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).
> 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.
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.
Depends on the issue and whether they are actively pushing that issue. Should I be more inclusive to assholes in general? Maybe. Should I give comfort to those that threaten entire societies? You tell me.
Sounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"
I think it's extremely short sighted to classify climate crisis as "single issue politics". If there was a single issue to impact all other issues than that would be it.
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.
Because once you start talking about economics and fiscal issues you rapidly lose control of the political discussion. Suddenly, the issue isn't 'we must do x' it is 'x costs y and has z payoff.'
This is a major political problem because the way public understands most issues is that there isn't a tradeoff between costs and benefits like this. When there is it's usually hidden behind a myth like 'the space program produces lots of commerical knowledge' or 'military spending produced the internet.' Of course, neither of these is true in any real sense. It doesn't mean that the space program or military spending don't have benefits in and of themselves but claiming that they didn't cost anything because they produced ancillary benefits that just so happened to cover their investment is magical thinking.
You have the same problem with discussions on green energy today. Saying we have to invest in green energy not because of climate change but because "that is where all the jobs will be" and "renewable energy pays for itself because it is cheaper" are basically the same kind of mythmaking to rationalize away costs.
From a political perspective, this makes a lot of sense. If you want a discussion about actual costs and expected payoffs you can't claim that climate change legislation has no downsides; which, while true, is incredibly problematic to assert.
What you want to do is have the costs managed internally by the political coalition so you can handwave away hard discussions about fiscal issues. Of course, it always turns out that the subsidies required are either always politically acceptable or do much less than what population expects.
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"?
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.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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.
The Heartland Institute that puts up Unabomber posters of "I still believe in climate change, do you?", advocates for coal, tobacco and fracking, and against any move to renewables.
Solely from Wikipedia. Given the extent of their policies denying the link between tobacco and health, between climate change and human activity (or it's a good thing really), I think you massively underplay why they attracted a label "denier".
On both tobacco and climate they are denying in the face of overwhelming evidence. Tobacco alone is enough for me to consider them entirely unethical and working against the public interest.
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.
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
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.
Once you've overloaded the term "climate change" to exclusively have that specific meaning, how would you refer to any potential past, present, or future change in the planet's climate that doesn't fall into that narrow definition?
Climate change is the cause of carbon emissions? So what does that mean, we have to have an ice age to eliminate fossil fuels? How do we do that, lots of nuclear testing?
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.
This is the point where you enumerate exactly which of her statements (direct quotes please) that you find either
a. Delusional
b. hysterical
I've watched her statements quite closely and they seem fairly well calibrated, and I'm sure you're not just regurgitating talking points, so I'd be interested to see what you have.
The latter. Why what? Why I have this opinion? Simply because the whole campaign is purely based on emotions, it's whole frickin idea is to cause hysteria in people's minds. And Greta even says that she wants people to be afraid.
> because the whole campaign is purely based on emotions
Err hang on a minute. Every campaign, advert, promotion, or politician and political party election broadcast, and marketing of everything is based on emotion, and frequently fear and hysteria.
The ad homimen is "spot on", but you make no mention of any of the rest?
Everybody who urges to cut funding for 'climate deniers', for example. And people who call any discussion about it 'dangerous'.
I certainly didn't talk about Greta Thunberg. From what I know, she's embracing the viewpoints of other organizations (which I think is the smartest thing she can do).
"Okay, the climate is burning .. but can we please calm down and stop throwing water on the guys starting the fires .." - doesn't seem like a very productive response.
I think, also, you have to temper your hatred of Greta for being an uppity pre-teen, with the realization that Oil companies have known about the climate problem since the 70's and have actively worked to obfuscate the issue in order to protect their yearly profits. For DECADES.
Without taking that into account, any discussion over the 'appropriate behaviour of Greta' is certainly ingenuous, if not downright specious...
Living in Germany, with its history of ineffective but expensive actions against climate change, I do wish people would stay a bit calmer. Germany could have used its money to fund research that would help solve the issue globally. Instead we spent incredible amounts of money on low-tech solutions without actually reducing our climate footprint or even having a plan of how to eliminate fossil fuels.
(Not sure why you always come back to Greta T. She's really not relevant in this discussion)
Greta was the subject of the OP I originally responded to. I think she is relevant, since she is the #1 figurehead for climate change responsibility at the moment.
Anyway, I hear your point about Germany, but .. so? We can't go back and fix this. We must look forward to our own futures and do something effective about it NOW.
Myself, I'm divesting myself of all oil-based energy sources. I get my electricity from renewable (wind) sources, and live in Austria where we have been managing renewable energy projects for centuries.
Yes, but the potential of hydro is already maxed out in many countries. According to Wikipedia, Austria produces 55% of its energy using hydro. That's great, but most other countries can't do this. In Germany it generates less than 10%. There is no way to follow the Austrian model.
There are not many options for energy sources that are reliable all year and can provide enough energy to replace fossils. There's also no efficient way to store enough energy to overcome the fluctuation in wind energy. Wind is just not a path to being carbon neutral without having a way to store the energy. It can reduce emissions from fossil fuels when it is available, but it can't replace them.
You might change your ways. If enough of us do that, we might have a chance to survive. Currently the ship is sinking - do you want to pull out a deck chair and behave as if everything is just fine, sipping on cocktails while the sharks float by?
OR would you rather help out those of us who are manning the lifeboats and trying to get folks to safety? You're going to have to put down the cocktail, sir.
So I think what's happening is that it gets heavily flagged and, because of that, demoted; then gets reviewed by the admins and the flags wiped; then gets heavily flagged again and demoted again.
p.s. It's now at 120 and about to fall off the bottom of the 4th page.
