I have nothing pithy to add to this story, but only because the inanity of the quotes is so hard to top. From Restructuring Today ($ub req'd) (my emphasis on the good bits):
Okay, so at the recent Heartless Heartland skeptic/denier/disinformer/climate-destroyer conference (I promise to propose a better term this week!), one of the few attendees who was a non-non-believer in science emailed me the following: Marc Morano, Sen. Inhofe's press secretary, just cited your post on the dangers of consensus as an example of how deniers are forcing climate action proponents to retreat. "We're making them afraid of using the term 'consensus'!" Now, that is humor! After all, my article is titled "The cold truth about climate change: Deniers say there's no consensus about global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations [that are much more worrisome]," and it explains that: "Consensus" is far too weak a word to describe the collective scientific understanding of the dangers of human-caused global warming. The reality of climate change is almost certainly going to be much worse than the "consensus" as that term is normally used (to describe the IPCC reports). The deniers are peddling pseudoscience.
Southern Baptist Convention to back off from outright denialism tomorrow?
So, who said: With $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. Yes, that would be our president, three years ago. And yet with oil at nearly twice that price, Bush still refuses to cut subsidies and shift that money to clean technologies. And he still claims that the solution to our energy and climate problems is "technology, technology, technology, blah, blah." But, as we've seen, that is all just rhetoric or sleight of hand. Daniel J. Weiss, Director of Energy Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has an article on the urgent need for this switch in priorities: "Unbearable cost of oil: Record prices require Senate action." As Weiss points out, this will be one more chance for McCain to do the right thing:
Dingell says he’ll release a draft of a House climate change bill for comment and feedback in mid-April (sub rqd).
This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Kari Manlove, fellows assistant at the Center for American Progress. ----- Over 100 retailers, manufacturers, and trade and advocacy groups have sent a familiar message to the Senate: Pass the renewable energy tax package! About two weeks ago, over 500 members of the American Council on Renewable Energy also sent a letter to Congress encouraging the renewable of the production and investment tax credits. Ever since these tax provisions were cut from December's energy bill, support for them has been snowballing.
Most of what needs to be said about the substance of the just-concluded Heartland Institute Skepticpalooza Clown Show has been said (see, in particular, Miles and Joe). Just a couple of stray observations. The science …
If only Congress would have signed on to the Manhattan Declaration years ago, we could have spent valuable resources wisely summarizing nonexistent reports, thereby avoiding the subprime crisis.
That Saturday Night Live-esque headline was inspired by a story in The Wall Street Journal yesterday: Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale. Really? Hydrogen cars of dubious viability? Who ever could have guessed that in a million years? And electric cars are "a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale"? I'm shocked, shocked that anyone could come to that conclusion.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.