Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to The Guardian, Google is financing climate skeptic organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in direct contradiction to their stated public position on climate change.
Revealed: Google made large contributions to climate change deniers
Stephanie Kirchgaessnerin Washington
Fri 11 Oct 2019 17.00 AEDTFirm’s public calls for climate action contrast with backing for conservative thinktanks
The obscure law that explains why Google backs climate deniersGoogle has made “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 list includes the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a conservative policy group that was instrumental in convincing the Trump administration to abandon the Paris agreement and has criticised the White House for not dismantling more environmental rules.
…
Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”.
It donates to such groups, people close to the company say, to try to influence conservative lawmakers, and – most importantly – to help finance the deregulatory agenda the groups espouse.A spokesperson for Google said it sponsored organisations from across the political spectrum that advocate for “strong technology policies”.
“We’re hardly alone among companies that contribute to organisations while strongly disagreeing with them on climate policy,” the spokesperson said. Amazon has, like Google, also sponsored a CEI gala, according to a programme for the event reported in the New York Times.
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/11/google-contributions-climate-change-deniers
The Guardian published another story on the same day which suggests Google is worried about maintaining their Section 230 legal immunity, the law which protects Google and other large internet providers from being sued if a user publishes something defamatory on a Google website.
Why are Google and friends so worried about their legal position, that they would fund right wing libertarian climate skeptics?
In my opinion tech giants have good reasons to worry. Leading Democrats like Elizabeth Warren have been talking up plans to hammer big tech companies with anti-trust laws.
Elizabeth Warren is not the only left wing figure attacking tech companies. The recent New York Times article which compared allowing free speech to allowing carbon pollution also blamed big tech companies for allowing the rise of populists. The NYT suggested “remedy” was the creation of a government funded rival to Facebook, and implementation of legal changes to increase private tech giant’s exposure to legal liability for content published using their services, to give the new government social media organization an overwhelming competitive advantage.
At first glance this overt Democrat hostility towards tech giants whose CEOs went above and beyond to support Hillary Clinton might seem inexplicable.
But there seems to be a widespread belief that tech giants did not do enough to stop Russia allegedly meddling in the 2016 election. The revelation that Google is supporting groups which are broadly opposed to the Democrat agenda will do nothing to heal this rift.
It is not just the left who have been turning up the heat on Google. Conservatives and climate skeptics have criticised Google for their alleged efforts to play favourites, promoting the very people who have now turned on them.
Google have very few friends right now, a mess of their own making. One of the few organizations which is standing up for Google’s right to exist is the right wing libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Eating their own, springs immediately to mind.
When they talk about eating their own children, this phrase makes a lot more sense and gets a lot scarier at the same time. Night of the Long Knives comes to mind also.
https://imgur.com/gallery/votDd4v
Across the world typically, considerably more than 50% are climate sceptics.
So More than 50% of Google’s income is generated via sceptics. That’s worth thinking about.
“The Guardian: Google is Financing Climate Deniers”
Yo! Google! Over here! Climate Denier here! How about some funding? Yo! Google? Google? …
Huh, so companies can make millions upon millions based on global warming, Sorry I mean, climate change, which cause anxiety, and depression (i went throught it) and it’s all good, but if a company wants to use its own money to donate to a compant which goes against the mass lies, the company must be punished 😐 If somebody is so sure of what they are saying, then why worry about a small amount of people who disagree and who have no mass media presence.
Well said!
If everybody but a tiny portion of people agrees on what the problem with climate is and they seem to know the solution to climate crisis then why is it still a problem and why are they so worried about that tiny number of people say or do?
same crap anyone speaking up about vaccines bigpharma and gmo cops
how DARE we think differently and wish to express that opinion,
quietly enough , at home with friends or on a blogpage or any media source
OR
show any data that might make someone question the accepted status quo mind laundering that they profit from
goog hypocrisy
they may be “supporting” cei but its ONLY for their own agendas
certainly isnt for any rights to an opinion as shown by the search bias agains ANY and ALL skeptical sites
they are an engine/implement
their job is to collate and present the links
NOT censor or control who sees what
and off topic sort of
I see zuckies been left looking eggfaced as amazon good n the rest leave his libra stunt high n dry without support or funding
:-))) muchly amused and enjoying his snarky greta face
There is no science behind the climate scare.
