dumbassery

Free beer

Now Republicans are framing their total-deregulation, fossil-happy, drill-and-burn energy policies as "no cost stimulus."

Sometimes my powers of snark just fail me.

Wolf Blitzer parrots right-wing talking points on global warming

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

Last week on the Situation Room, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer parroted right-wing talking points on global warming. His program emphasized that Monday's climate crisis protest took place in the cold -- a talking point pushed by Sen. Jim Inhofe's (R-OK) office and global warming deniers from Glenn Beck to Nancy Pfotenhauer. He then followed the Heritage Foundation's reasoning to challenge Tony Blair on the urgency of establishing a cap on carbon pollution, asking if it is "wise" to "effectively impose a new tax on consumers" instead of dealing with "bread-and-butter issues":

At a time of this extraordinary economic distress, not only here in the United States but around the world, why go forward right now as a priority with all of these global warming related projects? It seems there are so many other key bread-and-butter issues literally on the table. ... Is it wise to go ahead, effectively impose a new tax on consumers right now, an energy-related tax, this uh, uh cap-and-trade if you will, to try to reduce carbon emissions right now? In effect that's going to be higher costs on consumers who use either gasoline or other electricity, forms of energy. Is that wise at a time of economic distress?

Watch it:

Blitzer summarized: "You say do it now despite all the economic issues."

Blitzer is missing a few key facts:

A look at the non-experts speaking at Heartland Institute's denialist sideshow

When the science behind Gore's CO2 "hockey stick" slaps you down, there's nothing like indulging in old-fashioned denialism.

What is to be done when the world's leading experts in a field come together in the largest, most extensively peer-reviewed inquiry in the history of science and arrive at a conclusion that is diametrically opposed to your own long-held worldview? Most of us would reevaluate our ideas so they actually mesh with reality. That's called learning.

But if you are the staunchly "free market," anti-regulation think tank called the Heartland Institute and the conclusion is that humanity must cooperate to get the world out of a worsening climate crisis ... well, then what you do is simply manufacture a conclusion that is more to your liking.

Make no mistake, this is what the Heartland Institute's "International Conference on Climate Change" is all about. Set to begin Sunday in New York, the gathering's guest list includes the standard roster of "scientist-denialists" -- a large group of "experts" who have never published a single peer-reviewed study in their lives, along with a handful of fringe researchers who do (though rarely) publish in the field of climate science. The conference tagline is: "Global Warming: was it ever really a crisis?" and the conclusion is predetermined. "Was it ever a crisis?" ... as if it isn't right now.

By conception, the Heartland gathering seeks to establish itself as an authoritative gathering of genuine experts in climate science. The claim the Heartland Institute makes is pretty simple: "more than 70 of the world's elite scientists specializing in climate issues" will be there.

So, Heartland says to the unsuspecting, the experts are all coming to this event, and they all say there is nothing to worry about. That actually makes the whole charade pretty easy to unmask.

We don't have to examine every particular scientific or pseudo-scientific argument that will be advanced during the conference (that's been done repeatedly), because the whole thrust of this conference is about who is attending, not what they are saying.

Sean Hannity: Worst person in the world

Two good eco-related entries:

The NYT asks: are we shaming our politicians about their lifestyles enough?

Eager to find new ways to trivialize the warming of the planet, the New York Times has been reporting on the carbon footprint of individual politicians and legislatures.

They are abetted in this effort by Terra Eco, a French environmental magazine that has calculated British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's footprint to be -- quelle horreur! -- 8,400 tons of CO2 per year. By my calcs, that's about 0.0001 percent of America's carbon footprint, so as soon as Brown buys a bicycle, we should have the climate problem pretty well licked.

In the meantime, I applaud Terra Eco's work on this important issue, and look forward to their upcoming report on the size of Al Gore's swimming pool.

The NYT's false 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' charge began with false charge by Pielke

In all the hubbub about George Will's falsehood-filled columns and Andy Revkin's equation of Al Gore with George Will in the New York Times, one simple fact has been a largely overlooked:

Contrary to Revkin's assertions, Former Vice President Al Gore is not guilty of "exaggeration," let alone "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements."

Having communicated at length with Gore's staff and Revkin, I will show that not only did Gore do nothing worthy of the NYT's criticism, but in fact he acted honorably and in the highest traditions of science journalism. Contrary to the impression left by Revkin in his February 24, "News Analysis" piece (see here), Gore and his team work overtime to accurately represent the data and the science.

Gore is very careful in his use of language, more careful than the NYT -- and far more careful than the man who initiated the indefensible charge, Roger Pielke, Jr. As Dylan Otto Krider wrote at Examiner.com:

It was Pielke who provided Revkin with his Gore infraction to "balance out" his article on Will to allow Revkin to say "both sides do it" ...

As we will see in this two-parter, Revkin's case is so weak, so nonexistent, that it rests almost entirely on his interpretation -- on his indefensible overinterpretation -- of one word by Gore, a word that Revkin didn't even include in his article for reasons that will soon be obvious to all.

Part 1 focuses on how Pielke started all this by fabricating a bunch of baseless charges against Gore and smeared the good name of thousands of scientists.

Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum

George Will is supposedly one of the reality-based conservatives, who eschews the willful know-nothingism of some of his ideological co-travelers. Yet today, as he has many times before, he uses his perch on the Washington Post editorial page to lie to readers and reduce their knowledge of the facts.

It's hard to believe, but he wheels out the "scientists said there would be global cooling" myth again. See it refuted here in our How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide. Or see Brad Plumer for yet another refutation.

But at this point it seems futile to refute it yet again. The question here is not about the facts, but about sociocultural norms. Why is Will permitted to lie to millions of readers every week? At what point do the editors of the Washington Post feel that it's their job to step in and stop him from misleading people? Is there any such point? Is there anything Will could say that would cross the line?

Addendum: Meanwhile, segregated over in the "green" section of the paper: "Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates." And so it goes.

Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars

I was chatting the other day with Jack Hidary, chair of SmartTransportation.org, about the "cash for clunkers" bill he's been pushing up on the Hill (watch him debate the bill with all-purpose dumbass Patrick Michaels here).

On balance I'm a big fan of the idea -- offering vouchers toward the purchase of new fuel-efficient cars or transit passes to those who turn in old gas guzzlers -- though there are reasons for caution, well-described by Rob Inglis here. After all, there's a lot of energy and emissions involved in manufacturing new cars. Would removing the oldest of the gas guzzlers still be a net economic and climate gain? It's a subject worth investigating and debating.

You know what isn't worth investigating or debating? You know what policy would absolutely, certainly, no-doubt-about-it suck from both an economic and climate perspective? Just giving people tax money to buy new cars, with no restrictions. You know, just to get more cars made and sold and on the road.

Naturally, the Senate is taking the latter route.

We are ruled by idiots.

Whose idiocy is worse?

Here's an exchange from Obama's interview on CBS the other night:

Couric: Sen. Mitch McConnell said over the weekend that surely you're privately embarrassed by some of the product that came out of the house version and let me just mention some of the spending in this package: $6.2 billion for home weatherization, $100 million for children to learn green construction, $50 million for port modernization water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam, $50 million for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. Even if some of these are a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars, Mr. President, why are they included in this bill designed to jumpstart the economy and create jobs right now?

Obama: Lets take that example. I'm stunned that Mitch McConnell use this as an example.

Couric: We actually got these examples, so you can't necessarily blame him

Question: Which would be worse, that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell thought those were hi-larious examples of non-job-creating uses of public money ... or that a major news organization like CBS thought so?

Discuss.

Obama's answer beneath the fold: