Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt today said it was a “mistake” to support the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a group that has said human-created climate change could be “beneficial” and opposes environmental regulations. Schmidt said groups trying to cast doubt on climate change science are "just literally lying."
Google’s membership in ALEC has been criticized because of the group’s stance on climate change and its opposition to network neutrality rules and municipal broadband. Earlier this month, Google refused to comment after 50 advocacy groups called on the company to end its affiliation with ALEC.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Google Will Stop Supporting Climate Change Science Deniers, Calls Them Liars
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 29 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:12PM
Related:
Google Silent on Supporting American Legislative Exchange Council [soylentnews.org]
MSFT Quits Reactionary Climate-Change-Denying Lobbyist Group [soylentnews.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 23 2014, @09:43PM
Google Motto: Do be evil - until you're caught, and then backtrack.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:13PM
I'm starting to see more people, usually far right-wing, give up denying anthropogenic climate change. However, they're not giving up their position that we shouldn't do anything about it. They now admit that it's happening, and that it will be catastrophic, but it's the price we're all going to pay for economic freedom (free enterprise capitalism with little regulation) which is more important. I even had one person tell me he'd rather see the human race come to an end as long as our last days were lived in freedom, than continue on under the slavery of eco-socialism.
We are never going to win over these people. Their brains are just running different software. Live free or die is something they take literally, and their definition of living free includes being allowed to pollute the earth as much as they can if it's profitable. They don't recognize negative externalities as a problem that can or should be solved.
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:25PM
Fuck 'em. They're a minority and most of us are living in democracies.
The problem of course is that whilst they are a minority, they have a number of extremely wealthy people amongst them that are a corrupting influence on politicians.
Which mean "fuck 'em" involves more than just ignoring them.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:26PM
They're a minority
No, they're the majority. [soylentnews.org]
THAT is where they get what power they have.
Your lot is very loud, but y'all are a tiny minority.
Even the farmers in the Red states in fly-over country know their growing seasons are changing, storms are getting more plentiful and more nasty, and water is getting more dear.
...and stapling tea bags to your hats doesn't suddenly make you the controlling force in the world.
they have a number of extremely wealthy people amongst them that are a corrupting influence on politicians
You should go ahead and name some of those folks.
Here, I'll get it started: Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers...
Oh, wait. Those are the guys on the OTHER side, who have already bought up lamestream media and are trying to buy up the political system (and with the help of SCOTUS are doing a bang-up job of that).
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:48PM
i have been reading an interesting book on authoritarianism recently, which posits that RWA ('right wing authoritarians', not *exactly* meaning in terms of dem'rats vs rethugs), and how not only is there a strong correlation to conservative politics and politicians, but fundie religions as well... hardly surprising when you think about it, but proven in repeatable tests...
now, these 'high-RWA' people do NOT require facts/truth/science on their side to 'believe' in their fearless leader's bullshit, period: ALL they 'require' is Big Daddy with a big megaphone mouthing the morally vacuous, self-contradictory platitudes they so desperately want to believe in, evidence to the contrary be damned (literally)...
these people constitute approx 25% of nearly any population on thisy here ball-o-mud... as we said, they are self-righteously 'right' ALL THE TIME; and if that means they shout the EXACT opposite of what they 'believe', on the basis of their Big Daddy telling them so, then they will do so without blinking...
they are ABSOLUTELY highly motivated, they are easily led by psychopathic leaders, and they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead...
have you bio-nerds found a genetic marker for that ? ? ?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:19PM
There is some scientific evidence [sciencedirect.com] you should peruse to help balance your perspective.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @08:35AM
Love it how you suggest the grandparents findings aren't scientific. And then you confuse the meaning of the word right despite grandparent explains it doesn't mean the left-right political distinction albeit there is a heavy correlation.
I suggest the same to you as you to GP, go read on RWA. It might surprise you.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Wednesday September 24 2014, @11:09AM
I presented a theory that the deniers have multiple walls of denial. One by one, the walls go down, overthrown by the sheer weight of truth. But after one wall, there's always another.
