Google Calls Climate Change Science Deniers Liars

Status
Not open for further replies.

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Google says climate change science deniers are "just literally lying" and the search giant is no longer funding them. Wait. What? Here's the explanation for funding them in the first place:

Schmidt responded, “we funded them as part of a political campaign for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that was sort of a mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
 
Ironic that engineers toe the consensus is science line. There have been enough scandals about fraudulent data to make any sane person ask more questions. Consensus is not science. Bill Nye saying the earth is warming is about as useful as me saying that some malware is outdated. I know nothing about malware, and Nye is a mechanical engineer/tv host not a climatologist.
 
Nye is a mechanical engineer/tv host not a climatologist.

Whats funny is that not even climatologist's can come to even a close conclusion with eachother about climate science. Their findings are all over the map, and a lot of time politically motivated.
 
What's ironic is when people listen to some "random" vs people that have gone through a full higher education in one of the more strict disciplines.
 
Deniers, liars, people who should be locked up. They're not even human. Let's just call them "inferior" and ship them off to the camps.
 
Global warming (I mean climate change) is a religion, and all deniers must be punished.

We are now going on 15 years without any measurable increase in temperatures, even though CO2 levels have increased at a slightly faster rate than the climate models. These models are inconsistent with the actual data, and in any other scientific arena they would have been dismissed as failures.

Yet, in spite of the data, the believers still insist the models (CO2=warming) are correct, and we are destroying our children’s future.

The real problem is that their “solutions” to global warming are more destructive to the middle class and our children’s future than any actual climate change would ever be.
 
Whats funny is that not even climatologist's can come to even a close conclusion with eachother about climate science. Their findings are all over the map, and a lot of time politically motivated.

The science is settled. Science is over. Stop asking stupid questions. What, you think science is about asking questions? We have the answers. Shut up and accept them, denier.
 
Stiletto... indeed, we need a final solution to those that do not tow the line regarding global warming. Perhaps some work will set them free...
 
Whats funny is that not even climatologist's can come to even a close conclusion with eachother about climate science. Their findings are all over the map, and a lot of time politically motivated.

What's even funnier is that people who know absolutely fuckall about climate in general usually are the loudest ones arguing on either side.

Kind of a hierarchy what you should put a bit of faith into involving climate change if you don't know anything about climate change other than what you've read in the paper/news reports

-Climatologists (real ones, with degrees, who do field research drilling ice cores and other stuff like that.
-Scientists or those with a science back ground who actually know what shit means in a paper and don't scream "... but it's cold as shit!" every time they see something on climate change
-Science museum docents, sure they read from a script but they do it enough they at least tend to sound like they know what they're talking about
-10 year old kid who did report on science, political motivation is nonexistent here unless parents "helped" them.
-That guy screaming about the end of the world (if you live in a rural area you probably don't have one of these
-News reporters
-Spiritual advisers/Palm readers (Professionals only, make sure they have a proper license!)
-Tea leaves
-Politicians
 
i call google liars liars, keep hiding the decline...

see, it's no longer "global warming" cause that isn't true,
now it's climate change, .. fuck them, the climate changes all the time, nothing new there
 
of course the climate changes, but to say that our pollution is the prime mover behind it is wonky, how does one explain ice ages before humans existed and the "global warming" afterwards?
 
Whether there is climate change or not, you can't deny that humans disrupting the balance of the Earth with our activities.
 
All that crap we spew into the air has got to go somewhere. It doesn't just float off into space, yeah know.
 
For those of you in your 50s and 60s might remember the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70s. Global warming is the same shit different day. There is no money to be made if the sky isn't falling.
 
Ironic that engineers toe the consensus is science line.

But this is very much the scientific process. When many multiple independent parties doing research arrive at similar conclusions, that consensus is that constitutes scientific understanding of a subject.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of researchers in this area are seeing a number of rapid climate changes like higher sea levels, erosion of cost lines, acidifying of oceans etc. These things are happening with certainty and it's what's causing them that's the source of political, not so much scientific discord.

If we do nothing about carbon emissions and it remains a political issue, there's still the issue of climate change that will have to be dealt with in costal regions and considerations for how we build certain kinds of infrastructure. Then there is the longer term issue of resource depletion. We seem to ignore that the fossil fuels are finite. We've developed technology to allow us to extract them in exotic ways like deep sea drilling and fracking. But I would imagine that no one thinks its a good idea to be utterly dependent on fossil fuels until the wells literally run dry.

Humanity is going to have to develop cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy sources, one way or another. Fossil fuels cannot be our main energy source indefinitely. And it has ultimately nothing to do with climate change.
 
I dislike the whole climate change thing, if theres one thing i've noticed is that we have no fucking clue about anything. Even the government climate records were wrong until recently where they went back and corrected them and yet your going to tell me you have a computer model that predicts correctly when your start point was wrong? and you can't predict the current climate if you go back in time and apply the same model?

