Google's Science Fellows Challenge the Company's Fund-Raising For Senator Inhofe

Lasrick writes "At the Dot Earth blog in the NY Times, 'Big companies have many, and sometimes conflicting, interests, as a spokesperson for Google tried to explain to the environmental blogger Brian Merchant this way: “[W]hile we disagree on climate change policy, we share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma.” Now the Web giant is facing fresh criticism, this time in an open letter from 17 scientists and policy researchers who were invited to Google’s Silicon Valley headquarters back in 2011 to explore ways to improve climate science communication....'"

Comments

Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

What if their reasoning goes like this: Inhofe is dangerous. We cannot now influence Inhofe. If Inhofe takes our money, then Inhofe will be, in part, dependent upon us. If we can create a financial dependency between Inhofe and his constituents, we can use that dependency to influence Inhofe. We can threaten to withdraw jobs, close plants, relocate.

That is what most people complain corporations do, right? That is the source of their power along with campaign contributions. It seems to work, or at least everyone bitches about it as though is does work. I believe it works.

So....

What good is a purity-play if it doesn't get you what you need- influence?

I don't know this is their thinking. It could very well be their thinking. Note my signature and check my last posts if you think I have priorities other than climate change abatement or am shilling for anyone. I am just a person looking to deal with reality in any way that is effective.

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be nice.

I blame the ignorant people who elect him into office - time and time again.

But, our elected officials reflect the Voting public.

Gerrymandering?

Ask yourself why does it work?

During the last Presidential election, I had a wonderful time observing my neighbors here in the Bible Belt.

First, you need to understand, if you are not a member of their particular Christian Sect, you are NOT a Christian - like Catholics and Mormons are not Christian in their eyes.

BUT, given the choice between Obama/Biden and a Mormon and a Catholic Republican they HAD to vote Republican. Their reasons were whatever Fox News and Rush were spouting at the particular moment.

Yes, there were a few explosions as some heads assploded while they were voting for a Mormon and Catholic.

No, I won't pick on the Dems - they're too wimpy to take it.

Re:Wha if

[rolfwind]

Corporations and their funds should not be allowed to give or fundraise for politicians period. Only private citizens should be allowed to do either. It should not be a tax deduction either. It would fix a lot of problems.

Re:Wha if

[Rockoon]

The reasoning is likely much more simple than that:

One American Senator is completely meaningless and will continue to be meaningless with regards to "Climate Change," however one American Senator can be quite meaningful with regards to our business operations in his district.

Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

Ah, there's the attitude of progress!

Re:Wha if

[Rockoon]

Ah, there's the attitude of progress!

Ah, the old "only one way towards progress now let me dictate it" argument.

If only Oklahoma's 1st district had the right Senator, for then we could force China to not be on track to producing half of the worlds CO2 emissions by 2050.

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see that you're now currently at #3 of the hierarchy of global warming denial

#1 Global warming isn't happening
#2 Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
#3 Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but China and India aren't doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
#4 Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but even if China and India do something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us a truckload of money - so we don’t have to do anything.

Re:Wha if

[Type44Q]

I blame the ignorant people who elect him into office

What, here in Oklahoma?! Nah...

Re:Wha if

[Nemyst]

Yes, because going "You first!" is sure going to convince China, India and others to cut their own level of life so that we may preserve our own.

Re:Wha if

[MozeeToby]

There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

When a Watt of energy from wind or solar costs significantly less than a Watt of energy from coal, oil, or gas emissions will plummet. When a battery has higher effective energy density than gasoline, emissions will plummet. The problem is thinking you can come up with treaties and laws to tackle the problem, the thing about agreements like that is that the more everyone sticks to them the more there is to be gained by being the one who cheats. If you want to fix it, you have to improve the tech so that it's an upgrade, not a downgrade.

Re:Wha if

[Grey Geezer]

And couldn't we boycot, tax, or tarrif any imported goods that are not manufactured in a green way? But first we would need to get our own house in order I think. So that brings us to #4.

Re:Wha if

[JackieBrown]

Does that include unions? Does that include groups like The Sierra Club?

Re:Wha if

[oh_my_080980980]

LMO...so you are defending Apple's practices. Thanks I was waiting for the Google fanboys to wise up and understand Google is a CORPORATION and as a CORPORATION will do ANYTHING for their bottom line.