There is no science behind the anti-vaccine, anti-gmo, anti-nuclear power, or any of the other scares that seem to haunt your life.
It’s the thin edge of the wedge. They know their story is built upon sand. So any deviance from the official story must be cut off before the truth of it gets out.
Unraveling, pulling on a thread, collapsing under it’s own weight. There is plenty of language to describe it.
look mummuy the emperors naked!!!
The radical left has no room for differing viewpoints. You have to agree with everything or they turn on you.
You can’t even agree with them unless you use the prescribed language. It’s like they don’t even understand the formulas they incant. Jordan Peterson points out that the SJW-authoritarians are actually rather stupid. link
On another note, I see that the Heartland Institute gets an honorary mention. link
I remember the 60’s, radicals stood in groups and demanded the right to do their own thing.
Meanwhile they all wore the same tie-dyed tee-shirts, jeans with holes, long hair, etc.
They had just swapped one uniform for another, and then proceeded to tell each other how independent they were.
And what you have to agree with changes every day. One day you can be super politically-correct, and the next day with exactly the same beliefs you’re an evil bigot.
Great posting, Eric. To to projectveritas.com and see the insider Google ™ story. In my (humble?) opinion, Google should be beat up by both sides and banished to Cuba where they belong. Also, wait for it, Project Veritas will this week release an insider (dare I say Whistleblower?) recordings of CNN officials with their pants down and their true agendas showing.
The Guardian telling others how to spend their money?
HOW DARE YOU!
From the article: “But there seems to be a widespread belief that tech giants did not do enough to stop Russia allegedly meddling in the 2016 election.”
Is that really true? There is no evidence that Russians influenced the actual election. That’s official. So are the Democrats so delusional that they still believe their own propaganda and would take actions based on these delusions?
I think Elizabeth Warren just has it in for big corporations, no matter who they are. If you make more than a certain amount of money then in Elizabeth Warren’s opinion, you are a bad person who got your money unfairly and someone like Elizabeth should take that ill-gotten gain away from you and give it to some poor person of Elizabeth’s choice.
I’m all for reigning in Google and all these other internet “arbiters of the truth” who seek to censor information from the public. They should be criticized for censorship, not for some phony Russian interference in American elections.
Russians have been trying to influence America in all sorts of ways for as long as Russia has been communist. They didn’t try to sway the election a certain way, their objective was just to sow discord among Americans, thus they financed demonstrations against both Trump and Hillary.
The Russian goal was, and is, to pit American against American. The Russians should sit back and relax. They can depend on the American Democrats to pit American against American, as they are doing currently.
The Democrats are doing the Russian’s “undermining of America” work for them. Putin must be so pleased with the Democrat’s actions. Playing right into his hands. As they always do. The Russians describe them as “Useful Idiots”.
It would be a disaster of monumental proportions if any of these Democrat fools ended up running this country.
When is the next US election? I really hope sense prevails and Trump is re-elected. He likes eating babies and steeling childhoods.
How dare he!
We don’t necessarily need Trump – only his (internal) policies. He himself is just too much of a loose cannon – and if he becomes the Republican candidate the Democrats will most likely win.
win with what Andy?…..a pretend indian….a bobble head…..a like surfer dude….an old communist….an old crook that can’t keep his stories straight…and some wild eyed black guy that’s going to punch them all out
…and you think Trump is a loose cannon??…Trump is calling them on all their crap including the media
And now democrats are saying this is their best hope >
Um, he WILL be the candidate and likely WILL win again.
If Trump isn’t the candidate, the Democrats not only will win the presidency, but they will most likely win super majorities in the House and Senate again.
Like him or hate him, the Republicans are stuck with Trump.
What year are you living in? Trump is not a “Republican candidate”.
When Trump wins the nomination to run for president on the Republican ticket, he becomes the Republican candidate for president.