I'm not a climate change denier in the normal sense of things. I just happen to have noticed the proposed methods to "fix" the problem keep trying to use approach that has more to do with political power then fixing any problem. Its utterly ridiculous. Should be investing that time and effort into methods to actually solve the problem instead of raising even more taxes and giving people something to run on. The only possible option that works in the long term is to either a invent some technology that makes polluting technology obsolete or b. invent something that will literally remove the pollutants from the atmosphere. Everything else is an utter waste of time and about power.
 
For those of you in your 50s and 60s might remember the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70s. Global warming is the same shit different day. There is no money to be made if the sky isn't falling.

Dude, did you read The Population Bomb? Those were some scary famines that never happened. Ehrlich's gonna be right one of these days, though!
 
For those of you in your 50s and 60s might remember the Global Cooling hysteria of the 70s. Global warming is the same shit different day. There is no money to be made if the sky isn't falling.

I'm in my 40s and I remember that issue very well. I think the notion of what the problem though wasn't so much global cooling, it was particulate matter like sulfides leading to acid rain. What was different about this problem is that its effects were very visible and clear. And there was very little discord about what was causing the problem. And we stopped doing those things and pretty much solved the problem.
 
Good. Don't waste time with agenda-driven time wasters. Let the world go forward with science and leave the medieval bible huggers behind.
 
heartlesssun is correct on this one. The whole acid rain and the ozone hole thing were big problems back in the day, but the causes for them were clear and the actions to remedy them were also clear. This led to concrete action being taken, especially in regards to CFCs and the Ozone Hole, which is now starting to recover (it's gone past the "it's not getting any worse" stage to the "it's actually starting to shrink a little" stage).

This is in contrast to the current "Global Warming" or, to use the current buzzword "Climate Change" debate. Are humans affecting the climate? Certainly. But how much? *That* is the question I've never seen answered to my satisfaction. With all of the vague warnings, cautions, shotgunned predictions, and the like, I have no real confidence in what the GW activists say, though I do agree that we should take *practical* measures to reduce our footprint and not mess our own nest (that is, the planet). But the most obvious course of action -- population control -- is never seriously considered, so I don't see why I should be asked to seriously consider any of these more ridiculous suggestions like setting up a carbon exchange.

With the Ozone Hole, politics were used to enact clear, scientifically-sound solutions. That's not the case with the GW debate.
 
At some point climate change deniers just need to be ignored much like those that still believe the world is flat.
 
All that crap we spew into the air has got to go somewhere. It doesn't just float off into space, yeah know.

I hear you.....................but my questions are..............

How much CO2 and other greenhouse gasses (methane) etc do people actually put into the atmosphere?

As compared to natural greenhouse gas releases (volcanoes, methane seeps....moo cows< OK, semi natural on that one) what percentage are humans actually contributing, and is it enough to actually cause a noticeable change?

Is natural carbon scrubbing/elimination increasing on it's own in response to increased CO2 levels?

Solar cycles, and do these cycles have any significant impact on global temps?

I do believe that climate change is occurring. I just question causality, and degree/extent. It just seems to me that numbers are continually being revised as if the climate model, although progressing, is still not tweeked to the point where we can have absolute confidence in it. In retrospect, either the climate models themselves are off, or the scientists/researchers are inputting bogus/mistaken/incorrect data (GIGO).

Just an opinion, I could be wrong. IMHO, reducing our carbon/greenhouse gas emission is a good thing, so long as there is an economic balance.
 
Human stupidity is something to observe in shame and awe.
The science is there, to the extent we can do it.
The technology to potential catastrophe is there.
Yet, the human stupidity and profound disconnect leads people to argue the crap that is argued here.
Don't get me wrong, I understand the ones making money off getting all that CO2 released.. its the rest of the peons that I don't get.
Its such a profound disconnect.. listen, Earth will be there, for about 4 more billion years. Nature doesn't care, you are but a speck of dust.

In all, environmentalism amounts to is self-preservation.
I fail to see why is this so hard to understand to many.

And yes the soultion is in chaging our production methods and our energy conversion methods... Recycling and all that stuff is very small potatoes.
 
I'm in my 40s and I remember that issue very well. I think the notion of what the problem though wasn't so much global cooling, it was particulate matter like sulfides leading to acid rain. What was different about this problem is that its effects were very visible and clear. And there was very little discord about what was causing the problem. And we stopped doing those things and pretty much solved the problem.

I believe it was global cooling, green house gases, global warming and since none of those worked out it's climate change. Of course you can't argue with climate change be cause it's obvious the climate will change. Saying humans play a significant role is tantamount to lying since there's no way to gauge our effect or at least not yet. None of the climate models have panned out for scientists and add all the fraud and of course people will be skeptical. No rational human being wants to pollute the environment and everybody wants clean energy, but at a reasonable cost. We just don't want it forced down our throats where we have to pay a "carbon tax" etc etc etc. In my personal believe I think wind farms are the biggest pollution to our environment there is, not to mention all the birds they kill.
 