Re:Wha if

[Bucc5062]

I believe he said "Corporations and their funds". Certain a CEO is a private citizen and can do what he/she will with their own money. Perhaps the point is that it is not right for a CEO to use the power and profit of a Corporation to influence votes. If they can pull millions of dollars out of their own (deep) pockets then fine, though they do run up against campaign finance laws. Corporations can now contribute with no caps and thus play a huge part in how a campaign plays out.

Re:Wha if

[morgauxo]

Out of his own bank acount or out of the corporation's?

Re:Wha if

[oh_my_080980980]

So now you're saying you are against lobbyists...

Re:Wha if

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "only one way towards progress now let me dictate it" argument.

How the hell did you manage to get that from my post? All I am doing is pointing out that your post reads like "we cannot significantly do something, so why bother?". I make no claim as to the "right" approach, or even a right approach, only that yours is a wrong approach.

Re:Wha if

[evendiagram]

Look folks, China is in the #1 spot emitting ~25% of the worlds CO2, and its still a god damned developing nation (about half of the people in China are still subsistence farming.) There is no chance that reducing CO2 emissions here is going to mean anything, ever.

It's really easy to absolve yourself of any responsibility with statements like this. Perhaps looking at your country's contribution per capita would be more helpful.

Re:Wha if

[asylumx]

IMO, yes, unions too. The individuals in the union are welcome to donate directly to the candidate if they wish to, but the union shouldn't be donating union funds to political candidates.

Re:Wha if

[Morg-Tpah]

"Denier = Terrorist" - seriously?

Re:Wha if

[interkin3tic]

If Inhofe denies the consensus that climate change is real and is willing to screw over the future for his fossil-fuel industry customers, he's probably basing other policy decisions not on utilitarian principles but on self-interest.

For instance, he voted against raising the debt ceiling. I'm no economist, and it's a matter of opinion (or crystal balls) as to whether the cuts the republicans are trying to get as ransom are a good idea or not, but based on his position on climate change, that really makes me suspect he'd tank the economy in an attempt to get tax cuts for his rich friends.

Or worse, he's one of a disturbing number of representatives who seem to be religiously conservative, who ignores reality when it disagrees with his worldview. That can be more dangerous than simple greed in any numbers, since it can't be reasoned with.

Anyway, as far as China, it's less likely that China will reduce their emissions until it's financially advantageous if we're still pumping out carbon like there's no tomorrow, and Inhofe is yet another barrier to changing that.

Re:Wha if

[yoghurt]

The donors ARE the constituents. Voters are just chumps to be exploited. The problem with giving Inhofe some money is that other monied interests are giving him much more money. Inhofe is going to drop Google in a New York minute if it were to hurt his supply from Exxon/Mobile &c.

Re:Wha if

[demachina]

Its pretty simple, individuals should be able to contribute to the candidates of their choice with caps. Elections should be running on small money, not big money.

If people are part of a larger organization encouraging them to contribute in a certain way that is no ones business as long as its the individual making the contribution and not the organization.

If an organization is collecting funds via dues, corporate profits or anything else and spending that money in a coordinated fashion to buy political influence it shouldn't be allowed. Nor should organizations be allowed to spend unlimited funds running ads on TV's designed to influence policy, candidates and elections.

Public funding of campaigns could fix the problem in some respects but how you decide gets funded and who doesn't and giving money to crackpots who have no popular support, and will never acquires it, isn't a good idea.

Of course the bigger issue is we need to have people running for office who don't suck and that appears to be increasingly problematic these days.

The thing you are trying to accomplish is for everyone to have a reasonably even chance of influencing the democratic process. When a tiny affluent minority, whatever their agenda, can buy disproportionate influece your democracy is, for all practical purposes, gone. This is pretty much where the U.S. sits today.

Re:Wha if

[Sarius64]

Because union thugs never hijacked the dues of thousands of members to pay off their political whores. Nevah.

Re:Wha if

[Sarius64]

Really? You're using the Internet. Until you go back to can and twine, I call bullshit. We've out-paced all reduction goals. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23803

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

"Corporations are voluntary grouping of people"

This is a lie on so many levels it's heard to know where to begin.

You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.

  Yet you force them to accept what the corporation does and use their presence in the corporation are a a kind of justification, hey,. they're there as a voluntary group! They can leave if they don't like it!

Of course they could leave their job. As if. I love it when this argument finally gets down to "if you don't like it , you are free to leave your job / state / nation" part . It's a joke and factually as untrue as "if you don't like it, you can leave your job, lose your house, wreck your credit and live on the street" . Only in an adolescent fantasy world does this kind of logic exist.

