I Agree With This Big Polluter Lobbyist About Republican Climate Science Denial

When it comes to the Republican Party and global warming, I agree with the assessment of Thomas Pyle, head of the American Energy Alliance, a polluter front group. Here's what Pyle told Bloomberg's Zachary Mider about Jay Faison, a Republican who's spending $175 million of his own money trying to change the GOP's mind on climate science and clean energy:

“You can’t get to where he wants to be, in his lifetime, without a massive dose of good old-fashioned government intervention,” Pyle said. 

Republicans don't deny climate science because they don't know the facts or don't trust its scientific rigor. They deny it because all available solutions to global warming contradict their free-market dogma that big business alone can solve all of our problems (with a few government subsidies along the way).

The free market hasn't, and can't, solve the climate crisis any more than it solved our smog or dirty water problems - we needed the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to do that. But instead of altering their ideology, American conservatives just pretend global warming doesn't exist.

After years of trying to pretend the right messaging will trick Republicans into supporting clean energy and climate science, Faison is still beating his head against the wall of denial. Inexplicably, Faison says he may vote for Gary Johnson, who doesn't think we should bother trying to stop global warming.

Faison would be better off taking Jon Stewart's advice: "Let's stop pretending that concessions to the right will, at any point, sate the beast."

And as the Center for American Progress reports, many of Faison's donations have gone to Republicans with mixed - or flat-out poor - records on climate change. Imagine how much good Faison's $175 million might've done if instead he'd spent that money trying to defeat climate science deniers?

The Climate Tell Hidden in Rush Limbaugh Politicizing Water on Mars

Lots of folks are LOLing today at Rush Limbaugh politicizing water on Mars, accusing NASA and the Obama administration of plotting to use it to "advance the leftist agenda," as first reported by Media Matters. But within Rush's rant is a tip-off about how and why extreme conservatives reject science on other issues such as climate change:

OK so there's flowing water on Mars. Yip yip yip yahoo. You know me, I'm science 101, big time guy, tech advance it, you know it, I'm all in. But, NASA has been corrupted by the current regime. I want to find out what they're going to tell us.

OK, flowing water on Mars. If we're even to believe that, what are they going to tell us that means? That's what I'm going to wait for. Because I guarantee, let's just wait and see, this is September 28, let's just wait and see. Don't know how long it's going to take, but this news that there is flowing water on Mars is somehow going to find its way into a technique to advance the leftist agenda. I don't know what it is, I would assume it would be something to do with global warming and you can -- maybe there was once an advanced civilization. If they say they found flowing water, next they're going to find a graveyard.

Rush is explicitly telling us his acceptance or rejection of this science will be entirely based around what it means for his political world view. Do the implications of that science threaten Rush's pre-existing political beliefs? If not, then fine, it's legitimate science. But if that science undermines Rush's ideology, whether that happens tomorrow or a year from now, it will then retroactively become leftist junk science.

Climate science deniers like Sen. Jim Inhofe admit this all the time: They only reject the climate science because the carbon-cutting government policy it prescribes is incompatible with their political ideology.

But as David Roberts writes at Vox, the Associated Press and other news organizations continue to bend over backwards to frame the climate debate around science rather than around identity protection and motivated reasoning - which is what Limbaugh himself is saying here it's really all about.

How Climate Change Deniers Sound to Normal People

From Girl Pants Productions:

Via @A_Siegel

CNN Ignores Climate Science, Embraces Science Denier Meme

CNN almost completely ignored last year's landmark Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, but this week CNN.com extensively covered a discredited climate science denier theory that was mentioned in a non-peer-reviewed study.

If "objective" news outlets were proactively trying to get people to not care about the climate crisis, how would it look different than what we have now?