First, global warming was a lie spread from multimillionary evil scientists that wanted grant money. Then, it's no more a lie, but it's not being caused by humans. Then it's caused by humans, but it's not a problem, it's beneficial. Then it's not beneficial any more but the markets will fix it.
The current wall is "the markets can't fix it, but we shouldn't do anything, because that would be pot smoking tree hugger abortionist islamo fascist gay communism and we'd all rather be dead." Could this one be the last wall?
I guess not. The next wall is that we should pray while the seas rise, hurricanes strike and marine life dies from acidification. Pray. That will fix it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 25 2014, @06:23AM
No, the definition of "living free" for them is the freedom to exploit anyone and anything for personal gain, fuck everyone else. Their definition of "living free" is the freedom to be the sociopaths that they are without any consequences.
These sociopaths are a danger to everyone. People like these who don't understand that their rights end where others' bodies and well-being (emotional, physical, economic, and spiritual) begin need to be exiled. THESE are the people who need to be locked up, away from society, not the people that currently fill most prisons - people hurting nobody and only being punished for being in possession of a plant or other chemical.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Leebert on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:15PM
Quoting Schmidt in the article:
"Just literally lying" means that they actually know and believe the opposite but actively are claiming otherwise in a deliberate act of deceit. That's a rough accusation to make. Why isn't it possible that this is a sincerely held belief? He doesn't provide any reasoning as to why it couldn't possibly be a position that, correct or incorrect, they hold in good faith as a result of self-deceit or some sort of cognitive bias. "Everyone understands" it? Hogwash; I've had great discussions with lots of people who genuinely believe otherwise. Those conversations ALWAYS go better when I recognize that it's a sincerely held belief, let them explain it, ask questions to make sure I understand their position, and explain why I think it's incorrect. And I've learned that doing such is good for me, also: Self delusion can go either way; I'm certainly not immune and I'm happy to be convinced that I'm wrong. Maybe not in the moment, but in the long term.
This is the problem with modern public discourse. We're always demonizing the opposition. For example, pro-lifers never voice a recognition that they understand that pro-choicers truly believe that they are protecting the rights of women, and pro-choicers never voice a recognition that pro-lifers truly believe that they are protecting unborn babies. Nodoby's gonna win anybody over that way. Yeah, sure, you're posturing for the people watching who might not have decided, but even then I still think that people are more likely to more likely to gravitate toward the side of the people who demonstrate an understanding and respect for the opposing position but still hold their own position.
Now, it could well be that this is a group of Dr. Evils sitting around in their volcanic lair plotting the destruction of the Earth whilst enriching themselves, but you need more than hand-waving assertion to convince me of that. Hanlon's Razor is popular for a reason.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by richtopia on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:35PM
The argument could be made that the evidence is conclusive enough that any non-biased person should draw the same conclusion, hence the lying remark. Anyway, belief is probably the wrong term for this argument, as we are not discussing a moral question, but interpreting scientific observations.
(Score: 2) by n1 on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:10PM
I had the same thoughts as you on this, that it's a harsh accusation to say they're lying. However, thinking about it a bit more, ALEC could well be lying, because the truth is counter-productive to their interests and their obligation is to their agenda, not to the truth as such. The motto for ALEC is apparently "Limited Government, Free Markets, Federalism", acknowledging the truth of climate change would be against that ideology so lies are the only option, for the greater good of "free markets" and "limited government". Saying that, willful ignorance is probably the term I would have used.
Now the people that listen to and agree with ALEC may well believe it in their heart and could not be seen as lying or willfully ignorant.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:11AM
If ALEC was really concerned about free markets and limited government, they'd concentrate on repealing laws rather than drafting them.
1702845791×2
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SlimmPickens on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:18PM
Schmidt:
“we funded them as part of a political campaign for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that was sort of a mistake, and so we’re trying to not do that in the future.”