Climate change does kind of cover all bases... whether it gets colder or warmer, you're right! ;)

That said, I don't see why so much effort is invested in this regardless. Anything you do to minimize the release of known toxic pollutants that cause acid rain and smog and all that nasty stuff will invariably reduce the "carbon footprint" as a side effect.

We know about habitat destruction and the ever expanding human encroachment on nature disrupting ecosystems and reducing biodiversity... including biodiversity of our own crops thanks to Monsanto, why not tackle that?

We know that you can drastically reduce pollution, consumption, etc by simply having less children, and we recognize the problems and unsustainability of unchecked exponential human population growth, so why not tackle that?

There's so many concrete reasons to adopt conservationist policies, there's really no reason for all this speculative BS.

And that's one of the big differences IMO, is between conservationists and environmentalists. Conservationists understand the problems with overfishing and shitting where you eat etc. for the betterment of mankind and quality of life for future generations, whereas environmentalists often have their heads in the clouds trying to "save the planet", as if the planet were going somewhere.
 
Some of your guys are nuts. Regardless of your position on climate change, you must agree that pollution and environmental damage are bad things. We have one planet right now, and nothing else. If we poison this eden before we develop proper interstellar technology we are fucked.

The argument that "Earth is big, nothing humanity does will have much impact" is complete nonsense. There are billions of us swarming over the surface of this planet, using its resources and replicating. Not too long ago, it would be apt to describe humanity as a virus.

Sustainability and environmental protection are not mamby-pamby leftist nonsense. Yes, there are idiots who will bomb things to protect some ridiculous endangered turtle in a desert, so that solar panels can't be put there. But are we going to lump all conservation and sustainability efforts in with them?

Drop the fucking politics and think about our planet independently. It is critical to our future that everyone does this.
 
heartlesssun is correct on this one. The whole acid rain and the ozone hole thing were big problems back in the day, but the causes for them were clear and the actions to remedy them were also clear. This led to concrete action being taken, especially in regards to CFCs and the Ozone Hole, which is now starting to recover (it's gone past the "it's not getting any worse" stage to the "it's actually starting to shrink a little" stage).

This is in contrast to the current "Global Warming" or, to use the current buzzword "Climate Change" debate. Are humans affecting the climate? Certainly. But how much? *That* is the question I've never seen answered to my satisfaction. With all of the vague warnings, cautions, shotgunned predictions, and the like, I have no real confidence in what the GW activists say, though I do agree that we should take *practical* measures to reduce our footprint and not mess our own nest (that is, the planet). But the most obvious course of action -- population control -- is never seriously considered, so I don't see why I should be asked to seriously consider any of these more ridiculous suggestions like setting up a carbon exchange.

With the Ozone Hole, politics were used to enact clear, scientifically-sound solutions. That's not the case with the GW debate.

There wasn't much one could deny when dead marine was showing up across tons of lakes and streams. At this point, human made climate change due to CO2 emissions isn't up for debate, it's happening now. The questions are the extent and the pace of change that we're going experience. If the effects approach that of particulate pollution or worse, things will change, there won't be any choice. If they much more gradual effecting smaller and poorer populations then little will change.
 
Whether there is climate change or not, you can't deny that humans disrupting the balance of the Earth with our activities.

No, we are disrupting "our" future, we will be long gone before we "damage" the earth. Once humans are gone the Earth will go back to how it was, absorbing everything we created as if we were never here.
 
To me it seems quite likely that humans are having a large effect on the climate. What bothers me most about this topic though is that it seems largely placed upon the shoulders of the public to drive the change. What I mean, is the average every day citizen is essentially blamed to a large extent and expected to change. We are told to do all kinds of things to reduce our carbon footprint etc... yet the industries that are the ones REALLY polluting the planet are allowed to continue to do so.

You want me to pay more money for green products than non-green products? Fine, I will do so when all the industries that are polluting the shit out of this planet is forced to change first. Because even if all of us Joe's changed our ways, it'd have little effect. Its not worth it.
 
No, we are disrupting "our" future, we will be long gone before we "damage" the earth. Once humans are gone the Earth will go back to how it was, absorbing everything we created as if we were never here.

This is the typical "take what you can before it all burns down" perspective. Good for you. You are what is wrong with our view of our planet.

You don't wonder what's out there in the universe? You don't think we can make it out there and explore the galaxy? Nah, rip people off, break laws, stab people in the back, lie, cheat, steal, and get rich down in the mud while you can, right?
 
Even if climate change / global warming is 100% true and it's mostly a man-made problem, it doesn't do much good to restrict emissions or to tax the crap out of only the western countries and leave the other polluters free to continue on and expand. The US is still a huge polluter, but our emissions are going down, slowly, year after year. Other areas of the world are increasing their emissions output at such a fast rate that any additional saving made here would practically go unnoticed.

Businesses will either pass the cost of any new taxes / fees onto the consumer or they will move to a country that doesn't pay those taxes. Those costs will include increases in our food, gas and utilities (water and electricity). Those costs always hit the poorest portion of the population the hardest. There really isn't a good solution here unless you can get the ENTIRE world to agree to some sort of emissions standards.. and that will never happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top