Taking aim at Google’s CEO over Climate Change

Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt has drunk the climate change Kool Aid. In a recent interview he took issue with climate sceptics and called them liars.

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

That is annoyed more than a few scientists, and two of them, Paul Driessen and Chris Skates, have decided to take him on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Boy, that is really giving it to him…especially the comments about Google’s motto.

They then slam Google’s utter hypocrisy.

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

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

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

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

Ouch. And then highlight still more hypocrisy.

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

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

And now for the slamming of one of climate change science’s more outrageous real liars.

However, the article’s most breathtaking statement was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

This kind of reasoning (the scientific method) has served progress and civilization well since the Seventeenth Century. But the Google team has failed to apply it; instead it repeats the “slash fossil fuel use or Earth and humanity are doomed” tautology, without regard for logic or facts – while questioning CAGW skeptics intelligence, character and ethics. Such an approach would be disastrous in business.

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

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

I bet Eric Schmidt doesn’t even reply.

He will go on denying facts.


– Watts up with that


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • MaryLou

    That’s so much more convincing than the usual “I’m right, your wrong – admit it!!” – that we generally hear from CC supporters. A well written piece.

  • symgardiner

    That’s a spanking and a half.

  • Rick H

    No relative of Kim Schmidz is he?

  • Damon Mudgway

    Maybe he should use his own companies search engine to do some research for himself.

    The world is, has, and will always be, full of idiots, because no matter what your own thoughts are, others will label you an idiot.

    Ergo, earth is populated with nothing more than billions of idiots.

    Humans are plonkers.

    • MaryLou

      Oh c’mon DM, that’s very negative for the festive season, and besides – using your reasoning if half the people are being called idiots at any one time, aren’t the rest at least a paler shade of plonker?

      • Damon Mudgway

        That’s my point marylou, my comment is firmly tongue in cheek. Philosophically all humans by their very nature are idiots.

        See where I’m coming from?

        • MaryLou

          Got that DM – was aiming for humour too – a bit flat huh…

  • Korau

    Biofuel, the greens answer to overpopulation. To obtain sufficient fuel to replace the oil used in transportation (not the rest) would require the use of between 850 million and 1.6 billion hectares of arable land. There is between 1.5 and 2.4 billion hectares of arable land on the planet. So we would need between 35% to 107% of all the potential farmland to produce just the transport portion of oil replacement.

    So, whose land will be used? Won’t be the rich Americans driving around in large cars. It will be the poor people. And who will go without food so the land can produce methanol? Won’t be the supersized Americans. It will be the poor people.

    I would guess that some billions of people will starve to death for this green solution to work.

    See http://www.elements.nb.ca/theme/energy07/tim/Tim.htm for some thought provoking figures

  • oldmanNZ

    Eric should know, you just cannot google for the truth.
    The internet is full of lies.

  • 1951

    31,487 US scientists. How many world wide, I wonder. That’s got to more than the IPCC can muster surely? Augie would be proud.

    • xennex

      The same notorious oregon petition that pretended to be from the national acedamy of scientists and include charles darwin on their petition signatories? The consensus is still 97% amongst climate scientists that climate change is happening and human caused. If you look at peer reviewed papers, it’s much higher (99%).

      • RightofSingapore

        The 97% figure has been repeatedly fisked-you should know that the results of any survey or poll will always depend on what is asked and how it is asked. Using the discredited 97% figure shows either ignorance or an agenda.

      • 1951

        Peer reviewed doesn’t quite met the mark these days and the word notorious maybe better applied to that wonderful institution in East Anglia.

      • Fredd Dagg

        97% is true… 97% of those scientists whose jobs depend on Climate Change being human caused, are in consensus at this being the cause.

      • Kapow

        yeah nah. Like RightofSingapore says – the 97% has been debunked. Those who keep using it are not being honest at all.

      • Pita

        With cheerleaders like Xennex telling only half a story, the thermo-maniacs narrative is in safe hands.
        Debunking the Oregon petition that included Charles Darwin (amongst others, before they were excluded) whilst promoting the 97% consensus amongst “climate” scientist reflects a dishonest and lazy mind.


    There are some questions even Google doesn’t know the answer for….

  • timemagazine

    Comrade Schmidt has probably invested millions in renewable energy and is running around telling lies to everybody who is willing to listen to him.