What's more, it puts unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people merely because they're rich. That's the real world effect. It's no different than 18th century England with a king and the various barons. They wield the real power. But this is what democracy was invented to prevent. You seem to overlook that basic fact. Democracy is a means to an end- the opportunity for citizens to participated as equals in government. You turn it into a circus of perverts, gleefully shaking their packages at the whole POINT of democracy through some fucking "voluntary group" horseshit.

People should be limited in how much they can give candidates. Candidates elections should be publicly funded. Elections should be of by and for the people, not of by and for corporations. and the tiny sliver of people who run them.

Nothing could be simpler to understand.

Re:Wha if

[jfengel]

Unfortunately, one senator is NOT completely meaningless. Inhofe isn't just a Senator. He's the ranking minority member of the Committee on Environment and Public Works. That means he has enormous say in any legislation on the environment. If the Senate changes hands, he becomes the chairman of that committee, and has the power to singlehandedly stop any legislation to do anything about climate change. He would also have significant power to introduce legislation to dismantle any regulatory framework, and the ability to hassle executive branch agencies with subpoenas (and has shown a willingness to use it).

The committee structure of the US Congress puts enormous power in the hands of a few individuals. And the ones with the biggest axes to grind try to end up in prominent positions: the House Committee on Science and Technology is packed with people who aren't just climate change denialists, but creationists to boot.

Re:Wha if

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You make it sound like they're all of one mind WRT politics. They're a "voluntary grouping" , right? But they're not. They're just there to work and pay the bills; they haven't "voluntarily grouped " for political reasons at all.

That's a crock. If that were true then they wouldn't be allowed to go work somewhere else if they didn't like their job.

The only groups that aren't voluntary today are militaries and labor unions. (Volunteer militaries are obligatory once you've signed up.) At least you can leave a corporation at any time of your choosing, however labor unions will take your money and spend it on whatever political cause they want even if you disagree with it, and if you don't like it tough shit, if you leave they force you out of your job even if you like your job.

Re:Wha if

[RoknrolZombie]

This is also an outcome (and the most likely one).

Re:Wha if

[superwiz]

I would agree, as long as unions weren't allowed to donate, either. Basically, the principle should be that you can't donate the money that you administer on someone else's behalf (whether as a corporate officer nor as a union leader). Voting is an expression of will. You can't express someone else's will, so you shouldn't be able to influence elections on someone else's behalf. Yes, yes, union reps are elected, but so are corporate officers. It just makes them surrogates. But if we establish the principle that surrogates of any kind cannot donate money to politicians, then it would be fair play.

Re:Wha if

[sjames]

I would say all of the above and more. If any of those groups want to request that people make contributions and even if they want to say who convinced them it was the right thing to do, fine so long as there is no coercion of any kind involved. Admittedly that leaves a grey area that needs better definition.

Re:Wha if

[sjames]

I'm OK with telling him he is not allowed to donate other people's money. if it comes out of his own personal funds, that's fine.

Re:Wha if

[Khashishi]

How the hell can you claim that corporations are voluntary but labor unions are not? That is some serious doublethink right there. They are very nearly the same thing.

Re:Wha if

[kwbauer]

Depends on the corporation now doesn't it? The corporation in question during the completely misrepresented SCOTUS ruling was, in acutality, a corporation formed for the purpose of a "voluntary grouping for political reasons." The line of reasoning the justices were following is that the laws of the US have been manipulated to the point of requiring such voluntary groupings to form a corporation in order to pool their money and then laws were enacted to prevent them from using that money to buy speech time.

You see, in days of yore, a man could afford to print up some pamphlets and distribute them on his own and have quite an impact on the political environment. In keeping with the original intent of those old guys of days gone by, the current SCOTUS realized that buying airtime and distributing movies IS the modern equivalent of printing and distributing pamphlets and that "the average guy" is no longer able to effectively make political speech without pooling resources with like-minded individuals (that other first amendment right).

Re:Wha if

[DNS-and-BIND]

Hello idiot? If we went by what people vote for, the Tea Party would be in power today. So STFU with your stupidity, let's let the smart people with correct principles get into the political offices that matter.

Re:Wha if

[countach44]

What about unions? Look at the top ten contributors, almost all democrat and mostly unions: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php Sadly, I'm not sure they are much different than Corporations in the "unwarranted amount of political power into the hands of a tiny minority of people" area.