What are you babbling on about clipe? if he’s running on the Republican ticket, he is a “Republican candidate”, you can argue that he somehow doesn’t represent the party’s values but that doesn’t make him not a Republican candidate – as all the RINO Republican candidates that have every made it into office can attest.
Who else will stand up to them to implement those policies? If anyone else is elected things will get worse more jobs go overseas more Americans become unemployed and the economy will go in the tank. Just what everyone seems to want so socialism can rule and all of us will be equally poor while corruption reings supreme and the ruling class gets richer. Bloomberg himself even made the statement that Xi sing ping ruler of China is not a dictator because of climate change. How does that statement even make since and what do these people have in store for us if they make statements like this? If these politicians are so worried about climate change why do they continue to buy up ocean front properties, and fly on their Jets and have multi-million dollar residences sometimes three or more? Seems a little heavy on the carbon footprint to me. They also don’t condemn China who has plans to build seven more coal fired electrical generation plants. Also Xi harvests human organs from political dissidents while they are still alive and sells them. Do they have similar plans for us? They have already done this with babies that were aborted at planned Parenthood when will people realize they’re voting for their own destruction? At what point will you realize that you ultimately are on their list of elimination too.
Even after Obama left office, he was still blaming Bush for all the bad things that happened during his administration.
Well, better a steely child than a whining snowflake….
“There is no evidence that Russians influenced the actual election. That’s official.”
Yes, there is.
“The Senate Intelligence Committee, a Republican-led panel that has been investigating foreign electoral interference for more than 2½ years, said in blunt language that Russians worked to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton while bolstering Republican Donald Trump — and made clear that fresh rounds of interference are likely ahead of the 2020 vote.”
Sure they took out a bunch of ads on Facebook. So what. I’d be interested in seeing an analysis of how effective their ‘interference’ campaign really was. Of course, the metric I’d really like to see is how many countries didn’t try to influence the election… probably a short list.
SMC
As Stokes fails to appreciate, there is a difference between attempting to influence and actually being successful. Their attempt(s) had absolutely no influence on me or the myriad of older people who have no use for Facebook. Perhaps some younger people who are easily influenced by peer pressure and propaganda might have been vulnerable, but they typically vote Democrat.
On the other hand, the Guardian and Reuters have a much higher profile and are generally seen as legitimate when Yahoo uses them as ‘news’ sources. They are clearly attempting to influence public opinion and the upcoming election.
Yup. Apparently about a dozen Russians spending approximately 16 thousand dollars (an estimate I read somewhere, don’t recall where) on Facebook ads were allegedly able to have a bigger impact on US elections than the regular army of experienced US lobbyists and advertisers employed by the Clinton campaign to the tune of about 1 to 1.5 billion Dollars. Oh…and then there was all the free campaigning for Clinton by most of the US media and some treasonous members of the US intelligence agencies.
The whole it-woz-the-Russians-wot-dunnit thing was always an utterly ridiculous concept from the outset.
Having said that, Google, Twitter, Facebook do need to be reined in for anti-trust reasons. They are a dominant monopoly, exercising increasing censorship. The Democrat Party may currently be happy with a San Franciso-centric view of what we should be allowed to say and think, but it probably won’t always appear to be so benign to them.
The liberals are mentally incapable of admitting to themselves that they lost because the people liked Trump better. So once again they invent all sort of imaginary hob-goblins in order to explain their loss.
Mentally, it’s tough to take out your assumptions and examine them in order to find out which ones are false. It’s a lot easier to blame nefarious forces for your set backs.
Didn’t the US interfere in Russian politics?
Of course….and Obama tapping all those countries leaders phones….was quietly swept under the carpet….not one word
usa interferes in EVERYONES politics
As everyone interferes in US politics. And round we all go again.
As does everyone else. The US in not unique in that aspect.
As a left-wing Australian you are reading into this a conclusion favorable to your own view. In testimony our idiot lawmakers were incredulous at how little money foreigners contributed to ads. Moreover we do not know whether these were Russians or Ukrainians. You, and the “intelligence committee” are making the same mistake — seeing certainty in a completely opaque program with U.S. intelligence agencies — the same ones who have failed in so many ways — supply their authority for explanations. In most situations we call this a form of confirmation bias.
