Return to Website

Number Watch Web Forum

This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.

Number Watch Web Forum
Start a New Topic 
View Entire Thread
Re: Gullible Google

Donna Laframboise spots another Google Gullible in the ranks.
Don’t Let Your Daughters Grow Up to Be This Kind of Scientist

Amy Luers calls herself “a scientist.” An online bio tells us she
holds a Ph.D. in environmental science and an M.A. in international policy studies, both from Stanford University, and a M.S. and B.S. in environmental resources engineering from Humboldt State University.

Ordinary people don’t have minds, priorities, and opinions of their own. In the view of people such as Luers, they’re merely raw material. The mission is to figure out the secret formula by which they can be manipulated to support the right policies.
In other words, her paper has absolutely nothing to do with science. It’s about political strategizing. The word “political” appears in it no less than 22 times.

Climatology: A social science.

Re: Gullible Google

It is difficult to make a head and a tail out of what Google are doing, but there was an interesting article by a US commentator called Joel Kotkin just before the 2012 US Presidential election that might throw a bit of light on it:


Kotkin argues that Obama has assembled a new sort of elite coalition that was providing him with much of the financial backing for his Presidential campaign. This new elite consists of something like well-paid public sector workers, Hollywood, academia and Silicon Valley. Kotkin labels this elite group the "New Clerisy". (the original clerisy was an influential intellectual class, a sort of secular clergy, that supposedly existed in Victorian Britain)

Kotkin's "New Clerisy" idea is also discussed in this link:


Amy Luers, the person spotted by Donna Laframboise, could also be regarded as a member of this New Clerisy.

Re: Gullible Google

Reading the article from "The Register" again, I'd say Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt, is not being entirely gullible. He's showing quite a bit of craftiness for example in this extract from the article:

"And that pesky carbon problem is only going to get bigger, Schmidt said, as internet use increases and data centers will need to be built to service the five to six billion internet users that he says will occupy the planet in the next decade or so.

"The majority of humans will be on the internet," he said.

But an increased number of people in developing countries sharing information, Schmidt believes, will eventually lead to a global understanding of the threat of climate change. "It may take five years or ten years," he said. "A true global emergency, which is underway, will eventually be noticed by the people whose water sources dry up, are victims of terrible variations in climate, on and on – we all know what the issues are.""

Google's core business objective must be to have as many people worldwide on the internet as possible for the advertising revenue they bring in, the six billion user figure referred to above. But at the same time Google is part of the "New Clerisy" that pretends you can run the world, including the internet, to a large degree on renewable energy. Schmidt seems to have come up with a method of 'squaring the circle' - the increased CO2 emissions associated with having six billion users on the internet would need to be tolerated by other progressive people, because once the six billion are online, they will in time recognise the global emergency of climate change and the lying climate change deniers will then be defeated.