GOP: I'm Not a Scientist, and I Don't Listen to Them Either

@Uptomyknees POPE: Global warming is real! conservatives: leave science to scientists! EVERY SCIENTIST: um? conservatives: fuck off nerds

— Todd Slade (@todd_slade) July 8, 2015

The Fraud of Climate Science Deniers Telling the Pope to Shut up

With Pope Francis issuing an encyclical this week declaring that we have "a moral and religious imperative" to cut carbon pollution, climate science deniers are scrambling to explain how their continued obstruction isn't immoral. Their new version of "I'm not a scientist" is "the Pope shouldn't mix religion and politics."

That's beyond hypocritical. As Steve Benen writes at MSNBC, for many of these same conservatives, mixing religion and politics is their bread and butter:

In culture-war debates over gay rights and reproductive rights, for example, the right routinely argues that policymakers should heed the appeals from religious leaders. More generally, conservatives express alarm about the left trying to push voices from the faith community “out of the public square.” It’s these religious leaders, the GOP argues, that should help guide public debate.

Except when the climate is on fire, at which point the pope is apparently supposed to keep his mouth shut?

A related fraud: When polluter front groups like the Heartland Institute, which believes we should have no minimum wage whatsoever, claim to be better advocates for the poor than Pope Francis.

Jon Stewart Proves Climate Science Deniers Wrong With 3rd Grade Science

In 2014, 26 years after James Hansen first told Congress that global warming is now happening, why is the People's Climate March still necessary? As Jon Stewart explained on last night's Daily Show, because the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is run by climate science deniers:

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook,Daily Show Video Archive

Marco Rubio's Climate Science Denialism in One Sentence

The need for government intervention to solve a huge failure of the free market is incompatible with my political ideology, therefore I refuse to accept that man-made carbon pollution is destroying our climate.

That's what Marco Rubio is trying to get at through his repeated scientific flubbery.

UPDATE 5/15: No, Rubio inventing his own theory about how the climate has always been changing and whatever's going on isn't his polluting funders' fault is not acknowledging climate change.

It's not just that 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing. 97% of climate scientists agree that the climate is changing AND it's being fueled by man-made pollution of carbon and other greenhouse gases.

Greenhouse effect denial is still climate science denial.

John Oliver: Climate Science Facts Aren't Up For Debate

When John Oliver filled in for Jon Stewart last summer, it revealed an inconvenient truth for fans of The Daily Show: The vacation replacement was funnier than the permanent host.

Now Oliver has his own show on HBO called Last Week Tonight. On Sunday, Oliver sounded like he was about to go after climate science deniers, but his true target was the television bookers who put them in debates that make us all dumber:

NASA-Backed Study: Polluter Tyranny May Destroy Civilization

A new study backed by NASA warns that, much like the Romans and Mayans before us, our elite power brokers may be driving us towards a cliff as the 1% vacuums up wealth and natural resources:

The NASA-funded HANDY model offers a highly credible wake-up call to governments, corporations and business - and consumers - to recognise that 'business as usual' cannot be sustained, and that policy and structural changes are required immediately.

Although the study is largely theoretical, a number of other more empirically-focused studies - by KPMG and the UK Government Office of Science for instance - have warned that the convergence of food, water and energy crises could create a 'perfect storm' within about fifteen years. But these 'business as usual' forecasts could be very conservative.

Jared Diamond's Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed details how past empires kept driving towards the cliff, even when the edge was in sight. It happens in part because the people at the top & in charge are wealthy enough to insulate themselves from the crisis until collapse is almost complete.

This study warns we're repeating history as our leaders keep us burning our entire supply of fossil fuels that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate - coal, oil and natural gas - in the span of just a few generations. Even as the cost becomes apparent and both the climate crisis and global inequality accelerate, for those polluting oligarchs, the answer isn't to change course, it's to double down - see the Koch brothers pouring their vast polluting fortune into the 2014 elections or Vladimir Putin seizing natural gas facilities in Ukraine.

But who'll call them on it? Democrats and environmental organizations are heavily dependent on the wealthy elite for funding, so Democrats rarely talk about inequality and environmental organizations talk about the effects - global warming, polluted water, disappearing wildlife - not the causes.

It's a reminder that climate science denial isn't at all about science - it's a cover story for the true campaign by wealthy polluters like the Koch brothers to scare the rest of us away from solar and wind energy, which build wealth not at the top but at the household and community levels.

When Only Five White Middle-Aged Male CPAC Climate Science Deniers Just Won't Do

The CPAC climate science denial panel featured six middle-aged white guys (and zero scientists):

It's the latest reminder that polluting industries are almost exclusively run by rich old white guys.

Will David Gregory Let Meet the Press Get Spun by a Climate Denier?

UPDATE 2/18: So how did Meet the Press and other Sunday shows do? I just wrote up a recap at the National Wildlife Federation blog.

Meet The Press, NBC News' Sunday morning political talk show, is hosting a "debate on climate change" tomorrow featuring children's TV host Bill Nye and polluter-funded politician Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN).

Deniers like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) admit in unguarded moments that they only deny climate science because they hate the solutions. Will host David Gregory force Rep. Blackburn to talk about inconvenient truths and the need for tough medicine, or let her spin him into talking about how it's cold outside? How is it "serious" to talk about facing the deficit, but if you don't feel like talking about climate solutions, you're allowed to deny the problem exists?

As Salon's Alex Pareene writes, it's symbolic of how America's media is either unable or unwilling move on from the settled science that proves manmade global warming to the question of what to do about it:

Unfortunately, “Meet the Press” cannot deal with any issue without framing it as a binary debate between two opposing partisans, with the assumption being that “the truth” lies directly between their views. The fact that, in this debate, the entertainer represents the “side” of the overwhelming scientific consensus is less important to the producers of “Meet the Press” than the fact that one “side” is also the consensus of the Democratic Party, while the view of a small fringe in the scientific community is the official position of the Republican Party. The political debate apparently trumps any responsibility the program might feel to present to its viewers an accurate picture of the debate, or non-debate, over anthropogenic global warming among actual climate scientists.

I predict with absolute certainty that one of Gregory’s questions to Nye will be some variation on “How can there be global warming if it just snowed a bunch?"

Next week's debate: Do cigarettes cause cancer? An oncologist debates a tobacco executive!

Inhofe Admits He Only Denies Climate Science Because He Doesn't Like the Solutions

Capitol Hill's Denier in Chief, Sen. Jim Inhofe, slipped up and admitted the real reason why he pretends climate change doesn't exist:

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) told WABC-AM that he was initially intrigued when former Vice President Al Gore began warning about human-induced climate change but became skeptical after discovering that environmental regulations might prove costly to business.

Climate science deniers don't like the solutions, so they attack the science. The reasons why they don't like the solutions may vary - they most often represent an oil or coal state like Sen. Inhofe does, or it may simply conflict with their anti-regulatory ideology in general as in the case of someone like Sean Hannity or Scott Brown.

It's no different than when cigarette companies rejected science connecting smoking with cancer: Their real objection was to the implications, not to the methods. Science denial almost always has nothing to do with science.

Because once you accept the science and admit there's a problem, you then have to discuss to how to solve it. Frank Luntz and his fellow Republicans recognized this years ago and planted their heels in the ground on debating the science on an endless loop.

More than a decade later, the US media is still allowing deniers to play that same ignorant game, pretending the actual truth can never be discerned. Reporters even go to great lengths to portray deniers as interested in science, even when those same deniers say otherwise.

Reporters then pretend they don't understand why trust in the media has plummeted.

Why Do Climate Science Deniers STILL Hate Al Gore So Much?

I can't understand the ongoing hatred of Al Gore by climate science deniers. It made some sense when An Inconvenient Truthcame out, but that was seven years ago. Gore stepped back from a leadership role in the climate action movement around the time of his divorce in 2010 and is now semi-retired, rarely making public appearances.