-Why were Googs funding this group in the first place?
-What was known of their nutcrackery at the time?
-When did the funding stop?
This group has existed since 1973, has contributed to thousands of bills and based on my skim of Wikipedia seem to only have been publicly scrutinized as nutty since 2011.
I don't think it's automatically evil for Googs to be funding them (by the minimum amount possible) if that's what it takes to get a voice with their leadership and influence them. It's potentially a good thing, despite outward appearances. Not saying it is good, just that there's not enough information.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:27PM
I'm glad Google dumped ALEC, but why didn't they catch on sooner? Why, for that matter did Google ever join ALEC at all? They admit it was a mistake. Did they think they could persuade ALEC to admit climate change is real? If it could be done at all, it would have taken a deal of educating, because the people in ALEC are a dangerous sort of ignorant who think their success in life is because they get it right. They have no idea how wrong they are and lack the humility to acknowledge that sometimes, they, like everyone else, make mistakes. There are even studies that found that the less intelligent are the ones more likely to be more sure of themselves and their positions. They don't understand the difference between propaganda and fact, religion and science. They are cunning fools. The pro-business wing of the Republican party still does not understand why it was a damn fool thing to get in bed with the idiots among the social conservatives, the sorts who want to teach Creationism in biology class and spout nonsense about "legitimate rape". They saw only useful idiots and propaganda tools that they too could use.
Seems a case of corporate herd instinct, with the leaders of Google too busy with other more technological matters to pay attention to a detail like this until public outcry got their attention.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:32PM
Maybe they misguidedly thought they were making some progress on whatever unrelated bill or lobbying they were originally doing. Seems unlikely though, as they could probably just leave the money and back away. It's more likely they're not nearly as agile as they wish they were an corporate inertia took over. It still seems like a pretty stupid move to throw their hats in with a group like that in the first place though.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:59PM
'm glad Google dumped ALEC, but why didn't they catch on sooner? Why, for that matter did Google ever join ALEC at all?
Climate is only ONE of the items on this group's agenda, and the group themselves probably wish it had crept into their agenda.
Google previously was not necessarily sold on Net Neutrality or allowing Municipal broadband, these things compete with some of the things on Google's plate, and they have vacillated on both topics. Municipal broadband competes with Google fiber, Net Neutrality competes with some aspects of Android.
And there are probably a number of other items on the group's agenda that Many, if not most businesses would sign onto.
The problem here is that group peed on today's third rail of politics, and poisoned the well (sorry: couldn't help but mix those metaphors).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:00PM
wish it had NOT crept...
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 23 2014, @11:15PM
What aspects of Android are affected by net neutrality?
(Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:01AM
Google got pretty two-faced about net neutrality (along with Verizon) back in 2010. The fully supported net neutrality for wireline services but totally exempted themselves and the entire wireless industry [blogspot.com] from net neutrality:
Sixth, we both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly. In recognition of the still-nascent nature of the wireless broadband marketplace, under this proposal we would not now apply most of the wireline principles to wireless, except for the transparency requirement. In addition, the Government Accountability Office would be required to report to Congress annually on developments in the wireless broadband marketplace, and whether or not current policies are working to protect consumers.
The were called out on this so furiously that within days they were forced to post another piece trying to defend themselves [blogspot.com] but nobody was buying it. But the FCC saw their chance to exempt wireless, and pounced [engadget.com].
The FCC thought it would make selling net neutrality to congress and industry easier because all they would have to fight were the big ISPs.
Well, that fight isn't going exactly according to plan either. Had Google not caved in to Verizon, we would be in a much better position today. But divide and conquer seems to be working for big carriers.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday September 24 2014, @01:19AM
True, we'd be in better shape, but it has nothing to do with Android.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:14AM
Yes it does.
