Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Google Goes Off the Climate Change Deep End
Townhall.com ^ | December 26, 2014 | Paul Driessen

Posted on 12/26/2014 7:45:49 AM PST by Kaslin

Editor's note: This article was co-authored by Chris Skates.

In a recent interview with National Public Radio host Diane Rehm, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt said his company “has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring, and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. We should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.”

While he didn’t vilify us by name, Mr. Schmidt was certainly targeting us, the climate scientists who collect and summarize thousands of articles for the NIPCC’s Climate Change Reconsidered reports, the hundreds who participate in Heartland Institute climate conferences, and the 31,487 US scientists who have signed the Oregon Petition, attesting that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are causing catastrophic warming or climate disruption.

All of us are firm skeptics of claims that humans are causing catastrophic global warming and climate change. We are not climate change “deniers.” We know Earth’s climate and weather are constantly in flux, undergoing recurrent fluctuations that range from flood and drought cycles to periods of low or intense hurricane and tornado activity, to the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) and Little Ice Age (1350-1850) – and even to Pleistocene glaciers that repeatedly buried continents under a mile of ice.

What we deny is the notion that humans can prevent these fluctuations, by ending fossil fuel use and emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, which plays only an insignificant role in climate change.

The real deniers are people who think our climate was and should remain static and unchanging, such as 1900-1970, supposedly – during which time Earth actually warmed and then cooled, endured the Dust Bowl, and experienced periods of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes.

The real deniers refuse to recognize that natural forces dictate weather and climate events. They deny that computer model predictions are completely at odds with real world events, that there has been no warming since 1995, and that several recent winters have been among the coldest in centuries in the United Kingdom and continental Europe, despite steadily rising CO2 levels. They refuse to acknowledge that, as of December 25, it’s been 3,347 days since a Category 3-5 hurricane hit the US mainland; this is by far the longest such stretch since record-keeping began in 1900, if not since the American Civil War.

Worst of all, they deny that their “solutions” hurt our children and grandchildren, by driving up energy prices, threatening electricity reliability, thwarting job creation, and limiting economic growth in poor nations to what can be sustained via expensive wind, solar, biofuel and geothermal energy. Google’s corporate motto is “Don’t be evil.” From our perspective, perpetuating poverty, misery, disease and premature death in poor African and Asian countries – in the name or preventing climate change – is evil.

It is truly disturbing that Mr. Schmidt could make a statement so thoroughly flawed in its basic premise. He runs a multi-billion dollar company that uses vast quantities of electricity to disseminate information throughout the world. Perhaps he should speak out on issues he actually understands. Perhaps he would be willing to debate us or Roy Spencer, David Legates, Pat Michaels and other climate experts.

Setting aside the irrational loyalty of alarmists like Schmidt to a failed “dangerous manmade climate change” hypothesis, equally disturbing is the money wasted because of it. Consider an article written for the Institute of Electric and Electronic Engineers’ summit website by Google engineers Ross Koningstein and David Fork, who worked on Google’s “RE<C” renewable energy initiative.

Beginning in 2007, they say, “Google committed significant resources to tackle the world’s climate and energy problems. A few of these efforts proved very successful: Google deployed some of the most energy efficient data centers in the world, purchased large amounts of renewable energy, and offset what remained of its carbon footprint.”

It’s wonderful that the company improved the energy efficiency of its power-hungry data centers. But the project spent untold millions of dollars and countless man hours. To what actual benefits? To address precisely what climate and energy problems? And how exactly did Google offset its carbon footprint? By buying “carbon credits” from outfits like the New Forests Company, which drove impoverished Ugandan villagers out of their homes, set fire to their houses and burned a young boy to death?

What if, as skeptics like us posit and actual evidence reflects, man-made climate change is not in fact occurring? That would mean there is no threat to humans or our planet, and lowering Google’s CO2 footprint would bring no benefits. In fact, it would keep poor nations poverty stricken and deprived of modern technologies – and thus unable to adapt to climate change. Imagine what Google could have accomplished if its resources had been channeled to solving actual problems with actual solutions!

In 2011, the company decided its RE<C project would not meet its goals. Google shut it down. In their article, Koningstein and Fork admit that the real result of all of their costly research was to reach the following conclusion: “green energy is simply not economically, viable and resources that we as a society waste in trying to make it so would be better used to improve the efficiencies in established energy technologies like coal.”