But far-right conservatives apparently still hate Gore with the fury of a thousand global warming-fueled wildfires. What's weird is they simultaneously try to portray Gore as this big fat pathetic loser AND as this wealthy jet-setting holier-than-thou asshole.

Are they still trying to prove he didn't win that election that he would've won via a full recount if the Republican-controlled Supreme Court hadn't ordered it shut down? Or that while George W. Bush's disastrous presidency destroyed the Republican brand, Gore is in many ways MORE respected than he was in 2000?

Gore went through something that would've left most people angry at the world. Just look at how much John McCain hates Barack Obama and opposes everything they once agreed on from climate action to immigration reform - and McCain lost fair & square.

Yet Gore went on Saturday Night Live to laugh about the experience and never stopped fighting for what he believes in. Is that what grates Fox News types the most - that they haven't been able to break Gore's spirit and make him shut up & go away?

How Climate Science Deniers Exploit Corporate Newspaper Shrinkage

How are the gatekeepers of truth in public discourse supposed to function when they're being laid off by the hundreds in the name of higher profits? While a few newspapers like the Los Angeles Times are taking a stand against opinion pieces that get the facts wrong on climate science, smaller newspapers across the country are getting overrun by climate science deniers.

This week's example: Steve DiMarzo Jr.'s climate science-denying op-ed in the New Bedford Standard-Times. It's not just that it's filled with easily-disproved lies. It's filled with quotes that aren't attributed to any source at all. Who said them? Is DiMarzo just making up quotes as he goes? Readers are left hanging.

That's such an egregious miss, I can't believe an editor even read the piece before printing it. The Standard-Times has been hammered by round after round of layoffs with the latest hitting just two months ago. Nationwide, a Pew Research Center report shows newspaper editorial employment has fallen by a third in just the last 15 years.

But here's the thing: The Standard-Times isn't losing money - it's profitable. It just wasn't making enough money for its corporate owners, so the layoff ax swung. Remaining staffers are being asked to do the jobs of several people and subscribers are being asked to pay the same price for a product of lesser quality. No wonder CareerCast.com ranked newspaper reporter last out of 200 career fields, below dishwasher, oil rig worker and lumberjack.

A similar story is playing out at the nearby Providence Journal. As Dean Starkman has documented, the paper's corporate owners have been laying off newsroom staff to fund huge executive bonuses. Its op-ed page has turned into a haven of climate science denial and I've heard the editorial page editor tells people that's by design, that playing to the lowest common controversy makes for good reading.

Declining newspaper readership rates are often covered as proof of the declining literacy among the American public. But readers know when they're being sold an inferior product. Why spend $20 a month to read climate science denial in the local paper when it's already available for free on Drudge Report or Rush Limbaugh?

Just check the reader comments on the DiMarzo op-ed. When your customers are openly asking the equivalent of "what is this shit?" maybe it's time to reinvest in the product.

They Deny Climate Science. Why Won't Reporters Call Them Science Deniers?

After the party's drubbing in the 2012 elections, many political pundits speculated that Republicans would spend 2013 trying to seem less extreme. Instead, many are spending the August Congressional recess assuring the Tea Party that they are, in fact, 2 Extreme 2 Quit.

As first reported by +The Nation's +Lee Fang, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) has a bizarre theory that neatly ties his climate science denial into his broader delusions:

“Just so you'll know, global warming is a total fraud,” the 13-term lawmaker told a Tea Party group Thursday. Rohrabacher said the fraud has its origins with liberals at the local government level who want decision-making ceded to higher levels of government.

“You’ve got liberals who get elected at the local level [that] want the state government to do the work and let them make the decisions. Then at the state level they want the federal government to do it. And at the federal government they want to create global government to control all of our lives,” he said.

Republicans want to ban oral sex, ban gay marriage, ban a woman's right to choose, deport undocumented immigrants & send their children to massive government-run orphanages, ban workers from organizing into unions, and restrict which Americans get to vote. But it's liberals who want to use government to control your lives?

The Hill's Ben Geman adds:

Rohrabacher, whose remarks Thursday on climate began by disputing links between wildfires and global warming, is a longtime climate skeptic.

The science connecting man-made carbon pollution to climate disruption is much older and just as well established as the science connecting cigarettes to lung cancer. If a politician denied the link between cigarettes and cancer, we'd call them a science-denying shill who'd say anything for his friends at Big Tobacco.

Why do reporters tiptoe around politicians who attack climate science by calling them "skeptics"? As if they might judiciously change their minds depending on what's in NOAA's next set of satellite data? Dana Rohrabacher is a science-denying shill for industrial carbon polluters. It's OK to say that!

Here's the problem: Dana Rohrbacher hates to be called a science denier. Sure, he'll deny science all day. But if you call him on it, he'll claim to be a great student of science, because that's how Dana Rohrabacher would like to think of himself! That doesn't make it so.

Calling a science-denying politician like Dana Rohrbacher a science denier is 100% fair & accurate and reporters should do it more often. Are they really more interested in staying on politicians' good sides than being fair & accurate? (Don't answer that.)

Google: We Never Said Anything About Being Stupid

Google, the company whose motto is "don't be evil," recently hosted a big money fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the Senate's climate science denier-in-chief. Watch Andy Cobb take a look at how that might affect Google's search performance, then tell Google to stop funding evil:

Climate Science Deniers: Really Old and Really Strange

The Heartland Institute has a new climate denial "book" out called The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism. I can only assume the title is a reference to the movie It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World, even though the Heartland version is for some reason one "Mad" short.

How old are the folks over at The Heartland Institute? Their book title references a movie that came out a half century ago. Its star, Spencer Tracy, died when President Obama was six years old.

How strange are the folks over at The Heartland Insitute? Look at that "book" cover. Are those ... hip-hop polar bears? I think? Driving a convertible through ... a corn field that's getting hit by a thunderstorm? Also, the polar bears are terrible drivers taking up both lanes of what is apparently a one-way street through the middle of nowhere.

It's like something your old crazy conservative uncle would post to Facebook and think it was HILARIOUS, which tells you a lot about The Heartland Institute's membership and funders, and about the ability of climate deniers to connect with anyone outside their cocoon of crazy old conservatives.

White Out: Will Climate Science Denying TV Weathermen Forecast Less Snow During Blizzard?

Today's massive Northeast blizzard must put climate science-denying TV weathermen in a tough spot. Do you stick to your political guns and forecast based on a world with no temperature increase - pretend there's less energy in the atmosphere for the storm to draw on, pretend the ocean isn't much warmer than usual to add moisture to it - and risk underestimating its strength?

Or do you forecast with the baseline of a warming world fueling extreme weather and acknowledge climate disruption is helping make "Nemo" into a monster?

My guess: All TV meteorologists incorporate climate impacts into their forecasts, but few (if any) talk about the influence of climate change in their on-air forecasting discussion.

Yes, Climate Science Deniers Really Are Getting Dumber

When I first started tracking climate science denial on this blog six years ago, rebutting denier arguments had a Catcher in the Rye feel to it - you had to try to grab the worst ones and let some go by. Fueled by polluter money, front groups burned the midnight oil trying to come up with new ways to make it seem like carbon pollution wasn't cooking the planet.

But in 2013, denier arguments are so silly, so self-defeating, I'd rather bring attention to them than rebut them. This week, George Will and Fox News are ignorantly cherry-picking numbers to try to claim 2012's wildfire season wasn't so bad.

Really? After Colorado's terrifying, record-breaking 2012 Waldo Canyon fire, you're going to sit in your comfy Washington office or New York City studio and tell Coloradoans to quit whining? Please, proceed.

Here's Stephen Colbert attacking President Obama's radical, pro-survival agenda:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive