Debunking common tropes by Kurzgesagt, a well-known channel talking about technology and science, when it comes to climate, and also explaining funding sources and conflict of interest in detail.
The tropes presented here are also commonly presented by investors and widely believed in the mainstream, but the data used to justify them can have a lot of poorly disclosed funding or conflict of interest.
I think we should be more balanced, they can make mistakes, if they did, and allow them to respond. They are great science communicators. They are great allies for our mission.
I liked Kurzgesagt a lot. But I got suspicious after I stumbled upon those videos, and found out that their logic does not go beyond markets.
Also, there is a lot of focus on people like me, who are middle class, somewhat prosperous, and not representative of a whole.
So, I would rather prefer to use more diverse sources for science, and carefully interpret the results, advantages, downsides of any technology or solution.
They don’t advocate our message word for word, but they do help in educating people about science and our fragile planet. They are not our enemy 
Maybe, but we need to be careful about how we interpret their videos. The criticism I presented largely focuses on how Kurzgesagt presents topics like climate change.
When I joined TZM, I was largely apolitical, having a mix between RBE and social democratic stances, and I wasn’t careful when watching their videos.
But then, I learned more in detail about socialism, and decided to question previous assumptions I made and ultimately move away from moderate RBEs and social democracy.
And this includes questioning the methodology of Kurgesagt (such as when it comes to climate), the media, mainstream academics (as frequently presented by media)… and look at content that criticizes those tendencies.
When you talk a lot about investments in technologies that would supposedly fix climate change and not talk about how dismantling capitalism might help, that should raise suspicion.
When you rely largely on one source, and/or are funded by large conglomerates and investors, that should also raise suspicion.
Are the videos still up that are questioned? I think it’s important to know who makes your mission easier. Kurzgesagt is one of them, among many more. We may not fully agree, but they for sure are not worth the energy to cancel IMHO. That won’t get us as TZM closer to our mission, but with them we make our lives easier.
No, every step into the right direction should be celebrated. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Christian or capitalist. Change is not happening in one go. And funding might raise suspicion, but it doesn’t mean the research is corrupt. Science is still about empirical evidence.
Maybe, that the moderate stance when it comes to things. But, I take a different stance, I am pro-science, and yet, at the same time, I am skeptical of research or presentation which comes with strings attached.
And it’s important to understand the context in which technology and science will be used. Just because it more ecological or advanced, doesn’t mean we can trust it outright.
Research funded by Gates may be used to confirm his optimistic beliefs, and the estimates may be unrealistic or the methodology may be flawed. It doesn’t mean that the technology won’t work, it means that it may not yield the expected results, as presented by research.
It is often presented that we should use CCS as a quick technological fix, and so are fake meats presented.
But, CCS can use a lot electricity and may not be useful before you reduce actual emissions, and fake means can be unhealthy and monocultures may pollute, so I would rather prefer the older healthier chicken over that new type of meat right now.
Empirical evidence should be presented not as complete objective research, but rather, we should be wary of any strings attached.
Scepticism is what science is partially about 
But, are those videos still online? Or did Kurzgesagt took them down already?
Science should be used carefully, that is my perspective as a technological neoteric (which is a moderate stance to technological progress which supports science and technology to make progress, but also opposes things like transhumanism beyond medical use and overly optimism), and you should present anything that may tamper with your evidence (like those billionaire strings), and avoid presenting market-only perspective.
They are still online. This video specifically shows how clearly Kurzgesagt is being partial (not presenting things beyond markets or anything we can do socially):
Why it is partial, it’s a really long explanation that is presented by the videos criticizing Kurzgesagt.
They are also closer to promoting eco-modernism that actual change towards a RBE in this video. Eco-modernism (which I also call eco-capitalism) is presented and criticized here:
Instead of Kurzgesagt talking about a car-less world, they talk about electric cars as a solution. Electric cars are criticized here:
Kurzgesagt did not really answer the critics of the Gates foundation part (they largely only said that 3% comes from Gates for certain videos, and there you have it, nothing else besides very general information, which was not what the critics were looking for (critics were looking for how they came out with that partial narrative)):
Coming up with partial narratives and not responding to how you come up to that exactly should raise suspicion, as more honest research and channels should make detailed explanations to critics and consider multiple independent research instead of largely one body or those funded by the same organizations (if you look into the sources of the “We will fix climate change” video, OWID is a dominant source, instead of having multiple ones, which is funded in part by a lot of private companies who also lobby in policy).
I was referring to what you said about science and that we should be skeptical. The scientific method is based on skepticism. And science is just a tool. We should apply it to arrive at decisions rather than just making them. So caution is also part of it, and that of scientists. If you publish rubbish, your reputation suffers.
Did you check all of them?
And that makes them worthy of a roast and name shaming? Neil deGrasse Tyson is also a great science communicator, who also doesn’t sing our song to the letter. But that doesn’t mean he’s against us. If we would be in a room with them, we would mostly completely agree with each other. Know your allies
Which is perfectly fine. As discussed in other threads, eco isms are great, to transition towards an RBE. These things are done in small realistic steps. The path eco isms take is amazing to see and also the pace is increasing. For example nl went from zero to hero with solar panels. In the 2010’s nobody would’ve thought that we would have the most concentrated solar panel cluster in the world. Because nl isn’t particular known for its sun. These are great developments, even if someone got rich, that doesn’t matter when putting it in perspective. A lot of people also get solar panels, because it’s worth the investment. That doesn’t make them evil either.
Kurzgesagt is great at talking about things which do not relate to climate and politics, but bad at things which are not as straightforward and eco-modernist tropes kick in.
Science communication is great as long as pro-market politics, or any politics for moderates out there, don’t come.
Yes, all of them are online, Kurzgesagt did not delete any eco-modernist climate videos.
I have differing attitudes on eco-isms. Eco-isms is a refers to any system and DOES NOT relate to technology/innovation specifically. I don’t like eco-capitalism, but eco-socialism is worth inspiring from.
It is great that we have things like solar panels, however, we need to avoid promoting them like eco-capitalists do, because half-solutions (which do not include a social layer or are based on free markets) are not great.
I oppose eco-modernism due to claiming that it will ecologize capitalism, a system which relies on infinite growth on a finite planet, while actual ecologization requires a steady-state economy which capitalism by its nature is unable to achieve. I also oppose it due to a variety of other reasons within the broader opposition of capitalism.