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

If you don't like the political activity of a corporation, sell your stock interest in that corporation. Last I heard, no one is forced to buy stock in a particular company.

You seem to hail from another planet. on Earth, it's not possible to avoid giving money to corporations you don't like merely by not buying stock. Politically speaking nearly all telcos are "one" corporation in that they agitate for the same things from candidates. Ditto the cable companies. Ditto the auto industry, which as a group, blocked the deployment of air bags for years falsely claiming they would go broke if they were forced to provide them, all while they were deployed in Europe.

So ooops! I guess corporations and their political activity DOES kill people since there are people who would be alive today if but for the lies the automakers told and the political action they instigated.

Oh, and ditto the above by, oh about a billion times WRT to global warming.Global warming will be corporation's Waterloo.. it's not even a question... it's just a matter of time. But that's another subject.

Those "benefits" got written into tax law and solidified in regulations leading to the situation now of employees being afraid to lose their jobs for fear of losing their healthcare insurance.

Christ jesus god you're not really this big of an asswipe are you? Because the government doesn't provide health care to its citizens gratis or at enormously re4duced and regulated prices like every other developed nation does , because the compromise this nation settled on was the one corporation's campaigned for instead, employer-provided health care, because we have THAT situation, then employees are at fault for not leaving their jobs. Jesus god. I love talking to libertarian freaks online because when else are you going to get the chance to rebut the world view of sociopaths - like Ayn Rand for instance- and expose their thinking for what it is. So please, don't wander off or lose interest on me, OK?

Wealth has always, under any system of laws or govt., provided political power.

Yeah and niggers were always slaves and slavery has always been around and women were never allowed the right to vote and England has always had kings and ....yeesh it's AMAZING you can't even self censor your arguments enough to pass as other than sociopath on an online forum where you have all the time in the world to manicure your reply.

Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.Last I checked, corporations don't have the power to execute me, but maybe I missed something.

Yeah. Two words. Global. Warming.

Which would create exactly the kind of tiny, static political class that you seemed to be bitching about when you mentioned the King of England. By legally excluding private political donations, only self-financed, mega-wealthy candidates or candidates willing to flaunt campaign funding laws would have any real chance of challenging incumbents for national office.

You seem to have not comprehended the notion. PUBLICLY funded elections come from TAXES from EVERYONE and are distributed EVENLY amongst the candidates. Who gets funded is an outstanding issue, some type of run off is needed but since we can do it for the Fucking Final Four every year, i bet we can work it out fairly.

Your argument repeatedly refers to some kind of political elite inevitability. But that's the WHOLE POINT of reforming laws- to prevent a political elite from grasping too much power. You want people to do what the fuck ever they want and call it freedom. What people do is grab power. What stops people is laws. You shit all over the notion of freedom curtailing law. Yet that's the only reason you're not ass up in your local gay warlord's sex torture machine right now, because THAT'S where things go when people are 'free" to wield power as they see fit.

Everyone needs to be stopped from having to

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

You are not "giving money" to corporations when you buy products,

You seem to confuse the concept of "donating' with the concept of "giving". I said giving, not donating.

This is the essence of libertarianism- tell straight up falsehoods which everyone knows are plainly false then engage in a vacuous and elaborate explanation which you hope people will engage with.

You cannot avoid giving money to corporations. In a society whose laws permit the rich to have a far more potent political voice this has real world consequences and nothing you said allays those consequences one iota.

Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.

You can tell

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Companies with similar products have similar political goals. I commend you on your deep insight, but I don't see how that delegitimizes their political activity nor do I see how corporate donations and event sponsorship constitute "agitation". Agitation usually means trying to whip up a mob mentality and promoting civil unrest which are not usually tactics used by corporations.

I'll spell; it out as many times as necessary. Corporations in in similar industries all share similar goals. If they are allowed a bigger voice in politics on account of being enormously more wealthy than individuals then those goals will be served and not the goals of the majority of people. You claimed (which claim was a lie) to not see the problem with this. Well buddy, that's the problem.

It's amusing to see you are concerned about the connotations of the word "agitation" - which is used correctly (look it up) yet you claim people don't "give" money to corporations. Libertarians love the word games.

And consider this, if one sincerely confuses the meaning of words in their own thinking, then that's an honest mistake. OTOH if one continually "playing dumb" about the shared and obvious meaning of words like "giving" and attempting to cloud the meaning of what is being said , then that's something more like "sociopathic manipulation ."

We here having a not-so-nice conversation and what are you doing? Attempting to dodge the sense of what what's being said to you by pretending to believe that when people say "giving money to corporations" they intended to say "donating money to corporations"

It's a form of lying and manipulation., "I am not going to really engage in ideas, I am going to pretend you said something you didn't and see if I can derail your original point, a point for which I have no real rebuttal."

Not having an effective rebuttal to your opponent's point is cause for a review of your own beliefs in people who aren't narcissists. For narcissists it's a signal that they need to engage in verbal sleights of hand .

Fact stands as is- corporations with enormous wealth use that wealth to agitate for policies which are harmful and destructive of the common good while best for their own short term good. If the political system were better engineered to neutralize the differential effectiveness that wealth now provides, the common good would be better served.

Finally, because you seem not to understand this , the point of any democracy is to serve the common good of its members. This does include securing their liberties, but not at the expense of the everyone else.

This is 4th grade shit. Perhaps you were home schooled.

I don't think American auto companies actually claimed they would go broke if they were mandated to install airbags as standard equipment. Rather they claimed that it would raise the cost of their products, making their products less competitive in that segment of the market which wanted lower cost vehicles. No need for you to be hyperbolic.

  Lee Iacocca claimed the "Japs" would "eat us (US car companies) alive" to Nixon :

http://books.google.com/books?id=-7JU3Xk3NTgC&lpg=PA111&ots=j3Z9hOa6NI&dq=airbag%20nader%20iacocca&pg=PA111#v=onepage&q=airbag%20nader%20iacocca&f=false

There's not need for your total historical ignorance except that , like all libertarians of which you are decidedly one, you prefer to *hypothesize* about the nature of reality from *first principles* and draw your conclusions deductively rather than, you know, go out and deal with reality as it is.

Fact stands; US automakers resisted the deployment of airbags and in so doing condemned to death thousands of Americans who otherwise would have lived and they did this to line their own pockets and they *could* do this because they are rich in a political system that favors the opinions of the rich at the expense of the rest of the nation's citizens.

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

More expensive cars means some people drive their cars longer before buying a new one.

A stellar example of two libertarian ploys. One is to use some generally true, yet unquantified fact - "airbags increase car costs" and then causally relate that to some effect, citing no evidence, just "pure reason" - it must be true.

The other ploy is simply to blink away the totality of the situation- we're talking about people dying. We already have a working example of a functioning market in Europe that includes airbags so the US can have airbags also.

This is the essence of libertarianism and free market ideologues-. Start with some self-selected ideas. . Assert about those ideas that they are facts and then treat them as axioms from which truths about the real world can simply be derived.

The total increase in cost in 2002 dollars (when the anlyssi was done) of ALL safety requirements NOT just airbags came to a whopping 4% of the cost fo a car.

http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809834.html

So you're just wrong. You cna't go from "air bags increase car csosts" to "fewer people buy new cars " like that because you want to. Self-confirming wishful thinking is the hallmark of libertarians and free market coke snorters. It's the opposite of science, the scientific method (which you mock later in your post) . It's a throwback to the Scholastics of the freaking dark ages

Wikipedia:

"Not so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "

This is the opposite of sciNot so much a philosophy or a theology as a method of learning, scholasticism places a strong emphasis on dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference, and to resolve contradictions. "

Re:Wha if

[algoa456]

Corporations and their funds should not be allowed to give or fundraise for politicians period. Only private citizens should be allowed to do either. It should not be a tax deduction either. It would fix a lot of problems.

George Soros and the Koch brothers thank you for your post. They agree.

Re:Wha if

[JBaustian]

"Corporations can now contribute with no caps..."

That is incorrect. Corporations may not contribute to a campaign for office. They may form political action committees, and a PAC can make a contribution; but there are strict caps on how much they can give.

Re:Wha if

[JBaustian]

Post Citizens United, corporations are still not permitted to donate directly to campaigns.

You might want to do some research, too.

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah and their contributions are limited because there's a cap on how much you can donate

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

How many people are going to die because deniers are effectively shouting "no fire" in a proven-to-be burning theater?

Denier == terrorist.

Re:Wha if

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Re; global warming. Let me get this straight. You consider it realistic that all the world's scientists are engaging in a gigantic scam together for grant money and for ideological reasons. This is realistic to you.

However, the world's corporations who explicitly and singly exist to make money , their collusion is unlikely and anyways not a problem because of "free market forces" and anyway government intervention is worse than any kind of collusion. .

