Google accused of 'shameful hypocrisy' in fund raising for anti-global warming senator

Google accused of 'shameful hypocrisy' in fund raising for anti-global warming senator

Summary: The search giant is hosting a fundraising lunch for Senator James Inhofe — who's notorious for calling global warming a hoax.

TOPICS: Google

Google's PR machine has this week been trumpeting its wind and sun energy ventures.

But you'll have to go elsewhere to hear about its support for Senator James Inhofe, described by a San Francisco Chronicle columnist as "the delusional or dishonest Oklahoma Republican" who has called global warming the "greatest hoax."

The "Green" giant is helping to raise lots of green for his re-election by hosting a lunch at its Washington office on July 11, costing as much as $2,500 per plate. Google has a large data center in Oklahoma, the senator's home state.

James Temple, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, called it a "shameful act of corporate hypocrisy."

He pointed out that the senator has tried McCarthy-like tactics in accusations against 17 top climate scientists of violating the Federal False Statements Act, which could result in five years in prison over their global warming claims.

Mr Temple wrote,"This is the type of person whom reasonable, thoughtful people — people who supposedly cherish science, data, and reason — call out as dangerous and unfit for public office."

Vice's Brian Merchant, writing on Motherboard, pointed out thatGoogle was the largest donor to the Competitive Enterprise Institute's recent fundraising dinner, writing a check of $50,000 to the anti-science conservative think tank.

Forecast the Facts is collecting signatures for a petition asking CEO Larry Page to cancel the lunch.

Foremski's take

A Google representative told the Guardian newspaper that throwing fund raisers for politicians doesn't mean the company supports their views. I'm pretty sure it does. Money talks and money is Washington's favored "like" button, it counts. To claim otherwise is absurd.

What type of "green" is Google committed to? Dollars or planet? Its cynical hypocrisy over a lunch party will derail the many carefully planted PR stories of a caring corporation. 

Google never refers to its "Do no evil" mantra anymore. A smart move but what has replaced it? "It's complicated" is a more realistic company slogan. 

The biggest risk Google faces is internal

Google's thousands of engineers won't be pleased -- they are young and want to be part of an organization that is unique and working to "do things that matter" as Google says in its recruitment drives.  They are also mostly male and mostly interested in meeting females -- and hypocrisy is not sexy.

If it fails to retain top talent or is unable to recruit it, the cost to Google will far outweigh any short-term tit-tat-back-scratch gains it hopes to win from its two-faced lobbying. 

Yahoo suffered greatly for its compromises with the Chinese government that led to ten-years of hard labor for one of its email users a journalist. Reporters without Borders named Yahoo as Chinese informant, founder Jerry Yang was summoned to Congress and had to face the weeping mother of the imprisoned young man.

Yahoo insiders told me the rank and file were deeply unhappy with the amoral, and immoral behavior of their company.

Google risks alienating its most important constituency – not shareholders or users, but its own people. They notice things and they are motivated by a chance to make big changes. They can see that global warming is changing the world but Google isn't. 

 - - -

Forecast the Facts | Hey Google! Don't Fund Evil!

Lunch for Inhofe should be unthinkable for Google - San Francisco Chronicle

Why Is Google Raising Cash for the Nation's Biggest Climate Change Denier? | Motherboard

Google hosts fundraiser for climate change denying US senator | Environment |

Related stories:

Topic: Google

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • There goes the "freedom of speech"

    The last time I checked it was not a crime against humanity to be a global warning denier. Is it a crime now?
    • Delusions...

      you're as delusional as Inhoffe if you think this article in any way represents an infringement of anyone's first amendment rights.
      • I am talking about google here not the denier.

        Google has any right to support whomever it wants (as long as it is not against the law) without being told what to do by pro global warming follower.
        • Two Different Things

          Sure, Google has a right to free speech. And that free speech can indeed be tainted with hypocrisy. The two are not mutually exclusive.
          • Googles executives and employees have free speech rights, but...

            ...Google as an institution has no rights at all; only the privileges granted to it by law.
            John L. Ries
        • No

          No. Google does not have the right to donate to a politician without being called out for it in the press. It is you who seem to hold very confused beliefs about the meaning of freedom of speech.
        • Hypocrite

          So what you say is that free speech is only for Google and not for people you don't like?

          You have no idea what free speech means, do you?

          Here's a hint: Your kind of "free speech" was granted by the Soviet Union, the GDR and is even being granted by North Korea "You're free to voice your opinion, as long as it's mine".

          You fail to grasp that being allowed to speak freely does not imply having a right to applause for what one is saying.
          • Or, you are free to voice your opinion,

    • Hypocracy isn't a crime

      Google has the right to be as hypocritical as they wish. However everyone else has the right to call them out on it.
      • Yes, especially if...

        ...their hearts are as pure as leftist hearts.
    • CRIMES against God and Humanity

      How could there be a greater CRIME against humanity than to be Responsible for a BILLION Deaths from Famine and Drought and Flood and Plague over the next century because of the effects of Global Warming - just to line the pockets of the Fossil Fuel Barons who OWN Inhofe?
      • How do we know that man made global warming is true?

        Because it has been repeated so many times as being true, by a scientific community, that is highly invested in receiving research grants, proving that man made global warming is in fact true. Not one climate model has a history of predicting changes in climate with any degree of accuracy. In fact, we are told we must trust climate models which have a history of being completely incapable of doing so.

        Mr. Foremski it is not the Senator's or Google's scruples which should be called into question, it is the climate change scientific community whose goal is not determine the main cause of climate change, but to prove that the main cause is man.
        P. Douglas
        • Oh, great, a conspiracy theorist

          Yes, the moon landing was faked, too. It was necessary to do so because the aliens who shot Kennedy demanded it.

          Don't you love people who believe that just because someone claims it on the internet, the laws of thermodynamics suddenly become invalid...
          • Actually, I'm fairly sure the first one was fake

            Nobody mentioned that the "live feed sent around the world" wasn't live, but a home camera pointed at a monitor here on earth. There was a lot of pressure to be "first" and remember, this is a time our government was lying to everyone, Kennedy included.
            I'd give the first moon landing more creditability if it was ever publicly acknowledged what was spun as a "live feed" really was a conversion or home camera pointed at a monitor on earth. Apparently the telemetry data was incompatible with commercial technology on earth, and of course, nobody can verify anything since the backup tapes were destroyed and the original telemetry data was overwritten by NASA so nobody can prove anything. Pretty convenient to have no real proof and I just can't figure out why they lied and pushed what was scan converted, or basically video made on earth was pushed as the live feed and the telemetry and actual backup tapes and telemetry info from the first mission was destroyed. Maybe they didn't know how to archive yet?
            I only bring it up because I am sick of anyone who disagrees with a theory tries to bring up the moon mission because there was enough shadiness to at least warrant questioning. I also believe we did make it the second time and we have it down now though, if it helps...
          • just to help

            before someone tears this apart for mis-wording one sentence, to avoid the point entirely, the original video was incompatible with earth tv.
            The best we have no is a hollywood retouch of the converted home video they made on earth, to be as realistic as possible.
            If those who bash on people for having questions admitted what was pushed as live was not live at all, and all original proof down to the telemetry data was erased by NASA to save room it wouldn't bug me so much when people imply the moon landing questioners are baseless kooks to supposedly bash anyone questioning something.
            for the record, obviously I believe we have an affect on climate and the environment.
          • Actually, some tapes were rescued.

            In the early 2000's while cleaning out a warehouse, the unconverted tapes WERE found and rescued from oblivion, and most likely THAT video, converted by a non-real-time process, was the "retouched" video that came out later. There was no real engineering need to keep the telemetry recordings, but surely the KGB (FSB today) has recordings of the telemetry, audio, and video THEY picked up on Soviet telescopes. If you ask Vladimir real nice, he may let you examine them.

            And of course, the Australian dish crew who filled in at the last minute would have known whether the live feed came in or not. They probably watched Armstrong go down the ladder in much better resolution than the rest of the world, and they could tell you about it. Since they did not have NASA's budget, and they had given the data to NASA, they probably reused their tapes (if they recorded any) long before NASA would have; and as I said, NASA "forgot about" rather than reused their tapes.
          • Not so much

            Read NASA's final report. They never found any original tapes or telemetry. The best we have is remakes of the converted video, recorded by TV stations, itself generated from RCA and Polaroid cameras pointed at a special NASA monitors here on Earth, and then relayed to them.
            If you're talking about NASA's HC station tapes, they already admitted later that those tapes "found" later were just staged simulations.
          • dear moonbeam

            I worked on coverage of that moon landing. If they didn't go to the moon how did they stay off the surface of the planet for so long without people watching the spacecraft revolve around the earth like any other satellite?????
            I know lots of people that watched the rocket blast off and lots of people who covered re-entry and recovery. How did they make the thing disappear in between launch and re-entry?
          • And furthermore...

            ...think of the hundreds of people who worked on the Apollo program (many of whom are still living), not one of whom has ever voiced any suspicion of fraud.
            John L. Ries
          • A lot of people worked at google, Microsoft and yahoo

            And you think they all knew about the PRISM surveillance, really???