Right Wing World: Climate Change Still Happening, Deniers Still Denying

Of all of the strange things I've blogged about over the years, probably the most frequent one is the bizarre fact that virtually every issue has become a left vs. right shouting match, even those things that don't have a logical, political divide. Climate change may be becoming an even bigger one than abortion or gay rights.

Let me start with what is strangest about it to me: conservatives should probably be on the conservation side of this one, but aren't. Given their heavy saturation with religion, you'd think that wantonly raping and pillaging the earth to wring every drop of fossil fuel out of it might bother them. You'd think potentially ruining the beauty of vast regions and making parts of the planet  inhospitable for "God's creation" would also spur a twinge of guilt. And you'd think the regimentation and repeatable nature of science would align with that rigid, upright (tight assed) reputation that conservatives always use to have. Nope.

Yeah, let's just ignore the scientists.
That never goes wrong.

Long ago, anything to do with nature, science, conservation, regulation, safety, caution, concern for future consequences (in anything beyond the national debt, or a nuclear Iran) all became dirty hippie, granola munching, kale and arugula eating liberal stuff. Somehow, a scientific consensus (and that is what there is among climatologists, a high 90-percentile on board with man-made global climate change) is just a liberal conspiracy, invented by Al Gore after he made the internet, just so he could put the screws to energy companies. Or something.

See, part of my problem is the motive. For a believable conspiracy, you need a motive, and "So Al Gore can feel important and get rich(er)" doesn't seem like enough to me. Sure, you'll hear some conservatives try to say there is a "climate change industry" that will allegedly get rich too, somehow, though I've seen no through-thread from climatologists to Solyndra. But even if a credible "truther" movement had gelled, HOW did it overtake the majority of conservatives' and Republicans' world view, from the layperson to high elected officials?

All of this ignores the fact that of course man can affect the ecology with pollution. We've seen acid rain, state-sized oil slicks and garbage patches, ozone holes, rivers and lakes and sometimes tap water that are combustible. We've seen earthquakes that coincide with fracking patterns. Smog in big cities to the point of severe health alerts. In China, the air is practically a solid. Go back to the early industrial revolution, there were blackened cities from coal. And hey, how 'bout Chernobyl? Clearly, it is possible for us to affect our immediate area, surrounding areas, down-river areas and beyond with the things we as humans do. Why the hell is it even remotely hard to believe that it could accumulate, grow, become something that is a global concern? Why? And how exactly is that left or right?

My guess is, conservatives think that if they're wrong, we will either
get a rapture or The Jetsons, so what's the problem?

The answer is kind of easy: huge monied interests, gigantic corporations with deep pockets would really rather not have a lot (or any) regulations. They'd rather not be forced to change at all until there is no fossil fuel left to exploit. Full speed ahead, dirtier and more dangerous methods of extraction, it doesn't matter as long as there is profit. So, anything that puts the brakes on hurts profits, any caution would anger shareholders. Corporations and their shareholders rarely plot out contingency plans beyond the next quarter(s). Their concern is profit, now. So forget that forging new, cleaner plans for energy could make them a bundle too. Forget even making plans to contain inevitable clean-up necessary for more difficult fossil fuel extraction. Profit, profit, profit.

So, they fund think tanks, they fund punditry, they fund their own "science," so they can latch onto anything that might throw a credible-sounding counter argument, so that they can continue raking it in. And if there's one thing the conservative media will grab onto it's giant corporations and their funding. "Job creators" shall not be questioned! So, it's not hard to see where the genesis of Right Wing World's climate change denialism comes from. It's just amazing how entrenched it is, when it's built on such an insubstantial foundation. But it's a fabulous case study on how to get a base of voters to vote against logic, reason and their own self-interest. And it also shows how easily you can get a group of people who have wedded their politics to their religion, to champion your cause as though it is their own.

But can we please not go totally Gomer Pyle, and claim that a snowstorm disproves "global warming?" Can we at least squelch the stupid? No, I guess not. [By the way, if you're wondering how the excerpted article below resulted in the Right Wing World column above, just follow the link and head to the comments there. WOW.]

[Excerpt]

The big melt: Antarctica's retreating ice may re-shape Earth
 
From the ground in this extreme northern part of Antarctica, spectacularly white and blinding ice seems to extend forever. What can't be seen is the battle raging underfoot to re-shape Earth. Water is eating away at the Antarctic ice, melting it where it hits the oceans. As the ice sheets slowly thaw, water pours into the sea - 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons) per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's the weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerating. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Many Republicans Think Climate Change is Real

It's always amazing to me when we see polls and punditry that debate the percentage of people who believe or disbelieve relatively empirical things, based on their political leanings. I mean, who cares how many of group X believe that the earth is round? It's round regardless. And when climate scientists nearly unanimously agree that there is a consensus that man-made climate change is a real thing, being a conservative* shouldn't matter in the equation to whether or not it is "real."

Anyway, to find that any significant percentage of conservatives are seeing the light is a pleasant surprise.

*Now, all of that said, I'd really like to know how being a climate change denier is "conservative" in nature in the first place. Conservative implies conservation, carefulness, caution, tapping the brakes, and being a tight-ass. Today's conservatives are seemingly about wastefulness, heedless of warnings if it hurts profits, full-speed-ahead/damn-the-consequences, and inventing a conspiracy theory amongst scientists while having no rational story for a motive. I don't see any relationship between the "conservative" brand, and the traditional definition of the word.

[Excerpt]

Despite Current Congress, Many Republicans Think Climate Change Is Real
 
In Washington, D.C., Rep. Chris Gibson could be considered an anomaly. Unlike 68 percent of his Republican colleagues in the 114th Congress, the congressman from New York does not publicly deny the science of human-caused climate change. In fact, Gibson is one of the small handful of congressmembers who publicly states that climate change is real. He’s even gone so far as to introduce a resolution that would “recognize the reality” of global warming’s dangers. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Jon Stewart Spanks House Science Committee for Stupidity on Climate Change

Perfection, as usual.

[Excerpt]

Stewart Blows Up on GOP Over Climate Change: ‘Pushing a Million Pounds of Idiot Up a Mountain’
 
Jon Stewart on Monday slammed a U.S House hearing regarding climate change, comparing the Republican-led session to “pushing a million pounds of idiot up a mountain.” The Wednesday hearing featured testimony from John Holdren, President Barack Obama‘s adviser on science and technology. Stewart showed clips of Republicans Steve Stockman of Texas, Dana Rohrabacher of California and Larry Bucshon of Indiana doubting the effects of climate change. . .

Read more (with video) at: Mediaite

What Happens in Vegas: Climate Change Deniers Hold Conference

Here's something odd. On KXNT--the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity station here in Las Vegas--I heard an ad for a conference taking place here. It sounded, at first, like a meeting of climate change scientists. But as the ad went on, it became clear that it was a gathering of climate change deniers. Makes sense, given the station I was listening to, even though it's more of a straight news channel in the early morning. Still, I thought, that's just weird. That they can gather enough scientists and "experts," to make up enough people for such an event.

I suspect that the bulk of the attendees are climate change deniers of the internet commando type, with the experts making up merely the panel of speakers. Finding out is difficult though. Because outside of the commercial I heard, I can't find much of anything on the conference except on arch-right-wing sites. What I did find is fairly thin on information. So, unless it's a rip-roaring success, don't expect to hear much about it outside of those sources, even after it's over.

Now, on a side note, I'd like to say that I don't understand climate change skeptics, and I don't understand how something rooted in science has become so overtly political. How can it be that if you're liberal, you believe the science, if you're conservative, you disbelieve it? I mean, I know that conservatives often disregard science in favor of ideology, but that doesn't mean I understand it. For one thing, I can't figure out what the motive would be, or how someone would accomplish lassoing virtually all climatologists (and related science professionals), and getting them all to agree to go along with a hoax.

One of the few bonuses of climate change is that Rush Limbaugh
lives in West Palm Beach, Florida. Image from  Big Think.

It smacks of the ridiculous notion of a "gay agenda," where 97% of gay people somehow agreed to make up a "lie" that being gay is not a choice. How? When? Who was the ringleader? How do they keep everyone in line? Maybe it helps that so many conservatives are fundamentalist Christians, who routinely go along without asking too many questions? I don't know. But beyond all that, I find it insane that people don't think that a couple hundred years of spewing pollution into the air and water couldn't possibly cause a problem. Anyone remember Lake Erie on fire? Have they seen the smog in china? Acid rain? And on and on. To dismiss that mankind could cause damage to the way the Earth operates is just short-sighted and bullheaded.

[Excerpt]

Climate change denial: skeptics gather in Las Vegas
 
As the Heartland Institute gets ready to organize a conference on climate change in Las Vegas from July 7 to 9 the focus once again has shifted to the fact whether the issue is a fact of a theory. Dubbed by many as “the biggest gathering of global warming skeptics in the world” all eyes are on the ninth International Conference on Climate Change. Moreover it has come in the background of the public opinion in America that strongly feels about the subject. . .

Read more at: Northern Voices Online

President Obama: New Carbon Regulations

Image from source, LA Times

In the past, we've had ecological problems, generated by industry. We've had acid rain, intense smog, polluted rivers and lakes. And for the most part, we've cleaned them up, with the help of EPA regulations. Every time, industry screamed bloody murder, but in the end, we successfully beat back the bad things we were doing to the planet.

Why is climate change different?

[Excerpt]

Obama says his new carbon regulation is about 'health of our kids'

President Obama began a campaign for his newly proposed climate change proposal with an appeal Monday to parents and grandparents worried about “the health of our kids and the health of our planet.” In an afternoon conference call with the American Lung Assn. and other public health groups, Obama argued that restrictions on power plant emissions would help children with asthma and other health problems exacerbated by carbon pollution. . .

Read more at: Los Angeles Times

John Oliver: Climate Change "Debate" in Perspective

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver has turned out to be a very good show in its two short weeks on the air. It bears a strong resemblance to The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, naturally, but has its own vibe. And it can go places that Comedy Central just can't, at least at that hour. Google "John Oliver Mitch McConnell ad" if you don't believe me!

Anyway, one segment from Sunday's show had to do with global climate change, and how it is treated in the mainstream media. As Oliver rightly points out, the drag out Bill Nye for the side of science, and then a climate denier for "balance." But the scientific consensus isn't 1:1. It's 97:3.
 

I loved the example. And it bears pointing out that it isn't just climate change that is treated this way in the media. I swear, the next time I see Tony Perkins or some other church fart brought on to give balance to a gay rights story, I'm going to scream.

Science is Cool: Darwin Fish, for Real

This fish, a transitionary form between an ordinary fish and a land animal, was actually discovered several years ago, and is in the news because of new book. But I missed it, and so it's new to me! And it's cool. Ugly, but cool. A fish with a neck? And armlike fins? It also shows a minor advantage to climate change: the Arctic was melted enough for them to find the thing.

Image from source, Mother Jones

[Excerpt]

This Fish Crawled Out of the Water…and Into Creationists' Nightmares

We all know the Darwin fish, the car-bumper send-up of the Christian "ichthys" symbol, or Jesus fish. Unlike the Christian symbol, the Darwin fish has, you know, legs. Har har. But the Darwin fish isn't merely a clever joke; in effect, it contains a testable scientific prediction. If evolution is true, and if life on Earth originated in water, then there must have once been fish species possessing primitive limbs, which enabled them to spend some part of their lives on land. And these species, in turn, must be the ancestors of four-limbed, land-living vertebrates like us. . .

Read more at: Mother Jones

Limbaugh: Media Created "Polar Vortex" as Part of Global Warming "Hoax"

Noted Climatologist (and weather balloon) Rush Limbaugh,
image from source, Talking Points Memo.

As The Daily Show with Jon Stewart rightly noted on Monday night, FOX "News" has shifted gears from The "War" on Christmas to The Global Warming "Hoax." And whether FOX leads Rush Limbaugh, or he leads them (or they somehow coordinate with The Drudge Report), you knew that Limbaugh would be going there too.

I still haven't figured out why having a conservative world view means you can't believe 97% of climate scientists when they say there is a consensus on man-made global climate change. I haven't figured out how, why or when these scientists are alleged to have gotten together and conspired to pull one over on the world. But it makes sense to conservatives, because if there's one thing I've learned about 'em, it's that they don't track a theory to its logical conclusions to figure out if it makes any sense. It's Stephen Colbert's "truthiness" concept in action: they just feel it in their guts. Plus, if Limbaugh says it, it must be true.

