Google Raises Campaign Funds For Climate Change Denier 365
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. "
In today's news... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah but this has been a problem for social libertarians and social justice advocates.
Money talks.
And for James Mountain Inhofe(Yes, his real middle name; never forget it), money talks loudly.
Re:In today's news... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
According to the Supreme Court in "Citizen's United v. Federal Election Commission", corporations ARE people.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/citizens-united-v-federal-election-commission/ [scotusblog.com]
Re: (Score:3)
bottom of the list of top 20 hot button issues is still a hot button issue.
Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)
Company acts in own self-interest, news at 11.
Re:Imagine that (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, how is this news?
It is news because the good 'ol days of handing politicians $5,000 in an envelope are clearly gone.
Re: (Score:2)
It is news because the good 'ol days of handing politicians $5,000 in an envelope are clearly gone.
. . . which is why I gave up on politics ~20 years ago. Waay too much work for too little graft !!!!
Re:Imagine that (Score:4, Funny)
Denier! Nuance is for pussies. Besides, the title says "Climate Change" (as in, we know it's changing), that's completely different from "Global Warming" (as in, we know it is changing, and we know it is becoming warmer). Since I have now proven you wrong, Slashtiquette allows me to make fun of your spelling, grammar, lack of paragraphs and, perhaps if cocky, make fun of the way you sleep wrapped in a Soviet flag.
Re:Imagine that (Score:4, Funny)
Since I have now proven you wrong, Slashtiquette allows me to make fun of your spelling, grammar, lack of paragraphs
You're way out of touch with Slashtiquette. Making fun of his spelling and grammar allows you to claim he's wrong, not the other way around. Try again, and this time focus.
Re:Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, how is this news? A large company is schmoozing politicians. It's fine to think it's evil and corrupt and whatever. But news is generally something that you didn't already know.
That's a bit like saying, we know air planes crash, therefore the recent crash landing in San Francisco is not news.
I want to hear about events like these, and I think others should to, so that it gives Google the bad publicity it deserves. Because if it results in bad PR, it is less likely that companies will schmooze buffoons like Inhofe in the future.
We shouldn't set our expectations on the behaviour of corporations so low that we are completely indifferent when they behave badly. Otherwise, those who are not will have nothing for it.
Re:Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps we have a different take on what the news is. That a large company gives support to a politician in the US is not news. That Google with the public ethos it has supports a politician like Inhofe, on the other hand, is worthy of attention.
If I were to extend my perhaps not so stellar analogy: All planes land, but not all planes crash land.
Re:Imagine that (Score:5, Insightful)
There's very little nuance to be had with 'The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.' I appreciate that in all of science there are spectra and good bits and bad bits, but Inhofe leaves no room for disagreement on subtle details. If you believe what Inhofe says, you're a Denier with a capital 'D'.
He goes far beyond 'sceptic', which is something that all science enthusiasts should be--he's actively denying any and all science with his position. He's not your friend if you're the kind of person that reads and posts here.
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be better off acting honestly than entering politics. If OK won't give them what they need, move next door to TX or somewhere they'll get the concessions they seek.
Jumping in bed with a politician can only give you the venereal diseases they have - it can't cure any problems you started with.
Re: (Score:2)
Because we all know a massive global company like Google will never need to operate in a place like Oklahoma, right?
Sorry, being in business sometimes requires you work with people you really dont like. I dont see Google as supporting anything this idiot says, they're just stuck dealing with the idiot because the morons who live there keep voting for him. Clearly they like the guy, so what can you do? You cant just move everything because the current blow-hard in congress has some loonie ideas. Geez if
Re: (Score:3)
Because (Score:3)
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.
Don't be evil... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this seems to head a little out of the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this seems to head a little out of the norm.
They want something in Oklahoma and he's an Oklahoma politician. I think the chain of custody is clear.
Re: (Score:2)
...is starting to either redefine "evil" or "don't"... Haven't figured out which yet...
The definition of "evil" has always been relative. For example, I'm sure Mr. Inhofe sees nothing evil at all about what Google did for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't be evil... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I'm defending google here, but which strategy do you think is more effective in getting what you want?
- Fight against "the system" and "the man", making their lives as difficult as possible.
- Play the game.
Re:Don't be evil... (Score:4, Interesting)
Can they not afford the installation if they're not subsidized?
Why not just avoid Oklahoma, or is this an attempt to get something at a federal level and this is basically a combination of campaign contributions and lobbying?
