Google continues to make donations to anti-science groups despite their public environmental...

William Gayde

TS Addict
Staff member

A new report from The Guardian outlines Google's "substantial contributions to some of the most notorious climate deniers in Washington despite its insistence that it supports political action on the climate crisis." The full list of groups that receive substantial contributions from Google is available on their website.

Included in this list is the CATO institute, founded by Charles Koch, which routinely opposes climate action. Another recipient is the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a group that helped convince the Trump Administration to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement. CEI's policy director was on the 2016 presidential transition team and has criticized the administration for not cutting climate protections enough.

Google is listed as a sponsor for the State Policy Network (SPN) which has called Greta Thunberg's climate activism delusional. SPN believes the "natural environment is getting better" and that "there is no climate crisis." Backed by the fossil fuel industry, other climate denial groups that Google contributes to include the American Conservative Union, American Enterprise Institute, and Americans for Tax Reform.

The Guardian reached out to Google for comment and they stated that their collaboration with such organizations does not mean they endorse the organizations' entire agenda. A spokesperson for Google said they were "hardly alone" among other tech companies that donate to groups despite disagreeing with them on climate policy.

Google has operated on 100% renewable energy for two years in a row, was a major proponent of the Paris Climate Agreement, and has sponsored local climate action summits. When you follow the money though, they seem to have differing agendas publicly and privately. Industry analysts have called it "greenwashing" for portraying an image of climate action yet donating in opposition behind the scenes.

Google is generally transparent in their political action and donates to groups across the political spectrum. One explanation is that donating to climate denial groups may be part of Google's effort to win over conservative law makers in an effort to stop potential government regulation of the technology industry.

Permalink to story.

 

IAMTHESTIG

TS Evangelist
Of course.... most of this green stuff is all for show. Very few companies really are and they don't care. All they care about is profit. If all these tech companies were really about being green they wouldn't be making crap products that you have to replace 2-5 years down the road. They would be making everything they can modular especially batteries so you can replace the aged/broken part and move on with the same product. THAT, would be green. But no, all they do is put up a fake image of their being green, make all these claims, and the lefties eat it up because lots of them are gullible as all get out.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
Of course.... most of this green stuff is all for show. Very few companies really are and they don't care. All they care about is profit. If all these tech companies were really about being green they wouldn't be making crap products that you have to replace 2-5 years down the road. They would be making everything they can modular especially batteries so you can replace the aged/broken part and move on with the same product. THAT, would be green. But no, all they do is put up a fake image of their being green, make all these claims, and the lefties eat it up because lots of them are gullible as all get out.
I am a leftie and I do not buy anything gagme says. As far as I am concerned, they are a modern plague ripe with tons of :poop:. I also think the same thing of fakebook and tweeter, too. I rarely use gagme for anything, and I never bought into fakebook or tweeter.
 

Uncle Al

TS Evangelist
Sooooo .... after we have gone through the mass extinction, who will be their new target market?
 
Geee...maybe companies, like people, don't make all of their decisions based on ONE issue?

We can disagree with these group's climate stance, but they have plenty of other issues that they're focusing on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hk2000 and psycros

psycros

TS Evangelist
Maybe Google, like a rapidly growing segment of the population, has actually done their homework and realized that the climate alarmists are cherry-picking their data or in some cases fabricating it. We've known for 50 years that humanity's overall greenhouse gas contributions are minimal. The idea that the climate has never changed as rapidly as it has in the past 100 years is laughable and easily debunked.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
Maybe Google, like a rapidly growing segment of the population, has actually done their homework and realized that the climate alarmists are cherry-picking their data or in some cases fabricating it. We've known for 50 years that humanity's overall greenhouse gas contributions are minimal. The idea that the climate has never changed as rapidly as it has in the past 100 years is laughable and easily debunked.
I know that this is what you think, but this is completely incorrect. So, debunk it. Present us with the absolute, credible, scientific evidence that what you say is true, or stop repeating the lies you heard from some :poop: source.

In fact, if you sample the atmosphere's CO2 content, it is scientifically possible to determine the age of the carbon that makes up the CO2. This has been done. Have a look at this Nova episode - https://www.pbs.org/video/decoding-the-weather-machine-vgqhot/

What was found when sampling the atmospheric CO2 is that the preponderance of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is ancient. Where is the only source of ancient carbon you might ask? It is from the fossil fuels that are dug up and are being burned by humanity.

I am not going to go into this in any depth since it is possible to learn a significant amount about the science behind this from the Nova episode I linked. Watch it if you really want to learn the truth.

The science behind it is sound.
 

treetops

TS Evangelist
Lobbying is the problem, stop picking sides!

When the printing press was invented. Powerful people were scared of what would happen if peasants could read. The average peasant never stepped foot beyond the square mile of where they were birthed.

Right vs Left politics is a smoke screen to keep you distracted. Powerful people are still afraid of us peasants.
 

hk2000

TS Booster
Anti science? Those groups are not defined by their view of the climate change issue, each one of them is primarily something completely different from just its view of the climate change, so calling them "anti science" groups is kind of silly- I'm sure they believe and utilize many of the scientific discoveries. This doesn't mean I like or subscribe to any of them or their agendas.
 

Yynxs

TS Addict
Is it just me, or does it seem that recently, TS is carrying out some kind of campaign against Google?
You can't carry out "...some kind of campaign against Google..." but you can wake up and put down the Google-Aid. Nothing said here hasn't been said since the 00's. The problems with Google have always been huge, just like Chinese spying on US companies, there just weren't enough people smart enough to see the larger picture (check the history of Europe vs Google). Equally, Google-Alphabet (and Microsoft) weren't nearly as blatant in their disregard for their data slaves...uh consumers.