And what Limbaugh says is, a "polar vortex"--in the news for its wrath on much of the country in recent days--was invented by climate scientists to aid them with the global warming "hoax." Even though a polar vortex was the major plot point of the craptastic movie, The Day After Tomorrow, which despite the title came out ten years ago. And that's just the recent stuff. According to Wikipedia (and yeah, I know it's publically edited, but it is also sourced.), the first mention of a polar vortex in science was at least 1853.

Keep this in mind next time you see a "Rush is right!" bumper sticker. He's wrong. A lot.

[Excerpt]

Limbaugh: Media Created Polar Vortex To Advance Global Warming 'Hoax'
 
. . ."We are having a record-breaking cold snap in many parts of the country. And right on schedule the media have to come up with a way to make it sound like it's completely unprecedented," he said on his radio show. "Because they've got to find a way to attach this to the global warming agenda, and they have. It's called the 'polar vortex.' The dreaded polar vortex. . ."

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Report: Man-Caused Global Warming Virtually Certain

Image from source, Huffington Post

To this I say, well, DUH. I've always thought it was incredibly nonsensical to think that we could pollute to the levels we have for as long as we have and not have something to do with changing the climate. I mean, to have measurable, obvious differences in climate in my lifespan of less than 50 years? How could it not be because we're pumping pollutants into the air, water and ground?

Also, I've yet to hear a logical argument for motive on the part of climate scientists to lie to us about it. They're climatologists. They get paid whatever the climate is. It makes much more sense to me that the energy companies have a huge motive to deny climate change. And when you throw in that the right wing--which is wrong about virtually everything--is heavy on the denialism, it just makes it that much more obvious.

[Excerpt]

IPCC Climate Change Report Expresses Extreme Confidence In Human Cause Of Global Warming

Scientists now believe it's "extremely likely" that human activity is the dominant cause of global warming, a long-term trend that is clear despite a recent plateau in the temperatures, an international climate panel said Friday. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Naming Storms After Politicians?

Yes.

 

Rush Limbaugh: Science and Christianity are Incompatible

Oh, I'm sorry. Is my headline misleading? Actually, no, I don't think it is. I think that's what El Rushbo has said, distilled down. He's saying you can't believe in global warming if you believe the Bible. Ironically enough, it was while studying the Bible and freshman Earth science in the same year that made me an atheist. So, I guess I'm in agreement with Rush, though on the opposite side of the equation. I think science cancels out the Bible.

And I think it is the height of foolishness to dismiss the possibility of man-made climate change because of your religion or your political party.

I hope Limbaugh lives long enough for his tacky South Palm Beach palace to be under water--literally.

[Excerpt]

Limbaugh: ‘If You Believe In God, Then Intellectually You Cannot Believe In Manmade Global Warming’

. . ."See, in my humble opinion, folks, if you believe in God, then intellectually you cannot believe in manmade global warming … You must be either agnostic or atheistic to believe that man controls something that he can’t create. . ."

[By the way, there is nothing humble about Rush Limbaugh. --Ed.]

Read more at: ThinkProgress

Rep. Steve King: Climate Change is Religion, Not Science

Image from source, Think Progress

This is weird for several loopy reasons. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) is seemingly knocking religion with this statement, which is odd, especially for him. It's also literally climate science he's talking about being a religion. Seemingly, this would be the reverse of claiming that "intelligent design," which is religion, is actually science, which it's not. King though, is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and I would expect nothing less than for him to be confused by the difference between religion and science.

[Excerpt]

Steve King: Belief In Climate Change Is A ‘Religion,’ ‘Not Science’

Despite the fact that 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is real, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) is insistent that it is “not science” and that environmentalists are missing the potential upsides. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

CNN's Wolf Blitzer Embarrassed On Camera by Atheist

Image from source, Raw Story

As an atheist, I can get tripped up on language, so I shouldn't be too hard on Wolf Blitzer. I had to train myself to say gesundheit when somebody sneezes, rather than "god bless you." But not all nearly automatic religious phrases are so easy to extract from the vocabulary. There are so many, most people probably don't even realize they come from the Bible. "Oh, god," and "Jesus Christ" are just the most obvious ones. But then, I'm not a high-paid journalist on CNN, I'm a hobbyist blogger.

