Google made large contributions to climate change deniers | Hacker News Reader

Google made large contributions to climate change deniers

theguardian.com

138 pointsaramanto57 comments

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).

Sounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"

Totally agree, however the crude reality is that they are directly helping the cause of climate change denial with their funding.

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.

Google either didn't know

"Google" is also a verb.

It took me a moment to get that, but oh the irony.

> 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.

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.

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.

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 IMHO groups like these are looking to block or slow climate legislation wrapped in fake concern for the validity of science or economics.

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.

CO2 driven climate change isn’t going to wipe us out or do anything particularly exciting. Micro plastics are a more plausible doomsday eco-disaster.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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?

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.

> climate change is the cause of carbon emissions

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?

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'm happy to be proven wrong, but I haven't seen valuable research coming out of think tanks.

They are more of a tool for lobbying, PR, policy drafting, and discreetly funneling money to people for buying their public or private support.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com