So scientists are colluding to lie but the noble corporations are being beaten up by the government and also by scientists who are colluding to engage them in proxy war over global warming for the purpose of destroying them.

You're insane.

Re:Wha if

[morgauxo]

Nope. Running out of crude? Maybe. That just means more shale and oil sands. Yup... even more polution than what is mostly used today! But.. still cheaper than the alternatives and so that's what people will burn.

Re:Wha if

[Baki]

Corporations are no democracies, at least they're not required to be so by law. So one "dictator", e.g. the CEO or the owner, decides "for everyone" to influence politics in a certain direction.

This destroys the "one man one vote" basic principle of democracy.

lolwut?

[girlintraining]

this time in an open letter from 17 scientists and policy researchers [...] to explore ways to improve climate science communication....

Yeah, because improved communication is the problem, not people shoving their fingers in their ear and going "glory glory halleluja!" If only there was some scientific explanation for behavior like this. Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'. A better educated population is more likely to use science, reason, and excercise critical thinking in response to new information, than an uneducated one. Ah, what's the going rate of a college education these days?

Oh. Right.

Re:lolwut?

[prasadsurve]

Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'.

Not really. The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

Re:lolwut?

[girlintraining]

Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'.

Not really. The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

Sounds like an argument for more science curriculum to me.

Re:lolwut?

[Eunuchswear]

Anyway, the solution is simple: Better education, not better 'communication'.

Not really.

The more science you know, the less worried you are about climate

It's a Lewis Page article - as usual when Page reports research it turns out that the research doesn't say what Page claims it does.

What about Gay Marriage?

[CajunArson]

So when Google/MS/etc. etc. all were heaping money on for the pro-gay marriage debate why was protest by company employees not allowed while this is seen as being a "moral' thing to do?

I'm not taking a position either way on either topic, I'm just pointing out that lots of people on this site and in general have very blinkered views where paying money to support the "correct" politicians is perfectly fine while paying money to support the "incorrect" politicians should somehow be illegal.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

"So when Google/MS/etc. etc. all were heaping money on for the pro-gay marriage debate why was protest by company employees not allowed while this is seen as being a "moral' thing to do?"

Was it not allowed or is it simply that Google employees are smart enough to realise that laws supporting equal rights for gay people are as important as equal rights for women and equal rights for people of different race and that only bigoted idiots take issue with them?

"I'm not taking a position either way on either topic"

Your sig suggests otherwise.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Pino Grigio]

You new here? Moderation works like this:

if(Classify(Character.Politics) == LEFTISH_LIBERAL_WORLD_VIEW)
{
Character.Mod++;
}
else
{
Character.Mod--;
}

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Rockoon]

..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from."

Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."

Basically, stop lying. We understand that the phrase "equal rights" has powerful connotations that automatically get a large group of drones to stand with you, but its still a fucking lie.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[GameboyRMH]

What do you think about the term "marriage equality?"

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Rockoon]

Don't see a problem with it. What do you think of the phrase "hey government, get the fuck out of my marriage!"

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Careful! A geek is about to use his Samsung phone to bitch at you about the glories of communism.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[TheRaven64]

The problem here is that google is funding a politician

You can stop there and still be right.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Pino Grigio]

Well, that's the problem with US politics (it's mostly US, isn't it). Everything is a binary choice. In the real world opinions don't break like that. People agree on some things, disagree on others. They may agree to greater or lesser extents. I don't know why we let the most extreme positions on either side set the tone of the debate.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[oh_my_080980980]

Wow you have no freakin clue do you. So basically you want people to bring a knife to a gun fight. So people should be principled and not fight back when someone is smacking them around. Is that your point Potsy?

What you fail to grasp is people are trying to change the campaign finance laws...HOWEVER, at the same time, they will use the means that are available to them until such a time as they are changed.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[oh_my_080980980]

You do realize marriage is a legal contract....

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Sique]

If the government "gets out of marriage", then it just means that marriage has no legal meaning, no consequences, no rights and no responsibilities. If that is what you want, then I'm ok with it.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[virg_mattes]

..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from." Either support the availability of all of the special rights that married people have to all unmarried people also, or stop calling it "equal rights."

This doesn't follow logic at all. The concept that marriage has certain "special rights" both ignores the concept that it also has certain responsibilities that unmarried people don't have to deal with, and ignores the idea that (in a perfect world) anyone is free to enter into marriage and free to leave it. Your argument makes about as much sense as getting mad that people can incorporate a company and get into some "special rights club" that unincorporated people don't enjoy. It may be technically accurate but it's nonsensical.

Virg

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

I'm not talking about special treatment for being married, that's country specific so pointless to talk about as if tax breaks for being married or whatever are some inherent trait of marriage everywhere - they're not.

By equal rights I'm referring to the ability to marry someone you love. Currently only gay people are denied that right.

If you jumped off your ethnocentric horse of American marriage benefits for a moment you'd realise that there is an underlying equality issue there that's far more important than whinging about tax break inequality and the like.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[asylumx]

They must disable this logic when the article is about gun control, eh?

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Pino Grigio]

I don't know. I come from a country with very strict gun control.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

Do you? Where?

I don't really care what consenting adults do. Marrying a sibling may not be my cup of tea but it's not as if that didn't happen historically.

Fundamentally that taboo for example came about largely because of the lobby that decided marriage should be about reproduction rather than love but they're separate issues. It's possible to ban such reproduction because of the effects it can have on the child without banning marriage.

At the end of the day if there's consent, capability to give consent (i.e. maturity to make that decision, no mental impairment preventing it and so forth) and it doesn't harm anyone else then I really couldn't give a shit.

It sounds like the real problem is that you believe that some groups of consenting adults should be treated differently not me.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Eunuchswear]

..by "equal rights" you seem to actually mean "inclusion into the special rights club that all non-married people are still excluded from."

Well, no.

Equal rights to marry the person they want to marry.

Gay people don't get to be "included into the special rights club" if they don't marry.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[sycodon]

What purpose is there in the government sanctioning and providing special privileges for marriage if not to encourage reproduction in order to ensure the survival of society?

Remove that reason and there is no other reason for government to be involved in marriage at all.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

Well as I said in my other post, most countries in the world don't give special benefits to marriage and so yes maybe government involvement in marriage is a key part of the problem in countries where that happens.

In the UK there has been talk about changing this and offering tax breaks for the married but the underlying purpose is to increase marriages which as a proportion of which will occur in churches is a subtle way of the religious MPs backing it trying to get more people into religion.

I don't know if it'll pass, the other have of our governing coalition and the opposition are against it which I'm glad of because yes it should have nothing to do with government.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[asylumx]

In the US, the liberal worldview typically includes a fairly gun-control stance, yet most /.ers typically seem to be against gun control - which falls more in line with the conservative worldview here.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Khashishi]

I think you are confusing the liberal worldview with the Democratic party. There's plenty of /. posts trashing both the Democrats and Republicans, and it seems a large number (of the more vocal /.ers) are more libertarian or anarchist leaning.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Khashishi]

Just because it's wrong doesn't mean I'm gonna fight it. The founding fathers recognized that we're all a bunch of corrupt motherfuckers, and that's why we need checks and balances. You do something wrong that I don't support; I'll fight you. You do something wrong that I support; I'll let someone else fight you. That's the real world.

Re:What about Gay Marriage?

[Xest]

Rather than making such a long post you could've just said "I'm a bigoted gay hater" and it would've come across in exactly the same way.

Pretty much everything you said was simply you trying to justify to yourself why it's okay for you to treat gay people as lesser beings and that's okay, most of those who hold such deep far right sentiment do like to think they're right despite knowing deep down they're not, but it doesn't wash with those of us who can see right through it. You're a fascist bigot and it shines through in what you say. If you at least had the courage to accept who you are and admit that it would be something, but don't try to pretend you hold the moral high ground when you don't. It just makes you look pathetic and your argument desperate and so it's no wonder you felt it necessary to post anonymously.

good grief, give it a rest

[stenvar]

It's fine for some group of scientists to point out how they believe Imhofe is wrong. But calling on companies to blacklist any politician who doesn't agree with their position goes way too far.

In fact, a company that really is interested in good corporate citizenship should spread its money and influence around so that opposing views are heard.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[EmagGeek]

Indeed. Scientists are scientists. These people are politicians that claim to be scientists.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[TapeCutter]

Two points.
1, Science is a matter of evidence, not a matter of belief.
2. To have an opposing view, one must first agree there is such a thing as 'reality'.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[oh_my_080980980]

LMOL opposing view to science...nice...

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[Sarius64]

I'll remember that the next time some fucking idiot named Gore touts consensus.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[stenvar]

1, Science is a matter of evidence, not a matter of belief.

Quite right. But policy is a matter of values, decisions, and tradeoffs. The error here is with scientists trying to impose their political choices on everybody else, and misusing their scientific credentials to do so.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[stenvar]

No, these people are scientists pretending to be politicians, and that is far worse.

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[Khashishi]

Bribery is ok as long as it is spread around to everybody?

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[stenvar]

I don't see any "bribery" involved here. Politicians need political contributions, otherwise only the very wealthy could run. Would you prefer that? And if politicians get political contributions, then isn't it better if those are "spread around" and not tied slavishly to specific political positions?

Re:good grief, give it a rest

[ralphbecket]

Exactly, which is why anybody touting consensus as having anything to do with science should leave the discussion.

[I do believe this is the first time I've ever agreed with tapecutter.]

Comm 101

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Speaking of improved communication, where's a link to this letter?

Zealotry and the balkanization of our culture

[argStyopa]

In real, grownup life (ie not "ivory tower academia") we all spend time working every day with people who may or may not PRECISELY agree with everything we believe.

The fact is that Senator Inhofe can be useful to Google in a number of contexts unrelated to either of their positions on climate change.

I have friends that are both Christians and Atheists, am I too supposed to refuse to associate with one group or the other based on which side of that fence I personally stand on?

The sort of zealotry that informs 'public posturing' like this is corrosive, and indicative of a sort of Manichean worldview that is never constructive.

Google would be best advised just to simply ignore with no comment. If those "scientists and policy researchers " no longer want to be associated with Google, they can simply refrain from participating then.

Re:Zealotry and the balkanization of our culture

[oh_my_080980980]

Kind of depends if your friends discriminate against you based on their beliefs..doesn't it...

Re:Zealotry and the balkanization of our culture

[mjr167]

What have you been smoking? You can never change your opinions. You can never give in to the other side. And you can never ever ever refer to people you disagree with as anything other than idiotic, terroristic fear-mongers.

Fresh criticism on global warming?

[alex67500]

Do they cancel each other out?

Simple solution to complex problem

[evilRhino]

Government representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not multinational corporations. Make it illegal for foreign entities to fund domestic campaigns and we can avoid these conflicts.

Re:Simple solution to complex problem

[dargaud]

Government representatives are supposed to represent their constituents, not multinational corporations. Make it illegal for foreign^H^H^H^H^H^H^H entities to fund domestic campaigns and we can avoid these conflicts.

Corrected that for you.

Job One of Do No Evil

[ThatsNotPudding]

Don't build anything in states that promise zero business taxes and allow no-benefit, slave-wage jobs.

Not that hard if you a functioning human soul.

Re:Job One of Do No Evil

[superwiz]

Don't build anything in states that promise zero business taxes. Not that hard if you a functioning human soul.

Aha. Because kowtowing to a government is what makes a person "moral". Please, go away. Despite the circle jerk that you and your pretend "friends" live in, you are not a good person. You are a tool. You and the people like you are responsible for the "society's ills" (that's how you ass holes put it, right?). You promote incompetence and waste. Its eventual inevitable results are waste and starvation.

allow no-benefit, slave-wage jobs

Let me fix that for you:

"allow jobs"

See: brief and to the point. You could have saved yourself so much effort in saying what you most definitely meant to say.

Re:really?

[superwiz]

They are not desperate. They are methodical. This is war-ware for them. And, as in any warfare, if you can't fight on the battle field, you start trying to cut the supply lines.

The Cause

[Anonymous Coward]

"Citizens United" was the cause of all this. Congress committed a great act of treason when they introduced that bill, and passed it. Now, corporations have full control of Congres.

Re:Already happened, bub. Get in the 2010's.

[morgauxo]

LOL! You must live in a windy place. Try to get out more. Unfortunately, only in certain rare locations is wind cheaper than oil. Sure.. wind is great when it is actually blowing but most of the time in most locations your windmill investment is just sitting there rusting. I drive by several wind turbines on the way to work. I'm not sure why they were built here, I think some local politician must have thought it was a good idea to subsidize them or something. Anyway, I would say that about 4 days out of 5 THEY AREN'T EVEN TURNING! There just isn't enough wind to save the world. Sorry!

Google is all for lofty, noble causes...

[sydbarrett74]

...until their profits become impacted. Purely typical for a capitalist enterprise. Google's credo should be, 'We're not evil, as long as it doesn't cost us anything.'