Google, which has an office in Cambridge, has a company motto of “don’t be evil.” But it recently hosted a big money fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate’s climate science denier-in-chief. Watch Andy Cobb take a look at how that might affect Google’s search performance, then tell Google to stop funding evil:
Please share widely!
Why on earth does Google care about Mr. Inhofe?
This is absurd.
With all due respect to john Roberts, he is clearly full of shit. Google is admitting they don’t care about the candidates stances on anything, other than keeping some federal funds flowing to their coffers. They are basically saying ‘we give money to both sides to talk out of both sides of their mouths so long as they pay us back’. They are admitting its organized bribery, not free speech.
The day Google incorporated in Wilmington was the day it choose the evil path as far as I’m concerned. Another reason this generations Atari Democrats like Obama are stupid to choose tech over labor as its primary constituency, they are a transparently self-serving industry. They also love Orrin Hatch for selling his vote on immigration reform for a sweet industry targeted STEM rapid VISA provision. If only Mexican-American crop pickers could afford world class lobbyists they might not be separated from their families waiting in orange jumpsuits with actual criminals for their hearing date…
I was surprised by that, to be perfectly honest. Anyone else bothered by the term “stop funding evil”? Or did I misunderstand something?
Totally Bat-Shit Crazy! Or how about dumb as a bag a doorknobs.
Jim Inhofe compares those who believe in climate change to the Third Reich. 97 percent of climate scientists believe in global warming yet the great majority of the public still has doubts because of people like Inhofe.
Inhofe chairs the Senate Environmental Committee yet works to undermine federal protections for the environment. The questions I sometimes ask politicians who don’t have an issue page on this subject are, “What do you believe in when it comes to the environment? Do you believe our air and water merit protection? How do we do this?” The dumb looks on their face is priceless.
How about you Dan? What environmental issues concern you?
The scientists I know object to the word “believe” for pretty much anything they do. I do not “believe” that 2+2 is four, it just is. In fact, a major purpose of science is to remove belief — along with as many other biases as possible — from whatever is being asserted or investigated.
Virtually every credentialed climate scientist agrees that the science supporting anthropogenic global warming is compelling — if anything, the public summaries (like those of the IPCC) understate the extent of the phenomena because they are intentionally conservative.
Similarly, virtually every biologist agrees that Darwin’s theory evolution is accurate and sound. That theory plays a similar role in biology to the role played by Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity.
Mr. Inhofe argues against both the theory of climate change and evolution. His public posture bases his objection to both in his religion — many of us suspect that his private motivation for denying AGW is more venal.
I have no clue about the state of Mr. Inhofe’s personal relationship with “good” and “evil”. I think the thread-starter quite accurately describes Mr. Inhofe’s long history of words and actions regarding climate change as “evil”. He has bankrolled Marc Morano, one of the most despicable liars the dark world of politics has ever known, for years. Mr. Inhofe has intentionally spread lies, distortions, and confusion about climate change for a decade.
Fund-raising for Mr. Inhofe is, unquestionably, evil. Google should be ashamed of itself.
Note to the editors — the “Preview” function has been broken in Firefox for several days now, going on a week.
I think it is OK to ask if someone believes air and water merit protection, should we make that a priority, and what is the best way to do that. My objection is to the question, “Do you believe in climate change?” for the reasons you state.
I forwarded your note to our technical wizards.
Whenever anyone asks me whether I believe in Evolution, even progressive friends, I shock them by saying no. Then I qualify, ‘evolution is a proven fact, it’s not a belief”. Ditto climate change. Ditto the Earth being round rather than flat.
…which is every bit as much of a theory as evolution is. I like to ask wingnuts if they’re willing to step off the roof of the building’s roof, since gravity is “only a theory”.
…gravity is a law rather than a theory.
There’s both a law of gravitation that describes exactly the interaction between two point masses, and a theory of gravitation that attempts to explain why that interaction occurs.
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law
The compelling science that Mr. Inhofe rejects is as solid as the law and theory of gravitation. Talking about “belief” when discussing AGW is like talking about “belief” when discussing gravity.
Increased atmospheric CO2 causes surface temperature to rise. If that were not the case, the Earth would never have been more than frozen ball of ice. That effect has been known for more than a century. After being described empirically by Arrhenius 1896, it rederived using the principles of quantum mechanics.
The fact that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human activity is demonstrated by, among other things, examining the distribution of the various carbon isotopes in air samples. Those isotopes demonstrate that the extra CO2 is anthropogenic.
If Mr. Inhofe and the deniers are right, then virtually ALL of modern physics is wrong. Since airplanes stay in the air, electronics continue to work, cameras continue to take pictures, then the science that supports the theory and fact of AGW is solid.
The position taken by deniers like Mr. Inhofe and the GOP is insane lunacy. It is, literally, delusional.
The purposes to which Mr. Inhofe puts his insane delusions are evil.