What Blitzer does in this clip is make the assumption that if you are from Oklahoma, you must be a Christian. And while it is kind of the default there, and in much of America, it's not something you should assume. It's like assuming that the person you are talking to is heterosexual, it's not always the case, and could be embarrassing, depending upon the question. Anyway, part of Blitzer's mindset may have been that so many people when commenting upon a tragedy automatically resort to "prayer."

Whether it's a sincere belief that it will somehow do some good, or it's just a reflexive thing to say, "I'm sending my prayers" and similar phrases just filled Facebook and Twitter, not to mention the news channels*. Most people probably mean well, and surely some are in the same situation as I am, with a religion-saturated mental English phrase book. It has something to do with why I haven't blogged about the Oklahoma tornadoes until now. What can I add to this discussion?

Sure, I'm sorry, and it's heartbreaking to see and hear the details of what's going on. I can say "my heart goes out to the survivors," of course, which is exactly as helpful as prayer, which is to say, not much. So, I donated to the Red Cross. And I'm asking you to do it too. It's not even difficult.

Just get out your cell phone, start a new text to 90999 (where you'd ordinarily put a phone number), with the message:  REDCROSS   That will automatically donate $10 to the American Red Cross, and will be added to your phone bill. It literally couldn't be easier.

[Excerpt]

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer tells atheist tornado survivor: ‘You gotta thank the Lord’

With the number of atheists continuing to rise, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday afternoon learned the danger of assuming on live television that his interviewee is a Christian.

“I guess, you gotta thank the Lord, right?” he told the survivor of a deadly tornado that ripped through Oklahoma. “Do you thank the Lord?. . .”

Read more at: Raw Story

*As an aside, I've got to say that I find the notion of prayer in these situations to be hard to fathom. To me, prayer is basically wishing, hoping, begging to get what you want, with the intensity going up according to the direness of the wish. When something good comes to pass (survival, good health, good fortune), "God answered our prayers." When something bad happens, you have to get down on your knees and pray some more. And have people pray for you, even if who you're praying for is already dead, or missing. For the missing, prayer is really perplexing. It's almost like a Schrödinger's cat exercise. Since we don't know whether the missing person is alive or dead, offering up a prayer essentially makes them that cat in the box, and our prayer can decide its fate. When in reality, that person is either really alive or dead. The prayer isn't going to change that. And you're offering these prayers to a deity that is responsible for the natural disaster in the first place! Further, what are the implications of being saved by a prayer, when there is death and devastation all around you? They didn't pray (or have loved ones who prayed for them) hard enough? They weren't worthy? 

So, now maybe you understand why I have such difficulty expressing myself and dealing with others' expressions after tragedies like this. When you are a person who puts "God" (as a concept and a being) on more or less equal footing with Superman and Yosemite Sam, it is difficult  to hear this imaginary being invoked repeatedly as though it does any good. Besides making the person who expresses the sentiment feel better, of course.

2012 Warmest Year on Record, 2nd Most Extreme Weather

Add caption

So, how long before someone floats the conspiracy that NOAA is faking the data to further the global warming hoax?

[Excerpt]

NOAA: 2012 Warmest Year On Record For U.S., Second Most Extreme Weather

It’s official: 2012 was the warmest year on record for the contiguous United States and the second most extreme in terms of weather events, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) annual “State of the Climate” report released Tuesday. . .

Read more at: Talking Points Memo

Why's it So Freakin' Hot?

When people back east complain about heat, I always roll my eyes. I live in Las Vegas, where we can go two or three months with over 100-degree temperatures. It's not rare to see 100 at midnight in the heart of August. And though the media will read 115 on some days, actual thermometers will go much higher (can't scare the tourists!).

But even I know that this year is different. It started getting hot here in April. June felt like July or August. And now, people in Ohio are apparently melting. It makes many people wonder, "Is it global warming? climate change? It isn't an unreasonable question. Of course, my right-wing friends no doubt think this is a psychological heat wave. Or some kind of Obama conspiracy. Well, what do the scientists say about it?

[Excerpt]

What's Behind The Record Heat?

Heat is beating records around the country: the first five months of 2012 have been the hottest on record in the contiguous United States. And that's not including June, when 164 all-time high temperature records were tied or broken around the country, according to government records.. .

Read more at: Yahoo! via Live Science

Game Over for the Climate?

Jor-El was right. Have we learned nothing from
Superman?

On one side, there are scientists, saying that we're getting perilously close to the point of no return: coastal cities under water, melting ice sheets, intolerable heat. And on the other, we have the talking heads on FOX "News," saying it's all a hoax. Who do you believe? Listen, I'm gay. . .no plans for children. I'll be old or dead by the time things get that bad. But what about you "family values" types? You've got kids. . .grandkids. . .What if they're right?

[Excerpt]


Game Over for the Climate

GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do. . .”

Read more at: The New York Times 

Captain Obvious: Republicans are in Denial

The headline of this piece is perhaps not as clear as I'd like it to be. Especially since I've put it under the heading of Captain Obvious. But what I'm getting at, is that Republicans are denialists. Or perhaps, they are deep into the weeds of conspiracy theories. Why do I say this? Because they deny all manner of experts, or they claim that those experts are being controlled by liberals/socialists/Marxists/Maoists/communists/statists (there, I said it!). Here is a list of experts that many conservatives discount or are deeply suspicious of:

- Climate Scientists: Hoaxers or are in cahoots with Democratic politicians. Invented phony Global Warming/Climate Change. Falsely believe that 100+ years of spewing waste into the environment could possibly have any effect on it.

- Psychologists/Psychiatrists: Falsely claim that gay people are born that way. Wrongly purport that "praying away the gay" is harmful.

- Economists: Lie when they say that government should be spending during a recession. Lie again when they say cutting government spending will hurt the economy. Only if they are supply side/trickle down economists are they to be believed.

- Archaeologists/Anthropologists/Geologists/Biologists: Falsely tout the "theory" of evolution. Falsely date the earth at (far) more than 6,000 years old.

That was just a short list, hitting the bullet points. The breakdown is basically that no matter what experts say, or how many of them say it, if their findings go against Republican policy goals, the experts are wrong. Period.

In short, Republican/conservative ideology has morphed from a political philosophy into a religion. It's a new New Testament, welded onto the (usually) evangelical Christian religion. And like all religions, it is immune to empirical facts, immune to reason, immune to argument. So:

- Global warming is a hoax, or at least is just cyclical, and not man-made.
- Gay people choose to be that way, and deserve no rights or legal recognition.
- Cutting taxes, especially for the rich, and cutting regulations will spur growth and create jobs. Even though it hasn't for the last ten years that we've tried it.
- The earth, man and all life was created, not evolved. It's all too complex to have "just happened," or have always existed. However, this does not contradict the fact that God--who is infinitely more complex than the universe--has always existed, and didn't require a creator.


And that's just a short list off the top of my head. Obviously.

Olbermann: Could News Corp. Be Behind "Climategate" Hacking?

Oooh. Do you remember what "climategate" was? A bunch of scientists had their emails hacked, see, and their mails were kind of unprofessional and snarky. It was alleged--often by News Corp. property FOX "News"--that the emails proved that global warming (aka global climate change) was a hoax. Or something. They didn't really do that, but you know how those FOX narratives go. Like how ACORN may have been exonerated, but FOX viewers still believe that James O'Keefe is some sort of folk hero for "bringin' 'em down."

But how interesting would it be if this whole climategate thing was a result of Rupert Murdoch's companies' illegal hacking? For one thing, it would drag this scandal into an even bigger light.

[Excerpt]

Olbermann: News Corp. could be behind ‘Climate Gate’ hacking

On Countdown Wednesday night, Keith Olbermann discussed with Joe Romm, editor of ClimateProgress.org, the possibility that Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation was behind the “Climate Gate” hacking. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Irony Alert: FOX TV's "Green it, Mean it" Promotion

I'm aware that FOX Television and FOX "News" are different divisions of the same company. But they're still both appendages of the same corporate creature. Given that FOX "News" is one of the biggest megaphones for global climate change deniers, it is somewhat ironic to see the entertainment division throwing their weight behind a "green" promotion. Don'tcha think?

Republicans Unanimously Vote That "Global Warming" Doesn't Exist

I think it's official. The Republicans are the Elders of Krypton.

[Excerpt]

‘War On Science’: Committee From Koch Votes To Deny Climate Change



Today, Republicans in the House energy committee voted not once, not twice, but three times, against amendments recognizing that climate change is real, despite the broad scientific consensus that “climate change is happening and human beings are a major reason for it. . .”
 

Read more at: Think Progress