"Cyprus, which asks for an investment of at least €2m, gave citizenship to Jho Low, the fugitive Malaysian businessman at the centre of the 1MDB sovereign wealth fund scandal." ... "Cyprus has made about €6bn issuing about 4,000 passports since the scheme was introduced in 2013."
From the article: "Rather than being ranked with other major western democracies, the US falls lower down the list alongside countries like Kosovo and Romania."
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?