If Google hadn't been pushing android so hard at that time, the would never have fallen under the persuasion of Verizon. They would have stuck to their net neutrality guns. Verizon convinced them to do otherwise.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Tuesday September 23 2014, @10:41PM
Makes one wonder how much backlash will happen because he said "just literally lying." Because that means there's some people with power that may feel he treaded on their toes.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Entropy on Wednesday September 24 2014, @03:07AM
Reference: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/01/02/global-warming-researchers-rescued-from-arctic-ice [breitbart.com]
Summary: Global warming researchers looking for reduced ice levels get stuck in the ice on week 2 of a 5 week trip. "But it's silly to believe this means we're not seeing global ice melting."
Reference: http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783 [globalresearch.ca]
No global warming in the last 10 years.
Record setting cold in 2007-2008
I've even heard that global cooling is a sign of global warming. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013%E2%80%9314_North_American_cold_wave [wikipedia.org] mentions it's one of the theories being put around.. But if warming is a sign of global warming, and cooling is a sign of global warming...how exactly would any possible scientific evidence be a sign of not global warming? Or are we just not doing science anymore?
REF: http://www.gizmag.com/shipping-pollution/11526/ [gizmag.com]
REF: http://dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/official.pdf [ca.gov] (how many drivers licenses in california?)
Why am I angry at the global warming bs? Mainly because it's being used as the excuse for all manner of truly idiotic decisions. They are screwing with otherwise reliable diesel engines(that already pollute less than many gas engines) and making them break with urea injection and exhaust-gas-recirculation. California is particularly noteworthy for idiotic restrictions(and ruining every gas can in america) .. Sure this sounds great until you realize 1 cargo ship pollutes as much as 50,000,000 (you read that right) cars. California has rough 26M cars... So it's 1/2 of 1 cargo ship. Why are we screwing with cars again?
These restrictions not only screw with cars, they screw with backup generators...That are run how often exactly? Pretty much never. Go do something useful like clean up emissions from a bunker oil fueled cargo ship if you really care about global pollution. You don't even need some BS about global cooling cauing global warming and whining because guess what! There will actually be another ice age...sometime. And there's nothing we can do about it.(except perhaps try to actually bring about global warming.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @04:09AM
...assuming you ever studied it.
You need to learn the difference between an integral and a single data point.
Had you paid attention in school, you might have discovered there is a difference between a (rising-in-the-long-term) baseline and a (wildly deviating) delta.
Taking some time to discover how many overlapping data sets there are that verify global warming would also allow you to look less the faith-based fool.
The phrase that pays is "climate proxies".
...and not to go too ad hominem, but you're more likely to be taken seriously if you find a source other than Breitbart.
Surely some outfit with some integrity covered that story.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Entropy on Wednesday September 24 2014, @04:04PM
Actually I did quite well in Calculus. Admittedly my sources were quickly found, but I wanted to have a little foundation for my claims. Let me review your sources really quick...Hmm...Seems you don't have any. Let me guess..you failed English?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Wednesday September 24 2014, @07:47AM
I would agree that Cali has some bad regulations but the ones you mentioned aren't even related to the issue of greenhouse gases. Urea injection and EGR are meant to reduce smog-forming pollutants (nitrogen oxides). Global warming and smog are two separate problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 24 2014, @05:54PM
you can find tons of archeological "dig sites" today that are underwater. dumb Egyptians burned too much crap and suck their burning library in alexandria!
today it was sunny in the morning, it rained in the afternoon and now it's dark and foggy.
*OMG* climate change!
holy sh1t there used to be mammoths and tigers with teeth as long as swords and they were marching around on ice ... in paris!
sh1t they had so much ice they could walk from russia to alaska, now america.
-
if you hear anything "climate change" please think Chernobyl and Fukushima ... 3 mile island was no problem (because it happened in america)
it is a RUSE of the nuclear industry to push more nuclear power because it emits no carbon dioxide (just like dead humans).
so if you don't want to learn to swimming -or- move your dwelling because the climate CHANGES but instead prefer to have children with three eyes and no brain and food that conveniently glows in the dark for the next 10'000 years ... sure ... clim☢te change.