is on the sky's falling down brigade to prove significant anthropogenic warming anyway.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and I 'aint seen anything coming close yet.,

6
12
Silver badge
Holmes

Re: Unbelievable

Do you think anyone would be able to get any kind of funding to produce such a paper?

Sure. Any "scientist" willing to shill for the deniers can start their search for sympathetic funders here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector

6
5
Yag
Facepalm

@Steve Knox

<Any "scientist" willing to shill for the deniers can start their search for sympathetic funders here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial#Private_sector>

Here we go again. Any scientist trying to disprove the current scientific concensus is not a real scientist but only a sellout to the Big Bad Industry.

Still less ludicrous than quoting the Bible to deny climate change however.

I'm wondering if climate change is triggered by all the hot air around those silly debates.

2
5
Bronze badge
Trollface

Re: anthropomorphic

> "... Perhaps some additional years of schooling might put you into form to be able to intelligently comment on the climate debate?"

Bravo!

Given your previous contribution, you're the leading contender for today's ironically-self-unaware prize.

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: @Steve Knox

@Yag

I put "scientist" in quotes because skelband was talking about getting funding to produce a paper with a predetermined conclusion. That is not science. In science, you don't know the answer before your do the work, and you get your funding to do the work, not after the work is done.

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums