
Google made large contributions to climate change deniers - aramanto
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers
======
saurik
This thread of thought was way more interesting than I assumed from the title:
the issue is that some of the same groups that defend Section 230 happen to
also be climate change deniers, and so it becomes this question of the
morality of single issue politics (which affects normal people as well making
decisions at the poll).

~~~
oliwarner
I don't think it's controversial. Don't support groups unless you know what
they're doing (and you support that).

Google either didn't know or didn't care. Neither are acceptable.

~~~
16bytes
> Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with
> organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’
> entire agenda”.

So, in your opinion, you should never engage with anybody that you disagree
with on any issue? It would seem that you wouldn't have many people left to
interact with.

~~~
oliwarner
_Engage with_ and _Shovel money into_ are subtlety different, aren't they?

We are talking about lobbying groups and a company with operating profits to
rival some GDPs. If Google wanted to support a cause, it can do that without
also subsidising climate change deniers.

------
pzone
Why is every group calling the benefits of climate change legislation into
question immediately smeared as "climate change deniers?" It's perfectly valid
to look at the science, accept its conclusions, and remain unconvinced by the
economics in cost-benefit terms.

~~~
resoluteteeth
Imagine that a meteor is heading toward the Earth, and there's a 50% chance
that it will hit us and wipe out all life, but we won't know whether it will
for sure until later and if we want to be able to stop the meteor in the case
where it will we need to start preparing now at immense cost.

In this scenario, if you say "we're not 100% sure it's going to hit the Earth
so we shouldn't prepare until we know for certain" does that make you
"unconvinced"? Or does it make you a "denier"?

~~~
perl4ever
So are you actually concerned about CO2 driven climate change or asteroid
strikes? What about all the other things that could potentially eliminate
civilization?

Something something Pascal's wager...

People constantly talk about "externalities", which implicitly means the
downside of using fossil fuels isn't infinite. Equivocating between "infinite"
and "actually a rather small amount on a global scale" makes anyone paying
attention tune out. You've got to consistently fake sincerity to influence
people. Or I used to think so.

------
rob74
Maybe I'm too cynical, but I wonder why people are so surprised that Google
would prioritise Internet deregulation higher than climate protection? More
Internet regulation would directly impact Google's shareholders, climate
change not (or not in the immediate future). So... Ok, there was this "don't
be evil" thing, but it's been a looong time since anyone at Google has
mentioned that...

------
tjansen
While I am not familiar with any of the organisations mentioned in the
article, I think it is a good thing when non-mainstream views are financially
supported. The headline is "large contributions", but later it is specified as
"more than a dozen organisations" out of "hundreds of groups". So it's not
like it's a focus of Google's spending.

Being able to support opposing viewpoints, and allow them to be funded and
researched, is what (should) differentiate the West from China, where opposing
viewpoints are deemed dangerous and must be shut down.

~~~
aramanto
So in this case, by non-mainstream views you mean lobbying based on made-up
research and plain lies I assume (it is what climate change denial lobbies use
most of the time)

~~~
tjansen
I can't know what research is 'made-up' and what isn't. I just know that it's
not helpful as an argument to always claim that the other side it lying.

~~~
aramanto
There is no other side in this case in my humble opinion. What we have is
overwhelming scientific evidence supporting climate change, and some made-up
research paid by carbon industry lobbies, like some of the organizations
funded by google mentioned in the article, which deny climate change.

~~~
tjansen
Does any of them literally _deny_ climate change?

I did a quick Wikipedia check on first two of the mentioned organizations, CEI
and the Heartland Institute. Both seem to acknowledge that the climate changes
because of human action. They are called 'climate deniers' because the other
side does not agree with them on policies.

~~~
aramanto
I haven't been precise enough, sorry. They deny that drastic carbon reductions
are needed as a result of climate change. In other words, they deny that
climate change is the cause of carbon emissions, which to me is denying
climate change.

[https://www.heartland.org/publications-
resources/publication...](https://www.heartland.org/publications-
resources/publications/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels---summary-
for-policymakers)

In this new volume, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and
refute IPCC’s claim that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and
the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels

~~~
tjansen
I agree that this paper, at least the 'summary for policymakers', is trash and
comes pretty close to denying. It scratches on the surface of some good
points, but doesn't follow through. But even then, I rather have someone offer
a (stupid) counter-argument than no counter-argument at all.

------
Animats
CEI? AEI? Heritage Action? Google supports _those_? Those are the classic
conservative PACs.

Although, in the era of Trump, they're starting to look not so bad.

~~~
dredmorbius
Google have _long_ supported those and others, which I'd called out back on
G+. Much of the major Libertarian / Koch octopus / Atlas Network / Mont
Pelerin front groups.

Exceedingly disappointing. Glad to see it getting called out.