 

Yynxs

TS Addict
As for designating "climate science" as 'science' because the "models" sort of work on cherry picked data and "leveled" data, I am reminded the same people helped program the models saying who would win the 2016 election.

If you want to say science, do the science. Look at the ice core data on warming and how long it's gone on. When you wish to only look at C02, try to remember that the largest percentage of the Earth's population is warm and fed outside the tropics than in the history of humans on the planet. Ancient Carbon made that possible and makes possible the creation of goods to PARTIALLY replace it's use. Additionally, ancient carbon is required to mine, smelt, fabricate, and distribute the copper, iron, and steel required to replace the infrastructure to allow the distribution of the energy from 'green' technology. While, you're at it, look at the whole picture. The US has NEGATIVE population growth and imports it's new births. The rest of the world, period, does not. In short, the US does more than the rest of the world to be sustainable and some 'one subject-one focus-one mind' people believe it should do it all and pay for it all.

In short, changing the name from global warming to climate change and saying C02 is the main problem doesn't improve the models, doesn't keep a minimum, let alone a technology based standard of living, doesn't transport the goods, and doesn't feed the planet. If you're 'tech', then be 'tech' and look at all the 'tech', not just latest 'shiny' before you spout off on simple 'leveled data' graphs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wizardB

Danny101

TS Guru
I see the whole climate change campaign as alarmist for political change. Which is why to me it's suspect. However, I still favor a voluntary steps to cleaner energy production and more environmentally friendly chemicals. The poisons concern me more. Even natural chemicals can effect changes in ecosystems like the overgrowth of algae along Florida coasts. Yes, it is naturally occurring, but it has been exasperated with all the extra fertilizers making their way through the watershed. Most of the arguments have turned into an all or nothing game, when somewhere in the middle is more correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
An international group of scientists show that fossil fuel corporations have, for decades, denied the public's right to be accurately informed about climate change by funding efforts to deceive people about the dangers of their product.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
As for designating "climate science" as 'science' because the "models" sort of work on cherry picked data and "leveled" data, I am reminded the same people helped program the models saying who would win the 2016 election.

If you want to say science, do the science. Look at the ice core data on warming and how long it's gone on. When you wish to only look at C02, try to remember that the largest percentage of the Earth's population is warm and fed outside the tropics than in the history of humans on the planet. Ancient Carbon made that possible and makes possible the creation of goods to PARTIALLY replace it's use. Additionally, ancient carbon is required to mine, smelt, fabricate, and distribute the copper, iron, and steel required to replace the infrastructure to allow the distribution of the energy from 'green' technology. While, you're at it, look at the whole picture. The US has NEGATIVE population growth and imports it's new births. The rest of the world, period, does not. In short, the US does more than the rest of the world to be sustainable and some 'one subject-one focus-one mind' people believe it should do it all and pay for it all.

In short, changing the name from global warming to climate change and saying C02 is the main problem doesn't improve the models, doesn't keep a minimum, let alone a technology based standard of living, doesn't transport the goods, and doesn't feed the planet. If you're 'tech', then be 'tech' and look at all the 'tech', not just latest 'shiny' before you spout off on simple 'leveled data' graphs.
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

Review the science. There's a two-hour excellent exposition of the science in the link that I posted earlier. That ancient carbon got us where we are is obvious. That it is pushing the planet in a direction that it might not recover from is also obvious, and it goes well beyond leveled data.

IMO, like the discovery that lead was poisonous to humans, humans learned to live without using lead in a way that it would enter the food chain and our bodies. Because something got humanity where it is is no justification for its continued practice particularly when it is found that it is antithetical to human life.
 

Yynxs

TS Addict
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

Review the science. There's a two-hour excellent exposition of the science in the link that I posted earlier. That ancient carbon got us where we are is obvious. That it is pushing the planet in a direction that it might not recover from is also obvious, and it goes well beyond leveled data.

IMO, like the discovery that lead was poisonous to humans, humans learned to live without using lead in a way that it would enter the food chain and our bodies. Because something got humanity where it is is no justification for its continued practice particularly when it is found that it is antithetical to human life.
And apparently the words about what ancient carbon does and the required changeover effort and the fact you likely post here with the ancient carbon failing power grid and that the US actually did something birthwise to save the planet mean nothing.

I wanted to write a larger explanation but you seem to be a video person and words won't mean anything. You think I said don't do anything because I said the problem is bigger than 'one subject-one focus-one mind'. I can't cure that type of deliberate blindness.

Work and effort are being expended to get something done. Like always, people want to make money on getting something done. Those without money always complain about not enough being spent on something for them.

If you are a billionaire spend some money in the direction you wish to see the energy economy go. A small gesture...convert one city of 100,000 people to full solar (the low noise choice) including full daily power backup for nights and storm/low sunlight/snowstorm situations. Don't forget schools, restaurants (where btw, gas 'cooks better'), small scale manufacturing, and water/sewage requirements (etc) in your power generation scaling. Add wind if you can find space or are willing to sacrifice the farm lands/residential areas (sound is a major factor, let alone view) and flying wildlife surrounding. Don't forget installing charging stations for the vehicles you will be paying to be 100% electric. See how long YOUR BILLION dollars lasts.

If you're not a billionaire, then read a bit more and look at the problems involved in 'one subject-one focus-one mind' choices. Maybe you will be the one to bring some new solution that some of the best minds in the nation and the world have missed.

Seriously, go look at the downsides of the alternatives. I'm not saying (particularly for you because you want to only focus on one statement and not the overall problems) not to use them, just take a look at them. New power generating wind turbines have been designed and patented that don't kill as many birds and bats; how are you planning to pay back the investors in the current wind farm environments so they will convert to the new technology and save our wildlife? That's just one question out of the many involved with 'alternative energy'. Take a look.