JD on EP

Normally I agree with most of what you have to say, so I was surprised to find myself disagreeing here.

I'll leave off the debate about the effects (if any) that mankind are having on the environment (a difficult thing to measure, certainly, since we only have good weather records since the late 19th century - hardly a good sample size).

Google has a long history of changing their logo for any number of holidays - some of them religious and others kind of silly (Da Vinci's birthday was one, I think).

When they change their logo for Easter, should they be interpreted as pushing Christianity over other religions?

I think the logo changes are fun. It would be a pity if they had to quit doing them because people get offended every time one refers to something with which someone disagrees.

It is a relief to know that your fragile mind has not been affetected by Google.

You're American aren't you. When will you people realise just how out of touch with world opinion you've become, and how resented as a consequence.

>Google's attempted manipulation

Do you realize how presumptuous that is? Seriously, you sound fanatical. It really hurts your position and credibility. I actually think it is quite fair to say that you're doing a whole lot more "attempted manipulation" than Google's logo which only seems to reflect that climate change is a hot topic in society and says nothing about the personal beliefs or intent of the Google staff.

It seems more and more people ferociously deny any global warming solely because Gore (admittedly not one of my favorites too) is not exactly Bush's friend. Quoted from the "airconditioning link" above:

"And yet Bush is always portrayed as the devil in this ecological morality play."

(Ahhhhh, poor guy.)

Who's talking about making it a political issue?

I rolled my eyes when I saw that melting iceberg thing. But it is a "hot topic" - hahaha. Not that I don't suspect that decades of voracious energy consumption has not contributed to warming, but with the growth of Asia's energy consumption, I have a hard time believing it can be slowed, much less stopped.

And the existence of Google does not exactly encourage less consumption in the world. They prosper from voracious consumption.

fwiw, Google has not had an Easter logo since 2000.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/holidaylogos.html

All past "Earth Day" logos have been significantly different in theme - much more playful than the melting iceberg thing.

JD, I think you may break a record for most comments to a single post on this one.

People - please resist the urge to flame away and consider how effective your comments could possibly be. I see this all the time, someone makes a stance against global warming and draws the ire of folks who care. I seriously doubt if anyone here can say anything that has a snowball's chance in hell of changing JD's opinion.
[jd sez: Solid evidence of significant anthropogenic contributions would do it. Being damned for heterodoxy would not. ;-) ]

Think about it: how do you change a person's opinion? It almost never happens through communication. People don't change their opinions based on other people's opinions. In the overwhelming majority of cases people change an opinion because of an event.

We'll just have to wait for some catastrophic event that has no historical precedence to convince the remaining skeptics.

"Think about it: how do you change a person's opinion? It almost never happens through communication."

That depends on the person and the situation. If the person is willing to learn, to think, to evolve..., it's pretty possible.

JD,
I'm sure you're right. These things are all lies. Some people have too much free time so they make up these things.
Lets keep doing what we're doing. Lets destroy what's left. Why should we care about the place where we live and all its beings?
Why would we want glaciers or icebergs? And the other species are all useless.
Skin cancer, respiratory diseases, drought, floods, tornados, increasing sea level, ... these are all myths.

I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you that Google has put an iceberg on their website. Who knows what fragile minds will be corrupted by this cataclysmic event, which I'm sorry to say I completely missed.

Thanks, John, you know we all love to poke fun, and this time we get to poke fun at Y-O-U! (Hope you don't mind too much).

Seriously, though, your assertion that the human effect on global warming is incalculable is not only not supported, in fact quite the opposite is true. Astonishingly, we have to reach back into the history of science to show the first case. The Swedish physical chemist Arrhenius first calculated the effect of CO2 on global warming, largely correctly, about a century ago.
[jd sez: A butterfly in Brazil also has an effect upon the rest of the world's climate, but we are not able to calculate whether it is a signficant effect, and so do not rush to ship them all off to Paris and brand all those who demur as heretics.]

It's quite an impressive achievement, since he did it in paper and pencil in his spare time while he wasn't busy winning the Nobel prize in Chemistry. Something about water being ionized, fairly basic stuff everyone learns now in high school chemistry.

Nowadays, of course climate scientists have computers. My impression is that they really know how to use them, and at this late date it isn't going to help the ephemeral polar bear species one little bit.

Seems your comments on global warming are being addressed ;-)

What I haven't seen anyone call you on yet however is your presumption that Google is attempting to manipulate anyone, especially as a part of some "political/business campaign". As the link Brian Sassaman provided points out Google first commemorated Earth Day with a custom logo in 2001. I guess you could argue that "the campaign" was already under way at that point but then you'd have to be a bit more specific about this nefarious campaign you refer to. I also guess that an extension of your argument would be that any business or organization that chooses to recognise Earth Day is also particpating in said campaign.

Or maybe it's this year's iceberg specifically which caused you to see a conspiracy? Are cartoons of melting icebergs some sort of icon for a particular agenda?

I will give you bonus points for all those $10 words ;-)

[jd sez: Yup, I amp'd up the vocabulary to tone down some of the more faith-based replies, you nailed me. ;-) (The last year has seen "holocaust deniers", the Gore sermon film, climatologists losing jobs if they poked their finger in the lancehole... the social climate has gotten much hotter for us heathens the past year, and I snapped when I saw the "melting icebergs" logo.)]

Cheers,
A.

> A butterfly in Brazil

How that is an even remotely relevant comparison is beyond me. It reads as desperation for lack of any kind of meaningful acknowledgment towards your commenter. [jd sez: Rephrased: The existence of a difference does not imply the existence of a meaningful, significant difference.]

Your entire post reeks of desperate fanaticism for that matter. [jd sez: Like I said about heathen-smiting....] It can be deduced to a few points. One, you believe that reducing polution is both unsane and ludicrous. Two, you believe that the effects of human-kind on the Earth's climate can not be measured. And three, you believe Google is conspiring to manipulate the public to believe otherwise.

To that second point in particular, I do not believe you possess the scientific background to back your claim. And spare us the links. I can find plenty myself that support either opinion. If I'm wrong about your scientific mastery however, please, do redeem yourself. [jd sez: And you're hesitant to reveal your identity when attacking others because...?]

Most people who blog, myself included, like the attention on some level. Outside of the political blogosphere, it's usually a desire to be recognized for contributing something meaningful to a larger conversation about an important topic.

My worst fears about what sort of response you were hoping for with your initial post were confirmed by your responses, JD. Rather than feed your need, however, I'm just going to take your blog off my reading list.

C'mon George B. ...we know it's you that posted this comment...take off your mask. Only you can have this kind of irresponsible comments and it just proves once again that you are a selfish, egocentric annoying little [ethnic pejorative deleted]. For as long as you have your guns, your oil to fuel your out-of-proportion SUV's I think you do not give a frak about looking after your planet...do you?
I am so dispointed.

[jd sez: I'm close to once again deleting pseudonymous replies.]

>hesitant to reveal your identity

It makes no difference who I am and what my credentials may be. My position needs no accredited scientific backing and I make no wild claims of conspiracy. Attacking my anonymity is a pathetically failed cheap shot.... [jd sez: Snip. Get your own blog, 'cause comments policy is about to revert to "own your words" on this one.]

Related: US is currently largest producer of "greenhouse gases", and was expected to be passed by China in 2010. The recent surge in economic growth has moved that timetable up to later this year, predicts IEA computer models. Cleaner energy sources already exist, but the challenge is in getting these deployed in developing economies while it can still make a difference.

(I still worry more about sudden solar-initiated climate change or space-debris earthfall more than humanity's linear effect upon the environment, but China is exceedingly beautiful, and its people deserve a high standard of living... the reduction of negative externalities in technology is a worthy goal in itself.)

Was Google trolling jd, or is jd trolling the eco crowd?
[jd sez: More like I originally said... I was offended, to see that a counterproductive faith-based initiative had slipped in onto some of the highest-priced real estate in the world. The alternative, to stay silent, would be a failure of my responsibilities as a human.]

Seems to me like people are mixing up form and function. OK let's take the 'form' first...

Well I understood that the melting of the glaciers is a well established scientific fact, regardless of the cause(s), and that the global consequences promise to be dire, so an 'Earth Day' could quite reasonably focus on that issue without being accused of manipulating people, or [explicit reference deleted], or whatever it is that jd is complaining about.

Even if the glaciers are melting because the stack of turtles (on which - as every sane person knows - the earth rests) are rubbing their flippers together, causing cosmic fricactive warming energies - it's still cause for some attention and (dare I say it) concern. No?

Incidentally, Easter is not just a Christian holiday. The very word "Easter" refers to a pagan fertility rite (with connections to ancient deities named "Astarte", "Ishtar" and "Eostre"). Also pagan are the idolatory Easter bunny, and Easter eggs. which rot your teeth too! Perhaps a melting Easter egg next time?

Now for 'function':

I'm sure it would be possible to find people offended by ANY graphic that Google chooses to decorate its site.

Being offended is what you buy into when you buy into freedom of speech. Freedom of speech doesn't exist if people aren't offended, and of course, people are offended when there are restrictions on that freedom. (Double bind). [jd sez: And I'm able ot say when I'm offended, just as others can say (on their own sites, preferably) that they were offended that I had the temerity to be offended.]

Even if Google put a Swastika up there, I'd be less bothered by it than the I am by the fact that they assist (e.g.) the Chinese government in it's anti-democratic control of information. If you're going to criticise Google, don't start with their window display. [jd sez: I'm not sure how to best engage China, myself.]

Let's keep things in perspective.

Thanks for speaking out it took a bit of bravery in the bandwagon world the net has become. The long earth history you refer to in the post won't register with most people because it wasn't in their lifetime and what could be important if it wasn't. I also appreciated your reference to Bucky Fuller, I heard him use the word/idea many times. If the future of the plant and people is a real goal then Fuller is who we should be looking to. Thanks again it was nice to find out I wasn't alone in a search for reason and not bandwagon/political/popular science.

Wow, quite the hornets' nest you've got here, JD. ;)

I don't think the issue here is so much global warming/climate change as it is Google's importance on the net and what responsibility it has towards its users and shareholders when it comes to taking a stance on a contentious issue.

Thought experiment: Suppose Google displayed one and only one logo of an NBA team the night the playoffs started...

I think that you should actually think About the enviroment because, Most of the companies you work at have a huge impact on the enviroment if one BIG company started then another would start then so on and so forth anyway thank you for letting me speakd me mind. were is Hirutani?

I think that you should actually think About the enviroment because, Most of the companies you work at have a huge impact on the enviroment if one BIG company started then another would start then so on and so forth anyway thank you for letting me speakd me mind. were is Hirutani?

"Suppose Google displayed one and only one logo of an NBA team the night the playoffs started..."

Good parallel. The newspapers don't all root for the same team, but you've captured some of how it feels for me.

"Suppose Google displayed one and only one logo of an NBA team the night the playoffs started..."

Great analogy!

I think that is pretty much how I see it as well. It is OK with me if they put up a logo for a holiday of a particular religion or support an NBA team of their choosing.

Google isn't the government, they can take sides all they want. Obviously, in so doing they risk offending people (as they clearly have here), but that is their choice.

Personally, I don't read much into their logos. I think they are all in fun and shouldn't be taken too seriously (though I do see the argument that this logo felt more serious than most).