Slashdot Mirror
Google Raises Campaign Funds For Climate Change Denier
HonorPoncaCityDotCom writes "Alex Altman reports at Time Magazine that Google recently hosted a fundraiser for Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, one of the Senate's most conservative Republicans and a staunch opponent of EPA regulations. Inhofe authored a treatise called 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future,' thinks the Bible disproves global warming, and once denounced the 'arrogance' of scientists who suggest that 'we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.' What prompted Google to host a fund raiser where attendees shelled out up to $2,500 for lunch with Inhofe? A data center that Google operates in Pryor, Oklahoma. 'Google runs a significant operation that provides around 100 jobs,' says Rusty Appleton, Inhofe's campaign manager. 'The Senator had an opportunity to tour the facilities in May of last year, and is committed to ensuring that Oklahoma remains a great place to do business.' A Google spokesperson says the company regularly hosts fundraisers for candidates of all stripes, even when Google disagrees with some of their policies — as it does with Inhofe on climate change. This explanation didn't wash with the activists outside Google's D.C. headquarters near K Street. "
Corporation places self-interest over popular hot-button issue. Stay tuned for more.
Company acts in own self-interest, news at 11.
The climate is piddly.
Humans have changed the rotational speed of the earth:
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/03/news/dams-for-water-supply-are-altering-earth-s-orbit-expert-says.html
...is starting to either redefine "evil" or "don't"... Haven't figured out which yet...
I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this seems to head a little out of the norm.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
...up until that point in which it becomes advantageous to do evil.
and don't try to hide it by doing a doodle of flowers growing.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Buying congress makes sense. If they're outspokenly against you, when you buy them, they stop doing that. It'll be fun to see if this congressman does a 180 once Google's money is up his sock hole, and starts spouting Google's corporate values as his new platform.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
manufacturers of iOS devices, Android devices, Windows Phone devices, even Blackberries that still exist in the wild all do at least some of their manufacturing in China, where labor and environmental abuses are not just a daily occurrence but an accepted part of "doing business."
calling one side hypocritical is naïve, flame baiting, and ultimately pointless.
And you think Apple and Microsoft are any less evil?? How many wind and solar farms are they bankrolling? What kind of phone are YOU using, hypocrite?
I have two words for you -- bribery and extortion. It's how politics work in the US.
Free Martian Whores!
A Google spokesperson says the company regularly hosts fundraisers for candidates of all stripes, even when Google disagrees with some of their policies â" as it does with Inhofe on climate change. This explanation didn't wash with the activists outside Google's D.C. headquarters near K Street.
Why would that explanation lack credibility? It sounds a lot more forthright than I would expect. Let's frame it a little differently and I think it will ring quite true:
"Google doesn't care about the policies of the politicians it supports, or whether those policies harm the nation, the planet, or the American people. Google will happily help channel money to any politician who can help us pay a little less taxes to maintain the system we benefit from, or who can influence laws so that we are not held responsible for our stalking or the government stalking we facilitate. Oligarchy rules!"
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
This pretty much solves that whole iOS v. Android question that many have. If someone ever tells me that Climate Change exists with their Android device in hand, now I can call them a hypocrite.
No you can't. It's a phone, not a carte blanche agreement with whatever google does.
For that matter, it sucks how most manufacturing companies don't hire much US labor. 100 employees here and there just doesn't instill confidence.
PS: I don't reply to ACs.
Q: How do you change the world?
A: With money.
Q: How do you get more money?
A: Make sure you have influence with those in power.
Q: What do you when you have enough money?
A: Anything you want, including discarding the trash you used to get to the top.
Q: Isn't that dishonest?
A: This is business, not kindergarten.
Wars are won one battle at a time. You must choose how to win each battle if you ever hope to prevail in the war.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I don't believe in global warming, so I do not care what kind of phone I use.
sudo make me a sandwich
When Google lobbies one right winger, it's news to Slashdot? Is anyone here aware that his views are shared with a significant portion of the population? This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
He's probably wrong about Global Warming, I'll grant that. But I daydream about one day when the coin is flipped and Google's lobbying of a left winger (who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier) is shocking news.
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
Bah. I'm pretty sure that Apple also buys senators of every kind (just like every big company in the U.S.) The data is mostly public. I can't think of any company that pays only senators of a certain conviction.
...From an analytics company? Surely a company full of computer scientists and mathematicians understand that you can't ignore the last 12 years of readings, then scream about the apocalypse. When current data is included, we see that global warming fits more with the model of natural ebb and tide of temperatures, rather than a one way ticket to hell.