Which brings us back to "Don't be evil" again...
Do No Evil... (Score:4, Insightful)
...up until that point in which it becomes advantageous to do evil.
Instead of Do No Evil... (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Negative evil is evil after all.
Re: (Score:3)
On the topic of Climate Change, this guy is Stupid and Misguided, but I don't see an evil intent, they may be one.
The real evil here is that blatant bribery is legal in the US. Corrupting a representative system of government is evil.
Google's doing evil (Score:3)
and don't try to hide it by doing a doodle of flowers growing.
Buying congress makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Buying congress makes sense (Score:4, Funny)
up his sock hole
Where the hell are you wearing your socks???
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds Credible to Me (Score:5, Insightful)
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!"
Re:Sounds Credible to Me (Score:5, Insightful)
And honestly I'm not sure they made the wrong priority decision. Whether they support climate change politicians or not, little is going to change in that area.
Re: (Score:3)
It's just business (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Q: What do you when you have enough money?
A: Anything you want, including discarding the trash you used to get to the top.
That can be read at least two different ways:
(a) trash = scummy politicians who took your bribes
(b) trash = idealists who believed your promises
I think that the closer you get to having "enough money" the more the definition of "trash" changes from (a) to (b).
Re: (Score:3)
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.
No they aren't. Wars are won by being smart enough to avoid them in the first place.
The ends do not justify the means. Buying those in power ensure they stay in power. By the time you eventually get enough money and power to actually undo all the damage they have done, you have either become them or so much damage has been done that it is nigh impossible to fix it.
Re: (Score:3)
We're taking care of our planet, you just aren't acknowledging it.
To quote George Carlin: "The planet is fine, the people are fucked"
Out of touch much? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the issue here is right wing vs left wing, it is that he accepts myths over observable fact. I don't think magical thinking is a political thing.
It is a sad fact that a significant number of Americans share that view. I still would not call that mainstream, unless you are in the bible belt.
Re: (Score:3)
http://xkcd.com/154/ [xkcd.com]
"A million people can call the mountains a fiction, yet it need not trouble you as you stand atop them"
"But he's a US Senator!"
"Ah. Then yes, we do have a bit of a situation."
Re: (Score:2)
Good catch, I totally forgot that one.
Re: (Score:3)
A Global Warming Denier may let bad thinking affect 1 / 100 bills. A Economics-and-Human-Nature Denier lets bad thinking affect 100 / 100 bills. The latter is much more damaging, but only the former raises ire on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
Public Sector Unions and a lack of Tort Reform in the ACA come to mind. I'll leave the details as an exercise for the reader.
Re: (Score:3)
You need to research those yourself.
Tort Reform was enacted in TX, medical costs did not drop a cent. In fact they continued upwards even though now a doctor can make you unable to ever work again and you will not be made whole financially.
Fun fact, items are priced for what the market will stand, if you lower the costs, the producer will pocket the difference as profit.
Re: (Score:3)
There are exactly zero politicians who can be said to generate only data-driven policy.
Inhofe's climate change stance is polluted by bad thinking, which isn't good, but can only result in limited damage. Climate change may influence 1 out of 100 bills.
The 28 democratic CA state assembly members' stance on public unions is polluted by bad thinking, which results in far-reaching damage. Budgetary concerns influence 100 out of 100 bills.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the issue here is right wing vs left wing, it is that he accepts myths over observable fact.
Really? Like the left wingers in siphonphores post "who's antipathy toward free enterprise and economic globalism lead to more human suffering around the world than that of a global warming denier"? They also accept myths over observable facts. Maybe it's just myths that you also happen to believe?
Re: (Score:3)
How is that any different from the 11 US Senators (9 Democrats, 1 Independent Democrat and 1 Republican) who signed an anti-GMO salmon letter [foodsafetynews.com] even though there is a wide scientific consensus built over 15 years that they are perfectly safe?
Politicians have all sorts of wacky ideas (or claim to have them due to having a wacky constituency, or because it actually helps them for an entirely different reason). I'm 100% sure that a number of the signatories of the anti-GMO salmon letter have no idea whether it's
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't David Duke's final term, this guy is mainstream.
That's probably part of the problem.
Re: (Score:3)
The Economist ran a spread on this a few weeks ago:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim
What a politician railing against free enterprise sounds like:
"We need to give people a living wage"
"Everyone has the right to free health care"
"Energy prices should reflect the true cost of fossil fuels"
And some less partisan ones:
"Consumers need automotive dealers and shouldn't be able to buy direct from the manufacturer"
"Peo
Any more proof of corruption. (Score:2)
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.
Google does evil (Score:2)
Nice to get that cleared up.
You can't debate with religious people (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Biblical Tax Codes (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be silly. There's no such place as Ireland in the bible.
surprised? Not really (Score:3)
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.
Investment (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Investment (Score:4, Insightful)
Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee more corruptible.
I'm not disagreeing with you -- mostly I agree with you -- but I think you skipped the most important thing. Government has never been more powerful, which means lobbying has never been so worthwhile -- indeed, necessary. Centralizing power and decision-making makes it obvious where wealthy parties should be making their investments: at the center. That's why of America's 10 wealthiest counties, six of them surround Washington DC.
Also -- I thought it odd that every single thing you presented in your second paragraph as a hypothetical is in fact already happening all around us (carbon sequestration and other Solyndra-type debacles, higher-priced fuel formulations, huge research grants, etc.).
lllll Alaska Jack
Re: (Score:3)
Well that's just because, corruption is illegal, and congress took care of that. All those things that got them in trouble in the past have been fixed, they made them legal, you just have to follow the rules. (now it's not the CEO but a registered lobbyist and they don't come to Washington they just send a jet).
It's not the science (Score:4, Insightful)
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.)
'Arrogance' is an Appeal to Emotion (Score:2)
When your argument contains a logical fallacy [wikipedia.org], 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.
And they are wrong again (Score:2)
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 poin
Re: (Score:2)
All they need to do is remember how we caused the ozone hole.
profits before the environment (Score:2)
What a short memory. Remember the ozone hole? (Score:2)
'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/Oz [wikipedia.org]
They Need Both (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Well, it's come to this. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Laughing about people isn't the same as killing them.
Especially not when it's the kind of people who tell you the sky is pink when you just need to open your eyes to see that that's not the case.
Re:So happy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Accepted? hmmm... I think it is more like encouraged.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And you think Apple and Microsoft are any less evil?? How many wind and solar farms [mercurynews.com] 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.
Re:So happy (Score:5, Informative)
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 [bloomberg.com]
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.
Re:So happy (Score:5, Insightful)
What about round earth?
Or the earth being very old?
Fun fact, reality does not care if you believe in it or not.
Re: (Score:3)
That's okay. Global Warming believes in you.
Re:So happy (Score:5, Funny)
I don't believe in gravity, so I do not care how hard I'll hit the pavement when I jump off this building.
Re:So happy (Score:4, Funny)
I tried not believing in gravity, but it only made me lightheaded.
Re:So happy (Score:4, Funny)
I don't believe in global warming, so I do not care what kind of phone I use.
Shut up, already. It's SCIENCE!
Re:So happy (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Doesn't matter if he's evil or not. The results of his beliefs and actions are what matters.
Re: (Score:3)
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 .. THET
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So happy (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [nasa.gov]. 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 [wikipedia.org], 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 [skepticalscience.com], so we know (for a plethora of other reasons, too) it's man-made.
Re: (Score:3)
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. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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%.
Stay out of politics! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stay out of politics! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, politics is just like that. There will likely never be a candidate who's view you all agree with. Most candidates will likely have at least one view you strongly disagree with. Even if there were one, he go to the capital and form a coalition/caucus/committee with other politicians you don't like, if he's going to accomplish anything.
Politics is about compromise. Getting anything done requires helping people you despise accomplish goals that aren't so bad, in order for people who aren't so bad to accomplish goals that you approve of. Don't like that? Stay out of the sausage factory.
Re:So happy (Score:5, Informative)
I can think of some [campaignmoney.org]
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
Re: (Score:2)
The only convictions corporations have are the ones that show up on their criminal record.
Re: (Score:3)
Ha, corporations get to settle their criminal cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Plea bargins are convictions. Settlements specifically exclude acceptance of guilt.
Re: (Score:3)
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 confirm
Re: (Score:3)
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 gr
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change [scientificamerican.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that when you go into the kitchen to get a beer, you change either the rotation rate of the Earth, or its polar motion, or (more likely) both?
The question is not whether or not it happens, the question is whether it is big enough to be detected observationally. Today, with GPS and VLBI, pretty small changes can be detected (although, I will grant, not you going into the kitchen). (Yet.)
I did calculate once the rotational effect of everyone going back and forth to work in LA; maybe it's time t
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't been here long. That's half the fun.