My memory must be suspect, didn’t I see and hear Barrack Obama lecture the French People, Not to elect the most favoured right wing woman candidate, vying for election in the last French election and he seemed satisfied that he had moved the French voters to elect Macron instead? Yes that same Macron that the yellow vest protesters took to the streets to protest his Diesel fuel carbon taxing deterrent policies. Sure that was blatant interference directly into another countries politics, or is it only Democrats that can get away with a free pass from the Media? (and other Americans)?
President Obama and the Democrats interfered in the Israeli elections.
So you quote the Guardian spin and not the Intelligence Committee’s actual observation. It is the Guardian that maintains that the Russians worked to damage Hillary and bolster Trump, which was only temporarily true, but not at all what the committee was saying:
“Russia is waging an information warfare campaign against the U.S. that didn’t start and didn’t end with the 2016 election,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the committee’s chairman. “Their goal is broader: to sow societal discord and erode public confidence in the machinery of government.”
Quite clearly the Russians were trying to “sow discord in the United States system” and didn’t really care who the candidates were. Thanks to the gullibility and irrational emotionalism of the left, Russia has succeeded beyond it’s wildest dreams! Their stupid little Facebook ads had no impact on the election, but their manipulation of the Western Left into taking up the Russian cause, just by buying stupid Facebook ads, was a stroke of genius!
The Russians wanted to sow discord in the United States system and the media/political left have spent 3 years doing exactly what the Russians wanted! They must think we are idiots! Even your little post above is an example of how successful the Russians have been.
Please stop colluding with the Russians to bring down the United States!
“So you quote the Guardian spin”
No
But if you want a direct quote, the report is here:
Para 1 of the findings:
” The Committee found, that the IRA sought to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential
election by harming Hillary Clinton’s chances of success and supporting Donald Trump
at the direction of the Kremlin. “
Ah, Nick–still no hard evidence of the Russian government doing anything to rig our election, just allegations even if from the senate intelligence committee. I specifically say government because there is no evidence the government was behind the Russian facebook buys–the majority of which were bought after the election, and according to facebook, seen by very few. Nothing at all like the USG interference and financing that assured the re-election of the drunkard Yeltzin who was facilitating the western theft of Russia’s future.
Given the many and deep ties between the Clintons and the Russian government, it strains credulity to believe that the Russian government would work to defeat Hillary.
I think the Russians definitely wanted Hillary to be the next president. The Russians had already bribed both Bill and Hillary Clinton and so the Russians have all they need on the Clinton’s to blackmail them into doing Russian bidding. The same with the Chinese as they have also had financial dealings with the Clintons and know where all the bodies are buried.
The Totalitarians of the World wanted Hillary for president. They can buy or blackmail Hillary. Instead, they got Trump! 🙂
no collusion necessary
you’ll do it all by yourselves
Nick, Sisyphus “worked” to get a boulder up a hill but never succeeded.
How would they know?…..they never looked at the DNC servers
Obama spied, Biden obstructed, Clinton colluded with British and Italian intelligence assets, Kiev, and Russian anti-Putin oligarchs, while NYT, WaPo et al prosecuted witch hunts and warlock trials, social media platforms steers (i.e. prejudiced) research, and anti-native leftists gerrymandered districts through immigration reform in a bid to cover-up collateral damage from social justice adventurism near and abroad. As for the prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, it is merely another policy of fleecing Americans, Europeans, Africans et al and capturing trillions of dollars in redistributive change annually.
Nick, you are not from the US, the WaPo is a blatantly partisan source of fake news and you are cherry picking a quote that is probably a very small part of the original statement. Your political analysis leaves a lot to be desired.
“you are cherry picking a quote that is probably a very small part of the original statement”
I cited the complete opening para of the Senate Committee findings. I linked the whole report.
I am from the same country as Eric Worrall, the author of this article. And I read and cite.
It’s official, Nick:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/16/watch_live_deputy_ag_rod_rosenstein_announcement.html
“Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein held a brief press conference Friday to explain details in the indictment of 13 Russians over alleged election interference. Rosenstein said that no Americans had any knowledge of the operation listed in this indictment and that the operation had no impact on the outcome of the election.”
end excerpt
“No impact on the outcome of the election”, it says, Nick.
It’s an interesting article, Nick, you ought to read it. Like the part where the Russians paid for demonstratins both for and against Trump on the very same day.
Don’t worry, Trump is gong to get to the bottom of all this election skulduggery. And I don’t mean by the Russians, I mean by the Hillary Clinton Cartel and the criminal Obama adminsistration who used the Russians and the Ukranians in an effort to undermine Trump. That’s why the Democrats are so stressted out. He’s going to expose the Democrats for the traitors they are.
” and that the operation had no impact on the outcome of the election”
Rosenstein did not say that. He said ” There is no allegation in the indictment that the charged conduct altered the outcome of the 2016 election”. He didn’t have to prove that to establish the crime, so of course the indictment is not going to try to establish that claim.
Nick “influenced” and “worked to damage” are to different things. One is a result the other is an action. Try again.
oh I reckon hillary managed to get rather a LOT of russian support and bill sure took some hefty fees for his “lectures” dunno bout you but I reckon they wanted exteranl help from russia as payback for favours rendered. Uranium one?
Ilaughed when i was told trump was running
then
I saw the others and the batshit crazylady and figured he was the better hope.
personally im not a fan and i sure dont like what he does on some things
but
hes the best of a bad bad lousy bunch
The Dems have to keep the lie going otherwise someone may notice that the Steele dossier was provide by the Russians in response to the Clinton campaign’s request for assistance in defeating Trump.
The Dems are a classic case of projection. Clinton campaign asks the Russian for assistance; Dems say Trump did. Obama/Biden threatened to take away aide from the Ukraine unless they cooperated in investigating Trump campaign members; Dems claim Trump did it. Dems run decades of hate campaigns against Evangelical Christians, Mormons, Roman Catholics, and have recently added Jews; but the Dems claim Reps are bigots.
Anything you hear from a Dem or MSM (which is just the propaganda wing of the Dem party) assume it is a lie; more often than not it is.
“The Dems are a classic case of projection.”
Yeah, I heard Biden blasting Trump the other day and he was accusing Trump of all sorts of things, and I thought to myself, that everything Biden was accusing Trump of, such as abusing the U.S. Constitution, were things that Biden had done. Biden was describing his own actions and projecting them onto Trump.
Although I don’t think this is because of a mental condition. I think Biden is deliberately trying to change the focus of the story from himself to Trump, so he accuses Trump of every evil he can think of. But Biden is describing himself whether he knows it or not.
I see where Hunter Biden resigned from the Chinese investment firm he was associated with. Why would he resign if there is nothing wrong with what he did? Why would he take the position in the first place when it is obviously a conflict of interest? Why didn’t Joe Biden raise these ethical questions? We all know why, don’t we.
there was a fair bit of Q asking n chatter re Ukraine and the bidens(and other americans/companies) there at the time
msm ignored it
so of course did ohbummer cos he approved it all
Countries have been trying to influence other countries elections, since there have been elections.
I remember Bush the Elder lecturing the Ukranians about not voting to leave Russia or Obama warning the Britains about the dire consequences if they voted to leave the EU.
Obama admin was hot-and-heavy in Israel, too…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/07/12/ngo-connected-to-obamas-2008-campaign-used-u-s-tax-dollars-trying-to-oust-netanyahu/
The “Russian meddling” went both ways…
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/439808-10-factors-making-russia-election-interference-the-most-enduring-scandal
Yes, a favorite Russian tactic is to sow discord. Other countries do the same. We certainly do.
Tom Abbot
You said, “Russians have been trying to influence America in all sorts of ways for as long as Russia has been communist.”
The Guardian and Reuters are the major ‘news’ sources used by Yahoo US News. These are typically more opinion than fact, and have a liberal, AGW leaning. It seems to me that these British outlets are attempting to “influence America” in the same way that Russia has been accused of doing. Yet, no one seems the least bit concerned!
Clyde, I’m concerned about propaganda no matter where it comes from. The Leftwing media of every Western nation have devolved into propaganda machines pushing the Authoritarian agenda.
I feel sorry for the kids of today trying to sort through the blizzard of untruthful propaganda they are subjected to on a daily basis. The world must be a very scary place for many of them who are fooled by the leftwing propaganda. It’s really criminal, what the liars are doing to the kids.
My thought on “The Guardian” is that it has always been a throat slitting no-retraction pile of pica vomit and will publish any story that doesn’t get its editors and reporters killed.
Using the term “deniers” is actually *illegal* in England right now.
Eh? Say what? Reference, please, Prjindigo!
“Google have very few friends right now, a mess of their own making.”
They have plenty of people who like abd use their products.
“…They have plenty of people who like abd…”
So they have lots of ABDLs…how do you know?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=abdl
This is typically a lifestyle choice (A fetish for some) where a adult acts like a baby for comfort reasons. Many people use this to deal with stress, traumatic life events, or just because this is how they chose to live their life. People who are into this might wear adult diapers, use pacifiers, and other various objects that one might use for a child or toddler.
That abd is obviously a typo. I use Google for email, free local advertising and most web searches that don’t involve subjects that they censor. I used to be first page first entry on Google search for my professional skills, partly because I had an internet presence long before Google existed, and partly because my skills were specialised. I have gone back to about third page because there are now plenty of wannabies claiming the same skills and willing to pay for placement. Not something I get upset about. People who need my services still find me.
I use a GMail account which I used to access with a stand-alone email program. But my provider recently changed its method of access which caused me to have to use my webbrowser to access my email account.
All these years I have been accessing my email account and dutifully deleting or storing the emails on my local harddrive. So imagine my surprise when I access the email account with my webbrowser and find that the emails I thought I had deleted over the years are all still right there in my email account.
I was aware that Google keeps a copy of all one’s emails privately, or at least that is the rumor, but I was a little surprised to see that I can’t even delete the emails from my account using a stand-alone email program.
I’m going to try to delete all the emails using my webbrowser but unfortunately the computer I used to access the internet uses Windows XP and Google’s GMail batch delete doesn’t work using Windows XP. I do have a Windows 8 computer but it’s not hooked up to the internet currently. I’ll have to upgrade to Windows 7 or use the Windows 8 computer to delete them.
I wonder if AOL keeps all the emails. Maybe I’ll start using that account again.
Google has benefited from failed green energy policies. In Tennessee they built a giant server farm in the remains of a failed poly silicon plant heavily subsidized by the state. Instead of the thousands of well paying jobs that were loudly touted we got a few low paying jobs. Thanks Google.
Many many companies have learned the hard way that you can’t buy off the Left for long. In the end they come after you.
The evidence is building that the global warming cult is a total fraud. Thinking people everywhere are seeing and understanding the evidence. As this process accelerates, the snouts in the trough politicians, the purchased academics, the subsidy-milking captains of industry and the outright gaudsters will become more frenetic in their determination to institutionalize their control over normal people before the likely descent into an unpleasant cold period exposes all their lies.
The latest Russian Interference to one of our national elections was brought about as their reaction to our activities over there in 2011.
https://dailycaller.com/2016/07/25/dec-2011-hillary-clinton-angers-putin-demands-investigation-into-russian-electoral-fraud/
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-putin-226153
Personally I find Google’s sponsoring whoever somewhat secondary to it’s seemingly consistent “go away” operations of anti totalitarian, anti CAGW, anti NWO and anti open science process.
Take for example the 2009 article “Gorbachev Exposes Global Communist Environmentalism Conspiracy.” The article may or may not be correct in it’s viewpoint, but does that matter? Why have Google closed and put away the accounts containing four of seven videos in the the article and comments? Was it copyright breach or other general legal issues or was it dangerous content to the elite?
The whole world relies on the open and honest fairness of Google and the major social medias.
Google appears to me as having an influence on the overall population worldwide, similar to the influence of Pravda to the Soviet wide population.
Information filtration has become more and more effective, when the general world wide population bowed to the effectiveness of Google and it’s sub divisions. Google’s universal power may or may not have suppressed otherwise massive anti CAGW and anti totalitarian viewpoints, which only a fragmentation to the state of uselessness of the organization, may reveal what diverse views may exist in reality.
Only some decades ago, the the secret police of Czechoslovakia was hindering any suspected anti establishment viewpoint. You would be arrested if you even tried to make a gathering on a street corner. – However, one IT clever guy introduced a worm into the secret police’s mainframe. The worm swapped addresses, names and personal data, making their database unusable. Shortly after that, the history of the country changed dramatically. – A similar stunt would not likely be achievable today, and I would certainly not advice it either, as Google’s services are also providing many beneficial facilities.
I just would like to one day see the other side of CAGW aired with enthusiasm and honesty on national TV-channels, in the major newspapers and at CNN, BBC, Hollywood and the government representation. Have them openly admit that the CO₂ the breath out 24/7 is not a pollutant and we do not need to save the world from CO₂ enhanced tree growth, and we do not need teenage girls to scare us into totalitarianism and self destruction.
Carl – “The whole world relies on the open and honest fairness of Google and the major social medias.“. Maybe it’s worth noting that the 1.4bn people in China don’t have access to anything open or honest.
Just possibly the Chinese authorities got fed up with Google’s open bias. And banned it.
Good God, Nick, nearly everything coming out of the media is spin, and often the publisher of some spin is spinning someone else’s spin. This “Republican-led” effort is a mitigation spin for all the useful idiots who’ve bought the elite wanna-be oligarchs (both those wearing Republican and Democrat monikers) spinning of the Russia bogeyman story from the 2016 election.
Absolutely. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC… They “interfered” in the election much more than any outside influence.
They supported Hillary, so their interference is OK.
MarkW
How quickly we have forgotten that the liberal panel moderator supplied Hillary with the questions before the presidential debate began!
Yeah. Proven during the Democrat Primaries, but unproven during the general election.
And then there was NBC’s withholding of their Trump “locker room talk” recording during the Primaries, to try to help Hillary by ensuring the nomination of the man they believed to be the weakest Republican, and then their release of that recording as an “October surprise” to damage Trump when he was running against Hillary.
And then there was Obama’s flagrant interference in the Israeli election, to try to defeat Netanyahu. If another country interfering in our election is a terrible crime, how is American interference in another democracy’s election not just as bad?
So, googly plays both sides AND lies to it’s customers about it. Shocked! I am shocked, I say. (really? who does not know leftards lie in every direction about every thing?)
“climate deniers”. Never come across one of them. Who denies the climate?
Most alarmists deny that the climate is capable of changing on it’s own.
The Climate Cult obviously, The Guardian included …
Me. Where’s my check, Google?
These so called “Climate Deniers” are the only people currently living in reality land. In the long run reality will have the last word.
In other news.
The Guardian is sponsoring climate alarmists. It is providing the central support for coordinated articles across the globe, aimed at alarming the public, regarding their imagined, but none existent danger of catastrophic climate change.
Further, the Guardian has openly stated it will not allow any climate realist space on its newspaper to air the view, that the climate is not in crisis. It is working hand in glove with the BBC, to ensure all climate realists are no platformed. It wants to avoid the public hearing the truth about the benign climate we have here in the 21st century. They wish to avoid letting the public know, the expected continuance of our benign climate extends forward as far as its possible to assess future climate variability.
The Guardian is a failing newspaper with a reducing readership. This may explain why it is losing money. It doesn’t explain why it is a now a narrow propaganda platform, that hosts cranky climate alarmists such as George Monbiot.
Rob Evans
And if the Guardian is successful in convincing the US voting public that AGW is real and a serious threat, then the US voters will most likely NOT vote for Trump, who does not share that view. Thus, the Guardian is attempting to influence the next US election! Why is there no concern about a British foreign influence in US politics?
“Just the facts ma’am, just the facts!”
Joe Friday
Revealed: Google made large contributions to climate change deniers
The Guardian is no longer a newspaper. Its become the house organ of a bunch of people who are obsessed with climate to the exclusion of everything else.
Is the Guardian article News PR ?
#1 Is it new info .. NO ..
– 12 Jul 2019 Breitbart reported that CEI received some Google funding
-10 Jul 2019 The NYT reported that CEI received some Google funding
#2 Does the Guardian conform to open discussion principles ?
No it doesn’t allow comment
#3 Does the Guardian deceive by omission ?
Yes it fails to quote how much CEI received
(BTW the PDF link given at top of the WUWT just lists recipients of Google money, it doesn’t give the amounts.
Does knowing funding debunk an argument ?
No, it’s a logical fallacy.. each argument stands on it’s own evidence and logic independent of who funds it
.. If Soros funded research that shows 2+”=5 that doesn’t mean it is wrong
But knowing funding does give us an indication of how much time we might like to spend examining an argument.
If a medicine corp funds research that says their medicine is great and their competitors is rubbish
I will look for other research as well.
However “independent” research isn’t magically good either
typo : .. If Soros funded research that shows “2+3”=5 that doesn’t mean it is wrong
Well, as a Canadian, I gotta say I resent American interference in our elections too. All those left leaning American foundations donating money to leftist parties.
Of course, I also dislike the Chinese interference. It’s uglier, less subtle, and the threats of violence are overt. I do see a bit of British interference (looking at you, BBC!)
All in all, if the Russians are involved here, I think there’s a long lineup ahead of them.
Mind you, I’m sure my smug and self-righteous countrymen, er, “countrypersons”, have done their very very best to interfere in other people’s democracies too. I’m sorry.
Where is my money google!
The left eating its own?
I gather Sweet and Sour Commissar was a popular dish at certain points in Maoist China when there was nothing else to eat.
Someone please post the email for accounts payable.
socialists and socialist organisations particularly socialist governments have always eaten their own, socialists or communist which are the same, have been responsible for More Than 100 million people being killed since 1900, these we’re not enemies killed in wars they were their own civilian populations. This is what socialist do they kill their own.
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/08/10/corrupt-senate-intelligence-committee-resurfaces-in-bruce-ohr-302s/
Since when are libertarians “right wing” ? Keep your gov’t out of my bedroom and out of my wallet. Could be best used to describe libertarians.
Here is the important thing about this story, and why it represents another step down for the Guardian.
You notice that who Google is said to be financing do not do climate as their main or only business. Or even an important element of their business. They are not like WATTS for instance.
They are singled out because, among the many and various other things they do, they take a position on climate which is skeptical.
You see what has happened? You can do whatever else you want that is progressive and wonderful and public spirited. But express skepticism about CAGW, in however small an area of your activity, and you will find yourself classified as a ‘climate denier’.
The Guardian has moved to the position that the only thing that matters about an organization is its stand on climate, and the only choice is, either its a ‘climate denier’ or it isn’t. And to tell whether its a ‘climate denier’ all you have to do is check whether it has expressed, in however small a proportion of its output, any skepticism about CAGW in its most alarmist version.
So, Google may have contributed to organizations whose main purpose is nothing to do with climate, and for reasons that have nothing to do with their position on climate. But if in any of their output, however small a proportion, they have expressed any doubt about CAGW, they will immediately and as a whole be classed as ‘climate deniers’, and Google will be reproached for funding climate deniers.
It is the end of what was once a well respected news organization. There was a time when as C P Scott put it ‘comment is free but facts are sacred’. Those days have long gone, and what we have now is all the news that fits in with our policy agenda of the moment. And this is accompanied by the phrasebook and style guide, in which we may speak of a difference of a few degrees or fractions of degrees C in all other contexts than climate as ‘warming’.
But in climate, rules the Guardian, the same temperature shift must be called ‘heating’.
It is following the newspeak/Pravda template to the letter. When you think what the Guardian once was, its tragic. And what they will never see is that to call this has nothing to do with who is right or wrong about climate. What has happened would be the death of any paper which went this way, with whatever position on whatever issue.
Its no longer a newspaper.
Canada based American Naomi Klein has flown into the UK to lecture us on Climate
and is all over the metrolib media circuit
She just tweeted