Stop blindly ingesting bro-science.
Can you say it any plainer, that large companies have to do favors for politicians to make sure the state remains a "friendly place to do business".
Is this any plainer than politicians shaking down business for bribes? Or is google doing something even more shady that they need his silence on?
some really creepy quid pro quo here, blatantly obvious quid pro quo.
Can we keep this political shit-throwing off slashdot, please?
Nice to get that cleared up.
I can think of some
Between his campaign and the main super PAC supporting him, Restore Our Future, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has received $9.6 million in contributions from the oil and gas industry. In contrast, President Obama has received about five percent of that total, or just under $500,000 from oil and gas donors
... whatever
When someone thinks a book written by people can refute data, their can be no discussion.
Who do we contact at google to bitch about this?
My guess is the bible also says it's your right to transfer your patents to Ireland so you can squirrel away your money without paying US Corporate Taxes. Do no evil meets the bottom line.
What about round earth?
Or the earth being very old?
Fun fact, reality does not care if you believe in it or not.
Maybe they're taken an idea from their Energy conservation efforts, and are now Net Zero Evil? Do a little good when the light is shining on them, and then spread a little evil when it's dark?
As long as it all evens out, they're ok with it.
Even worse is the contradiction between his denial of Global Warming and his stated position of "stronger national defense". The Pentagon acknowledges that Climate Change poses threats to national defense as an "accelerant of instability and conflict."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
Google is a big corporation. As such they are going to hold varying views and will play both sides (if you actually consider there to be only two) of the political fence. This is business as usual.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Buying the good graces of a member of congress is a good investment. Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee more corruptible. Even if you're not evil, the purchase of congressional support means that they tend to watch your back when they're screwing the little guy. It's just good business.
One thing I don't get about Inhofe and the other climate change deniers is this: why say the hoax is costing you millions when the hoax could just as easily be a business opportunity. I mean, real or not, it just means an opportunity for companies to cash in on environmental friendliness, sell people cures (whether they need them or not), etc. Even if you suppose Inhofe is receiving carnal pleasures from the petrochemical industry in exchange for his obedience, those same companies could turn around and make megabucks on carbon sequestration schemes, higher-priced fuel formulations that reduce emissions 1-2%, etc. People already swimming in cash are in a unique position to jump on opportunities of this sort. Hell, Exxon and GM ought to be able to get huge grants for "research" in making more carbon-neutral petro-fueled vehicles -- we're talking free money!
That's the problem with corrupt politicians these days... They miss the bigger money-grubbing picture.
Accepted? hmmm... I think it is more like encouraged.
Good point. I should, of course, have said: I can't think of any company that buys senators of only one conviction except when that conviction is to further said company's interests.
That's okay. Global Warming believes in you.
Inhofe sounds like a bit of a nut, but for me it's not about the science. I think the science of global warming is pretty well understood. But when it comes to political policy, the science of global warming is only ever used to promote thinly veiled marxism and anti-business, and even anti-human policies. If the global warming crowd ever got behind nuclear power, or ever admitted that technology is quickly erasing polution in our day, or ever even showed a small amount of restraint in the demand for all countries to cede large swaths sovereignty for the sake of cutting carbon emissions, I'd be a little less inclined to dismiss the rest of the agenda.
I guess you could say I'm a climate change believer and a marxism denier. The two don't have to go together, they just alway seem to in the current political climate. So even though Inhofe may be a cook, that doesn't mean that his policy prefferences won't be better than the alternative. And even though some other politician may be very bright, that doesn't mean that the marxist policies he/she promotes in the name of science/global warming wouldn't be very damaging. (And yes, I do mean more damaging than the pro-growth alternative.)
When your argument contains a logical fallacy, it's time to consider the possibility that you're on the wrong side of the truth.
The world needs more people on both sides of every argument pointing out these kinds of reasoning flaws.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Most of the GOP claims those values, but I notice none of them oppose the TSA, NSA, war on drugs, or restrictions on abortions. None seem to support free trade when it comes to people who can't afford their prescriptions wanting to buy from Canada.
I don't believe in gravity, so I do not care how hard I'll hit the pavement when I jump off this building.
I am officially gone from
yeah, because that has a lot to do with their focus which is getting support with their data center plans. yeah, that must be it.
the amount of this article that has to do with android is somewhere around 0%.
If you want to know that Global Warming is real, simply look at the main goal of every Geo-Engineering project running. "control weather and cool planet". Never mind the part where the metals they are using cause more harm than good and don't work like they think they do.. those people are idiots and truly believe that they are always right. Point is, if there is no Global Warming why are they dumping aluminum and barium particles in the air?