Skeptics like us reached that conclusion long ago. It is the primary reason for our impassioned pleas that that the United States and other developed nations stop making energy policy decisions based on the flawed climate change hypothesis. However, the article’s most breathtaking statement was this:

“Climate scientists have definitively shown that the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere poses a looming danger.... A 2008 paper by James Hansen, former director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies… showed the true gravity of the situation. In it, Hansen set out to determine what level of atmospheric CO2 society should aim for ‘if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.’ His climate models showed that exceeding 350 parts per million CO2 in the atmosphere would likely have catastrophic effects. We’ve already blown past that limit. Right now, environmental monitoring shows concentrations around 400 ppm.…”

We would never presume to question the sincerity, intellect, dedication or talent of these two authors. However, this statement presents a stunning failure in applying Aristotelian logic. Even a quick reading would make the following logical conclusions instantly obvious:

1. Hansen theorized that 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 would have catastrophic results.

2. CO2 did indeed reach, and then exceed, this level by a significant amount.

3. There were no consequences, much less catastrophic results, as our earlier points make clear.

4. Therefore, real-world evidence clearly demonstrates that Hansen’s hypothesis is wrong.

This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century. But the Google team has failed to apply it. Instead, they resorted to repeating the “slash fossil fuel use or Earth and humanity are doomed” tautology, without regard for logic or facts – while Mr. Schmidt impugned our intelligence, character and ethics as CAGW skeptics.

We enthusiastically support Eric Schmidt’s admonition that our nation base its policy decisions on facts, even when those facts do not support an apocalyptic environmental worldview. We also support President Obama’s advice that people should not “engage in self-censorship,” because of bullying or “because they don’t want to offend the sensibilities of someone whose sensibilities probably need to be offended.”

In fact, we will keep speaking out, regardless of what Messsrs. Schmidt, Hansen and Obama might say.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: climatechange; globalwarminghoax; google
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last
To: left that other site

Yes, and it will get children’s attention when they have a cool label for the phrases in question.


61 posted on 12/26/2014 3:59:09 PM PST by Tax-chick (Our God is King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

Indeed! :-)


62 posted on 12/26/2014 4:06:16 PM PST by left that other site (You shall know the Truth, and The Truth Shall Set You Free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Blennos

“So, Bro, how do you define a person’s “intelligence?” Do you measure it by whether or not their solutions actually work in the real world or just by how much they agree with YOU?”


63 posted on 12/26/2014 5:27:28 PM PST by coydog (Time to feed the pigs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The single blessing of the wretched Obuma era is that the traitors are crawling out from under their rocks and publicly making themselves known.

There must be an American-style Nuremburg trial to rid ourselves of these neo-fascists.


64 posted on 12/26/2014 7:13:08 PM PST by sergeantdave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Dear Google,

Your solution to climate change involves changing the climate.

65 posted on 12/26/2014 10:30:59 PM PST by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It’s hilarious when the head of Google, the engine of information, gets on the air and mindlessly repeats dumb downed talking points.

Oh the irony!


66 posted on 12/27/2014 10:19:23 PM PST by JPJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: biff
How can people so smart in puter crap are so ignorant when it comes to scientific data that really matters?

Pagan causes are their religion and hence are not guided to truth by the Holy Spirit.

67 posted on 12/27/2014 10:30:23 PM PST by steve86 (Prophecies of Maelmhaedhoc OÂ’Morgair (Latin form: Malachy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Omniscient Certitude
Barney Frank is liberal and smart, (sounds smart anyway).

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

68 posted on 12/27/2014 10:34:55 PM PST by steve86 (Prophecies of Maelmhaedhoc OÂ’Morgair (Latin form: Malachy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Why would you intentionally take something out of the context of my comment? Perhaps you do not comprehend?


69 posted on 12/27/2014 10:54:57 PM PST by Omniscient Certitude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Omniscient Certitude

Whether your brother said it or anyone else I do not understand how any intelligent person could perceive Bathhouse Barney as “sounding smart”. Some kind of East Coast accent thing?


70 posted on 12/27/2014 11:02:02 PM PST by steve86 (Prophecies of Maelmhaedhoc OÂ’Morgair (Latin form: Malachy))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-70 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson