Google Blogoscoped


Google & Governator Schwarzenegger Unveil Tool to Battle Climate Change  (View post)

The Singularity [PersonRank 1]

Friday, December 4, 2009
11 years ago2,990 views

<< Internet search giant Google has unveiled a version of Google Earth that predicts both sea level changes and wild fire danger caused by global warming. One of the many tools created this month by Google in support of the UN's Climate Change Convention in Copenhagen (a.k.a. Hopenhagen).

Word of the new features first broke when Former Vice President Al Gore introduced them on YouTube in September. But now – at last! – it's Terminator-approved.

Yesterday, during a press conference at Treasure Island, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Google CEO Eric Schmidt announced the new application. Three years ago at the very same spot, Schwarzenegger signed California's landmark global warming law requiring the state to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Treasure Island, along with SFO and Google's Mountain View headquarters, could all be fully underwater by 2100.

“This is part of our effort to get people to really understand what is happening around us,” said Schmidt. >> ...

Above 1 comments were made in the forum before this was blogged,

Hank [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Google should stay politically neutral. Google provides great services and has great power and I'd hate to have to switch providers of those services just because I can't trust Google to keep from using it's power to influence people one way or another. Please Bring Back the Politically Neutral Google.

josh c [PersonRank 1]

11 years ago #

You're kidding, right? I mean, aren't you aware that the global warming hoax is officially debunked? Even today the UN is meeting crying that's we're at our last moment of hope and that all the rich countries need to pay all the poor countries in order to save the world from global warming... It's all false, made up, and nothing but a grab for power and money.

For all Google's proclaimed focus on reason, facts, math, etc; one would think that the proof of fraudulent data would not have missed their notice. Don't get me wrong, I believe being wasteful is irresponsible, but manipulating people with pseudo-science to garner fame/money/power is criminal. Those who still support this are clearly religious in their belief without regard for reason.

Clearly the Earth is constantly changing, but the purported reasons are far from accurate or innocently propagated. The current state of this change is very much fabricated. It's not about science or the environment. I'd hope Google wouldn't fall into this pitfall.

Igrip [PersonRank 0]

11 years ago #

Josh C please post the sources of your statements.
Without that they are your thoughts.
We need hard core facts and non biased scientists.

Josh C [PersonRank 1]

11 years ago #

[put at-character here]Igrip
   sorry, dont have time to recap everything, but simply google the term "climategate" and start reading.

First, I reject the premise of unbiased scientists. We are people, we all have opinions. The trick is to let empirical data and common sense speak for itself regardless of whatever outcome you wish to find. Evidence is that the so-called global warming scientists were far from unbiased.

Hackers exposed emails between global warming researchers over the years. And contrary to Mr Al Gore's claims, the emails are as recent as Nov 9 2009. Basically, the raw data was mishandled and in cases artificially manipulated. The models and data have been basically hidden because results weren't reproducable, not to mention short-sighted.

I spent my college years studying math, specifically differential calculus and interpolation techniques. That would be the same stuff used in any predictor models. Essentially, you're projections are only as good as the raw data points and accurate for far less time forward than you have history. As you project forward, the expected error increases substantially. I forget the names of the two most common approaches, but it goes like this.. One way plots a line through your raw data that is quite close to matching historical data and probably does a good job predicting short term, but radically falls apart at a certain time in the near future. The other approach plots a historical line that is less accurate but falls apart less quickly in predicting future data points. Not only are neither completely reliable, but both can't account for unforeseen, external influences which is part of any chaotic system like the weather. Rain and the cooling effect of melting ice can't even be reliably accounted with any means I know of – just watch how often your local whether gets the rain forecast exactly right.

Btw, despite the email evidence some will point to the glacial ice. Sure there are pictures of it changing. Earth is always changing and has more history of being warm than cold over the billions of years. That there is change isn't the argument so much as the cause and the idea we can do anything about it anyway.

The climate models were rigged to produce the outcome desired, as evidenced by those emails. You can surmise what the motivations for that on your own. Even without knowing how prediction models work, anyone can reason that its a farce. Anything whose solution requires the subjugation of some people based on economic circumstance for the purported benefit of another is always a con job. always. No one ever wins by someone else losing.

An entertaining side note, 2009 is one of the 4 or 5 coolest years in the last 80 or 90 despite the predictions of ever increasing global temps. This could easily be dismissed as an outlyer except the recent 2, or 3, or 4 years have all been cool. So while the warming nuts were flying their private jets to meet in Copenhagan to put on their facade, the USA was prematurely hit by massive snow storms in many areas. ..including the mostly desert state of Arizona.

Well, that's more time than I should have taken. A little independent thinking and the power of the internet is all it takes to unravel the man-made global warming religion.

Josh C [PersonRank 1]

11 years ago #

[put at-character here]Igrip

have to correct myself.. I stated that the earth has tended to be warmer than colder. In fact, that's not true. Hey, I don't study this stuff everyday. Anyway, just after I wrote the above came across this relevant article. Yes, data included. ...

This thread is locked as it's old... but you can create a new thread in the forum. 

Forum home


Blog  |  Forum     more >> Archive | Feed | Google's blogs | About


This site unofficially covers Google™ and more with some rights reserved. Join our forum!