To continue the global warming debate is useless! I have pointed this out before. Global Warming is absolutely the wrong argument. The argument should be about having unsustainable economies based on pollution! Before you say "but but oil" remember that Oil is finite! Instead of caring about how much we have for plastics and other purposes in the future, we are pumping and dumping everything we can so that a very select few people make bazillions! And before you claim there is lots of oil, go check facts. Tar sands and deep ocean drilling are the only prospects on the horizon. These are both extremely expensive methods of extraction and extremely dangerous methods of extraction.
I probably would not care so much what these massive corporations did, if they actually worked for the greater good they claim to work for. They don't, and more and more it has become obvious that the only thing they look out for is their own wallets and safety. Yes, they don't give 2 rat turds about your safety or wallet.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
And you think Apple and Microsoft are any less evil?? How many wind and solar farms are they bankrolling? What kind of phone are YOU using, hypocrite?
I have two words for you -- bribery and extortion. It's how politics work in the US.
To be fair, neither of the companies you cited actually have (had?) the mandate "Do No Evil" plastered next to their names. It's pretty ballsy to come out with that statement and yet then crap like this, especially when they just shrug their shoulders and say "um, yea, dude gives us tax breaks" when you call them on it.
Can't say I disagree about the rest, though. Corporations hijacked American democracy decades ago, everything they do is just smoke and mirrors to hide their unabashed self-interest.
-------
"Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something." ... Man In Black
I tried not believing in gravity, but it only made me lightheaded.
What google means is this republican gets a hard-on for big business and will help their bottom line so they're willing to put their supposed beliefs to the side because what good is a clean environment if they're sitting on an even bigger pile of cash.
Ok here is the lowdown!
Everyone has their good and bad parts about them. It is not productive to ignore and not work with people just because of their bad points. It is productive to work with these people because of their good points.
If you fully agree with everything the Republican or Democratic party says, then you are most likely a mindless shill who really should get out of politics because you are too stupid. You will tend to use most of your mental skills, trying to justify any inconsistencies in ideologies. Most likely you are not running for office, and you do not have anything at stake for not being Conservative or Liberal enough.
If you are going to protest google, protest the policy/ideology/action that google does that you do not like. Not the fact they worked with a politician that you wouldn't vote for, because they liked something unrelated to the policy you're fighting against.
Unless you are actually opposed to a Datacenter in Oklahoma.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
'we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.'
Well, I guess he completely forgot about Chlorofluorocarbons and how their creation and use by us created the Antarctic ozone hole?
So, for anyone who insists and can't fathom that our actions could possibly have an effect on something as large as the atmosphere, All they need to do is set their Wayback Machine to 1985, when this was discovered and reported in 1985.
How can people's memories be so short?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Apple: http://gigaom.com/2012/09/13/behold-apples-massive-solar-farm-from-the-sky-photos/
MS: Nothing (Quick Google search)
The only convictions corporations have are the ones that show up on their criminal record.
I am officially gone from
the company has a huge impact on our daily lives. This isn't some manufacturer no one ever heard off outside of small town USA. This company is intertwined into our daily lives and its in our interest to know about their ethics and political support/interference.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Even if you start with the assumption that what we call the Bible today is the divinely inspired word of God, where on earth does that disprove global warming?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Corporations are not people, so they have no convictions of any kind whatsoever.
Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
Flamebait story titles are highly correlated with non-productive comment sections to a degree such that the click revenue from my views won't increase beyond this point. I wonder how many others behave similarly.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I used to believe in gravity, then I tripped up the stairs.
Um.... Inhofe is an idiot and Google obviously has another objective with this.... of course, if the EPA didn't exist, the entire state of OK could be one gigantor-sized server farm, thus removing all peoples from it's lands. That'd be fine with me - they're stuck in 1974 mentality in many way and that'd make Google happy, and Inhofe would see that as a sign from God (more likely than not) Amazing garbage society the politicians are making everything - including those that in fact, DO know what they're talking about
Well, it is very much possible for someone to called Google and said the equivalent of, "you got a nice search engine there. It would be a shame if some of the laws should change you know". Given the past reputation of Inhofe and Google, I would not put it past the senator.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Don't get me wrong, I think Larry and Sergey most likely founded Google with some good moral character in mind, but lets be real. In the end, they have shareholders and investors just like any other corporation. If they have a crappy Quarter, or Earnings tank, the investors, shareholders and Stock starts to tank. This costs them money. The focus becomes money and not so much the good moral character anymore. "Do not evil" becomes "Sorta don't do mafia evil and tell mom to stop using our stuff now". To stay afloat and remain relevant, Google needs the same kind of sleazy relationships as any other global corporation.
It's a sad fact of life folks, but until you stop eating their dog food, they're going to find ways to keep making it. And make it better, cheaper and faster than their competition.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
And you think Apple and Microsoft are any less evil?? How many wind and solar farms [mercurynews.com] are they bankrolling?
Plenty. Try googling it.
http://www.google.com/search?q=apple+solar+farms
Ha, corporations get to settle their criminal cases.
To be a successful corporation in today's Amehrica, you cannot just spend all your time and money on a single party. You have to buy members of both parties in order to maintain your cozy relationship with the federal bureaucrats.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I don't believe in global warming, so I do not care what kind of phone I use.
Shut up, already. It's SCIENCE!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You'd rather see some kid starve to death than give up any of your possessions? What kind of an asshole are you?
We should be able to moderate the story submitters in the same manner we moderate posts. Because this is Flamebait -1. Hell, the phrase "Climate Change Denier" is in the title itself. We're one step away from Godwinn'ing the submission itself: "[person I hate] is just like Hitler, receives funding from [some other schmuck]".
The kind of asshole who still owns something.
I don't see how it is evil to raise money for the campaign of a politician that helps you. I see how it *can* be evil, if the thing he/she is helping you to do is evil, or if the politician is evil.
I don't think being a climate change denier makes a person evil. It probably makes them stupid. But in all honesty, how many politicians are *not* stupid? What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.
In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative?
Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?
Only allow donations from certain people (e.g. non evil people without agendas)?
If we are going to step outside the world we live in when we start labeling people evil, I am going to say that anyone who doesn't donate 100% of their profits to charity is evil, and therefore 99.9999% of Americans are evil, including google. Every dinner out, or new phone is a wasted opportunity to save a child or children in Africa. Every item of luxury that you enjoy is at the expense of someone else's necessities going unfulfilled.
We can either go through life constantly plagued with guilt even if we do our best, because it's never good enough, or we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die, and simply refuse to accept 100% complete responsibility for every bad thing that happens to someone else.
I kinda sucks, but I would rather enjoy my life.
So, if the senator believes that we are arrogant to believe that humans can effect climate change, and the God is doing it all by Himself, doesn't that imply that God is not exactly nice? That He's earnestly trying to make our lives difficult? Maybe that He's one inimical being bent on destroying us?
Excuse me, time to go worship at the temple of Yog-Sothoth.
--- The American Way of Life is not a birthright. Hell, it's not even sustainable.
The real hypocricy is US looking down on China for this, while being the biggest contributor to that pollution.
I like the idea Ross Jackson has suggested in Occupy World Street that we should measure country's pollution not by the amount directly produced, but by the amount coused by *consumption*. I.e. if you live in US and have a phone made in Chine, the pollution caused by manufacturing that phone should count against US, not China.
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Climate change also affects rotational speed, because it would move water in the form of ice on mountaintops down to sea level.
Hey don't blame me, IANAB
Ha, corporations get to settle their criminal cases.
And individuals get plea bargains. Same difference really, just the available penalties for corporate infringement are more limited.
Plea bargins are convictions. Settlements specifically exclude acceptance of guilt.
Inhofe . . . once denounced the 'arrogance' of scientists who suggest that 'we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate.'
Note to self: do not ask Sen. Inhofe to house-sit.
I am not a crackpot.
Apple's bankrolling Solar Farms, too. In fact, they say their data centres run on 100% renewable energy at this point.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-21/apple-says-data-centers-now-use-100-renewable-energy.html
So I don't know about Apple being less evil, per se, but I don't think you've got any room to look down your nose at them here.
The 13th century would like their news back.
"Heretic, burn them!"
So much for freedom of thought.
We're pretty much back to: Follow our religion or we will crucify you the best we can.
Nice to know some things never change.
-Styopa
Is that sort of like a 9-11 truther?
Either way Both 9-11 was an inside job, and Global warming is NOT CAUSED BY MAN and IS NOT REAL
Yes the senator is a imaginative fairy god douche but But even Nasa Will agree with me about climate change as of 2 months ago
Look up the Rothchild's and the carbon credit economy. These carbon credits area a robber baron's dream! On a commercial level certainly. But the real goal here is residential. They want to charge you personally for your carbon footprint - ie how much carbon you get off in the atmosphere you will pay for. If everyone in the world paid this tax it would make bankers SUPER RICHER. By enforcing a culture of fear about climate change, it makes people panic with lies and ultimately give up their rights in exchange for security yet again..
Talk about a fucking flame-bait title and article. And I could give a shit less about Google as a company.
I am so disappointed that people are now talking about religion-blind bribes as though they're evil.
Let's say you're in a third world country, and a "your papers please" official hassles you over something that doesn't make sense, but then explains that your problem can be taken care of for a small fee.
Do you ask him what crazy religious beliefs he has, as a condition for paying the bribe? "Sure, this $20 might find itself into your pocket ... if you can tell me a little about, oh, I don't know, say .. THETANS!" (As you blurt out the last word, transfix him with your gaze and watch to see if he winces.)
Of course not. And what if Google did that? You'd accuse them of religious discrimination.
Google: "Do you believe that evidence reveals properties of nature to us?"
Politician: "Of course. Are you telling me there are people who thi--"
Google: "Evidencist!! No money for you, Mister Science!"
And before you say we shouldn't have bribes at all, I should remind you than nearly 100% of voters always vote for one of the top two best-funded candidates in any race. I take that as meaning we've agreed that it's very important to us, that we only allow people in government if they have proven themselves adept at shakedowns. So, c'mon dudes, you're not telling me that 100% of The People are evil are you? Google's just doing what all Americans want them to have to do.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What a pity, because not only do quite a few deserve convictions but at least a handful should have executions as well.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
If someone ever tells me that Climate Change exists with their Android device in hand, now I can call them a hypocrite.
I think you have a much stronger case for calling them a hypocrite based on whether they drive a car or don't donate money to some group fighting climate change, or contact their reps about capping carbon emissions, but you go ahead and channel your rage into whatever idiotic direction you want.
I'm done being invested in anything climate change / global warming related. We had the global cooling in the 70's / global warming / now in the last few months there have been several reports of global cooling now: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n12/full/nclimate1589.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/ http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130503/alaskans-alarmed-russian-specter-global-cooling Backed up by the NASA chart: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GISSTemperature/giss_temperature2.php So now we are at Climate Change/Global Warming/Global Cooling. Anyway you look at it man is far too myopic to be objective on this. We have what 50 years of really good temperature data? 150 years of historical data (of varying quality)? For a planet that is 4.5 billion years old? Besides shouldn't we be in global warming anyway if we are still in an ice age? Flame away...
I also realize that the fucking Sun has much more effect on the climate than we ever will.
True, if there were no Sun, the temperature would be roughly 2.7 Kelvin. Right now it's 86 degrees Fahrenheit where I live, or 303.15 Kelvins, so about a 11,228% increase for where I live, at the moment. So yeah, humans have come up with no feasible method of heating up our own entire planet by that amount without using nearby star undergoing nuclear fusion. If that's how you want to look at it.
Most people are fucking retarded when it comes to climate.
Again, totally true. For example, if someone were to think a valid point to make in a climate debate was that the Sun is affecting our climate more than humans. Problem is, the Sun has reached a relatively static heat output for the functional purpose of generating and sustaining life. That is, temperature hasn't changed rapidly enough within the lifespan of any species to fundamentally alter their environment in a way that the species could not adapt through the natural course of evolution. The last Ice Age was over a period of 100,000 years, plenty of time for most species to adapt. But now we're talking about global warming, on a scale that can be felt within someone's lifetime. Earth's ecosystems have been fine tuned to a temperature equilibrium that is changing faster than they can adapt. And the Sun, of all things, is cooling, so we know (for a plethora of other reasons, too) it's man-made.
Doesn't matter if he's evil or not. The results of his beliefs and actions are what matters.
I consider all climate change data, even the unpopular data showing the earth has been cooling the past decade even though carbon emissions are at the highest ever!
LOLZ
The top 10 warmest years on record are all within the last 15 years, with all but 1 of those happening in the last 10 years. It's true we've had an extended La Niña for a few years (except 2010, the hottest year ever recorded) that caused some leveling off (not cooling), but it's leveling off at a very high temperature historically and shows signs of shooting back up to correct when the La Niña ends. So please be careful about what "data" you "consider" and that you're not suffering from confirmation bias.
E pluribus unum
from "Do no evil" to "We do less evil than everyone else".
ahem, as if the US was not an as big pig when it comes to output of greenhouse gasses.
Shut up, already. It's SCIENCE!
Not that I say it's not science, your argument is very weak. Just because you (for that matter anyone else) says it's science, doesn't make it true. For more than a century, lot's of people (including scientists) argued communism stuff is scientific. But you know what happened at the end. So I suggest you bring some better arguments.
What are the results of his beliefs and actions?
Is it wrong to support someone who has a net negative effect, or is it wrong to support someone who does anything bad?
What other qualities might cause someone supporting them to be evil?
not supporting gay marriage? not supporting drug prohibition? supporting drug prohibition? Supporting the wars? Supporting Edward Snowden? Not supporting Edward Snowden? Believeing that 80% of the people on earth are going to hell? Believing that bible is wrong about who goes to hell?
How do you even know what the net effect of someone's actions are? This is one of the main problems with pure utilitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Predicting_consequences
How can people's memories be so short?
Not short, just selective.
Don't get mad when a corporation supports someone you don't agree with... get mad whenever a corporation supports ANYONE. By only getting mad when corporations support asshats like Inhofe, you are implicitly saying you are okay with the premise of money and corporate influence in politics.
This shit is bribery and crony capitalism, and should not be stood for no matter which politician is on the receiving end, asshat or not.
In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative? Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?
Yes, and it's not a radical approach either. It's pretty close to what the People's Republic of Arizona had before the Supreme Court decided that bribery = speech. It's also used in many other countries. Representative government is supposed to depend on the votes of its citizens, 1 person = 1 vote, not $1M = 1 vote. The fact that the best system in the country was adopted by one of the reddest states shows that this is not a left vs. right issue, but a question of whether you believe in representative government or in plutocracy.
honestly though what do you expect when obama goes out of his way to badmouth them ans not grant permits and not allow the pipeline. Why would they want to give him money??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Whoosh! (Admittedly, it's a fairly obscure reference)
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
I also realize that the fucking Sun has much more effect on the climate than we ever will.
You need to brush up your knowledge. You have a great opportunity because the sun is currently entering a rare low activity phase (google "Maunder Minimum").
More importantly: The Sun cycles are an extensively studied subject. We have a very good knowledge about them and their effect on climate. And, guess what, this effect is figured in when scientists talk about climate change.
The earth will have thousands of years where te ice caps are nearing Texas. It has happened many time in the past and will happen may more times with or without us. Most people are fucking retarded when it comes to climate.
Yes, it has happened many times. The earth is a huge ball of rock, it'll survive pretty much no matter what. It won't give a damn if temperatures go up to a couple hundred degrees - see Venus, she's also doing just fine.
Except, of course, that there's almost certainly no life there.
Climate change isn't about protecting the environment. It's about protecting us, you stupid idiot. The only retard in this discussion is you, because you don't understand what the effect of changes in climate really is. Go ask some people who know about global food production, because you can already measure it there. In a few years, you'll be able to measure it in casualties. Human casualties.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
If you're going to consider all climate change data then you need to include ocean temperatures too (and geosphere temperature changes although they're small enough to be ignored at the first order) because it's all part of a continuum and rather than temperatures in any one part of the whole it makes more sense to consider the total energy captured in the system. If you look at it that way the warming continues apace with no noticeable slow down. Over 90% of the energy being captured by the increase in greenhouse gases goes in to heating the oceans.
So you're just trolling then? OK.
Free Martian Whores!
What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.
3/4ths of the world's population believe God or some variation. A third is Christian and a third is Muslim.
Over half of scientists believe in God. You're saying the 2/3rds of thye world's population and over half of its scientists are stupid?
That's just stupid.
Free Martian Whores!
Part 1- divest from Google stock.
Part 2 - replace Gmail accounts with something else (suggestions? I use Google alerts a lot )
Part 3- Order of searched search engine s is now
1) Duckduckgo
www.duckduckgo.com
2) Dogpile
www.dogpile.com
3) Yahoo
www.yahoo.com
4) Ask
www.ask.com
5) Yippy
www.yippy.com
6) google
That's a real smart move. So China, as long as it can find buyers in other countries, could pollute all they wanted and cause that other country to have to account for it. The biggest reason why China can find buyers in other countries is because they can produce crap cheaper by not worrying about the environment. All your solution would do is enable that and restrict production capabilities in the other countries.
Idiocracy?
You just go on welfare like everyone else. The government has lots of money and they give it to you for free.
Sigh.. It's like the blind leading the blind here. The "changing" effects of the sun are not included in any of the climate models currently mature enough to claim proof or predictive evidence of global warming. The amount of changes are less understood then you seem to think and the changing sun actually creates multiple effects on other systems like cloud formation that feed into the loop. All in all, it is not well understood as it pertains to climate. It's more like a static number that only gets corrected after the fact.
As for calling people idiots and retards, I'm reminded of pigs wallering in the mud. They do it for a reason (no sweat glands) and I think you and the op have reasons for the comments you make (theological) that places you both into the idiot and retards category.
It may be cultural difference, but blending religion and business powers seems scary to me.
Corporations are not some magical creature that can act completely on their own. People need to be present and people do those acts. Those people, at least in a modern justice system, are the ones who get punished- not invisible ideas binding them together as a legal entity.
and on that note, Corporations do get convicted all the time. They pay fines as a corporation when they do. This usually happens when the blame cannot be squarely placed on someone acting inside the corporation.
I find people who try to invoke Holocaust Denial by calling Skeptics of the deeply unproven AGW theory "Deniers" to have basically admitted they know they have no actual facts on their side.
Pathetic.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
How did "The increase in temperatures has not been statistically significant to the 2 sigma level (although it's very near that standard)" get warped into "The temperature has been declining for 15 years"? The 2000's are still the warmest decade on record and 2010 is the hottest year ever recorded in nearly all of the major temperature records.
Denier is a perfectly good English word that has been in use for hundreds of years before the Holocaust occurred. Should be retire it from the language because it's been associated with people who think the Holocaust is a hoax?
I don't see how it is evil to raise money for the campaign of a politician that helps you. I see how it *can* be evil, if the thing he/she is helping you to do is evil, or if the politician is evil.
I don't think being a climate change denier makes a person evil. It probably makes them stupid. But in all honesty, how many politicians are *not* stupid? What percentage of politicians believe in God? This makes 99+% of politicians in America stupid, or at liars pretending to be stupid, or both.
In a perfect world I would say that we should consider any kind of campaign contributions from anyone to be evil, but what's the alternative?
Force people to donate to all campaigns (i.e. public funding)?
Only allow donations from certain people (e.g. non evil people without agendas)?
If we are going to step outside the world we live in when we start labeling people evil, I am going to say that anyone who doesn't donate 100% of their profits to charity is evil, and therefore 99.9999% of Americans are evil, including google. Every dinner out, or new phone is a wasted opportunity to save a child or children in Africa. Every item of luxury that you enjoy is at the expense of someone else's necessities going unfulfilled.
We can either go through life constantly plagued with guilt even if we do our best, because it's never good enough, or we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die, and simply refuse to accept 100% complete responsibility for every bad thing that happens to someone else.
I kinda sucks, but I would rather enjoy my life.
Would you want this nutcase as president?
It's evil to put someone in power to make money over the health and welfare of the people living in your country (or elsewhere for that matter).
As for enjoying your life...by all means, do so.
"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."
-- Dante
P.S. I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
The "changing" effects of the sun are not included in any of the climate models currently mature enough to claim proof or predictive evidence of global warming. The amount of changes are less understood then you seem to think and the changing sun actually creates multiple effects on other systems like cloud formation that feed into the loop.
You make a bold claim there.
Evidence, please.
I'm sure ten or twenty-thousand scientists working in this area would be delighted to be enlightened by you.
Or, if your argument is basically "this whole climate thing is darn complicated" then... uh... yes, it is. That is why we have scientists working on it. Lots of them.
As for calling people idiots and retards, I'm reminded of pigs wallering in the mud.
omg, you really fell for that? Look, dumbo, you were the first one in this discussion using the word retard, so up yours. :-)
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Over half of scientists believe in God. You're saying the 2/3rds of thye world's population and over half of its scientists are stupid?
yes
You're saying that 2/3rds of the world's population can't be wrong?
*That's* stupid.
By this logic, I could just divide the world into different religions. 2/3rds of the world is not chrsitians. Since 2/3's of the worlds population can;t be wrong, it means Christianity is wrong. 5/6th of the world is not muslim, so that means Islam is wrong.
Would you want this nutcase as president?
No, but, I didn't want any of the previous nutcases we've had either. What's the difference?
I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
So you never act in your own interests?
Yes public funding of elections is really good if you want to keep the 2 party system status quo that has served us so well. I don't suppose many candidates outside republicans or democrats gets millions of dollars for their campaigns.
Would you want this nutcase as president?
No, but, I didn't want any of the previous nutcases we've had either. What's the difference?
The difference is of magnitude. When presented with multiple options it's still better to take the least bad of those options.
I don't believe in hell but I do believe in doing to help people improve their lot in life.
So you never act in your own interests?
Of course I do - but I also am sure to give something of what I have to those who have much less. It doesn't change my life significantly but it does change theirs. It doesn't really take a lot to make a big difference in the life of a family in a third world country (I travel a lot).
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
What kind of phone are YOU using, hypocrite?
One is a Uniden 5.8 GHz cordless phone. The other, for rare times when the power is out, is an old touchtone 1980s vintage duck phone.
Naturally, neither of those have any sort of operating system on them.
This space unintentionally left blank.
... besides the very obvious 'use our resources wisely and efficiently', all other suggestions at engineering climate change are short-sighted and arrogant in the extreme. We humans do not understand our climate mechanisms well enough to presume we can 'fix' what ails us. The best we can do is scale back on our gross inefficiencies e.g wireless recharging (a staggeringly inefficient use of electricity in the name of convenience),our wasteful use of polymers (from fossil fuels) most of which goes to a landfill after one use.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Of course I do - but I also am sure to give something of what I have to those who have much less. It doesn't change my life significantly but it does change theirs. It doesn't really take a lot to make a big difference in the life of a family in a third world country (I travel a lot).
Which is exactly what I was saying
we can just do something better than nothing and something less than everything, and try to enjoy ourselves before we die
Sure it's easy to help 1 family in africa. I donate to Doctors without borders. I help lots of african families. I don't help them achieve the same quality of life that I have. I don't help so many african families that I can't maintain my life of extreme comfort relative to them. I only help pay for some families to get treated for some easily treated diseases.
I am saying we should not take the attitude that we are responsible for alleviating suffering until all suffering is eliminated. We should not stop enjoying life by spending resources on ourselves until everyone with less than us is brought up to our quality of life. Because if we did that we would be as miserable as the people in the 3rd world we are trying to help. Why is that bad? Because I am selfish. Some people would say this attitude is evil, and that it is the selfish attitude of the haves to rationalize taking a bigger piece of the pie than the have nots.
morality is subjective
100 jobs is not a "significant operation". It's a drop in the bucket.
Dr. KiKi
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
So how do you think we should go about fighting the next Ice age?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Such as IBM (or the Bush family) in bed with Nazi Germany. Maybe we should rethink 'business as usual'.
Sounds a little too similar to 'just following orders' to me.
http://www.accountkiller.com/en/delete-slashdot-account Stop visiting Slashdot.
Actually, they will enlighten you if you listen to what they say without blinder on. There will be nothing I can point you to either if you refuse to do that.
lol.. You better look again. The post I replied to was the first one in this discussion I made.
You see, this is what I am talking about with blinders, you don't even care what the truth is, as long as you can construe something to match your predetermined mindset. You specifically did it here and anyone can hit the parent buttons and see that. You have proved my point better then I could ever articulate it. Good job.
ok, so what is plan B then?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
" I also realize that the fucking Sun has much more effect on the climate than we ever will."
Yes. When the Sun inevitably goes nova, my house will definitely catch on fire; therefore, the suggestion that it's dangerous for me to toss lit matches into piles of newspaper in the basement is ludicrous. The Sun has much more effect than a single match.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Actually, they will enlighten you if you listen to what they say without blinder on. There will be nothing I can point you to either if you refuse to do that.
So you're dodging the argument, which had nothing to do with me listening or not.
The post I replied to was the first one in this discussion I made.
My bad, as this deep in the replies /. topics usually have 2 participants. So switch "you" for "the GP" and everything else can stay the same.
You still missed the point, namely that you should've shot that argument against the GP, not my response.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Actually I've studied numerous election systems from around the world. I have read lots of books on social choice theory (also sometimes called collective will), and I am currently working on my own election system that should be finished in a bout a year.
In my opinion, the problem with election financing is not that there is too much money spent on advertising. The problem is that the voters are actually swayed by this kind of advertising. If you take an electorate that would have been swayed by the biggest spender, and you limit spending, they will not all of a sudden start doing research and become informed. They will simply be swayable by a different candidate for still the wrong reasons.
Even if you give equal public funding to the top 4 parties. That just means that these 4 parties have a much bigger advantage over anyone else. In the United States we have 1 party called the republicrats, and if this system of public funding were instituted, they would get 100% of the public funding. They could maintain their stranglehold on US politics without spending as much money.
The real solution is to get an electorate that cares enough about the outcome of the election, that bad candidates don't stand a chance, and big money can't influence them to vote in a way that is harmful to society. If you don't think this is possible, then we are already doomed.