These 10 people have unintentionally hilarious things to say about global warming.

We don’t need to save the planet, because Jesus already did it – or so says Michele Bachmann, current presidential candidate and one of America’s 10 most notorious global warming deniers. Sarah Palin calls the science behind anthropogenic climate change “snake oil,” and Texas Representative Joe Barton contends that carbon dioxide can’t ever be a bad thing, because it’s in Coca-Cola. These, ladies and gentleman, are the politicians, commentators, columnists and businesspeople who most ardently (and hilariously) shout from the mountaintops that global warming just isn’t happening. Their words speak for themselves.

Senator James Inhofe, Oklahoma

According to Republican Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking member of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” That’s right, the man who leads a crucial government committee responsible for dealing with matters related to the environment is a staunch global warming denier. Inhofe, who bases many of his views on the writings of Jurassic Park novelist Michael Crichton (more on that later), is primarily responsible for a report claiming that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.” Too bad the majority of those ‘scientists’ turned out to be highly suspect, with many connected to fossil fuel industries and many more possessing no apparent expertise in climate science. That report, still used by climate skeptics to this day as supposed proof that there is no consensus among scientists on climate change, has been thoroughly debunked.

“Above all, the media must roll back this mantra that there is scientific ‘consensus of impending climatic doom as an excuse to ignore recent science,” Inhofe said in a 2006 press release. “After all, there was a so-called scientific ‘consensus’ that there were nine planets in our solar system until Pluto was recently demoted.”

Rep. Michele Bachmann, Minnesota

Current GOP presidential candidate Michele Bachmann, a U.S. Representative from Minnesota, believes that climate change can’t really be happening, because carbon dioxide is natural. Or something. As she remarked on the House floor on Earth Day 2009, “It occurs in Earth. It is a part of the regular life cycle of Earth. In fact, life on planet Earth can’t even exist without carbon dioxide. So necessary is it to human life, to animal life, to plant life, to the oceans, to the vegetation that’s on the Earth, to the, to the fowl that – that flies in the air, we need to have carbon dioxide as part of the fundamental life cycle of Earth.”

That’s not her only argument. Bachmann agrees with Inhofe in that global warming is one big trick orchestrated by greedy environmentalists and scientists who want more grant money. “The big thing we are working on now is the global warming hoax,” she told Minnesota Public Radio. “It’s all voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax.”

Of course, this is the woman who once told Rep. Nancy Pelosi that she might as well give up the fight against climate change, because Jesus has this thing covered. “[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said she’s just trying to save the planet. We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet – we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Governor Rick Perry, Texas

“The idea that we would put America’s economy at jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just nonsense,” said GOP presidential candidate and Texas governor Rick Perry at a presidential debate in September. “Just because you have a group of scientists who stood up and said here is the fact. Galileo got outvoted for a spell.” Perry is, of course, referring to the Italian Renaissance astronomer who was outcast as a heretic when he disagreed with the consensus that the sun revolves around Earth.

These quotes reaffirmed Perry’s earlier statements, when he told an audience of voters in New Hampshire that global warming is just too expensive to deal with. “I don’t think, from my perspective, that I want America to be engaged in spending that much money on what is still a scientific theory that hasn’t been proven, and from my perspective is more and more being put into question.”

Donald Trump, Businessman

There are few subjects upon which Donald Trump isn’t willing to yell his red-faced, weird-hair-ruffling opinion, whether we asked him or not. So naturally, the reality television star and repeatedly bankrupt businessman has a few things to say about global warming. You see, it’s been snowing in the winter. So, as the billionaire told an audience of 500 at a country club in February 2010, Al Gore – perpetual bullseye for climate change deniers – should be stripped of his Nobel Peace Prize.

“With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore,” he said, adding “Gore wants us to clean up our factories… when China and other countries couldn’t care less… China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.” Indeed, Donald, many people are laughing at America’s stupidity.

Sarah Palin, Former Governor of Alaska

On the rare occasion when the words that come out of former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s mouth form coherent sentences, they still don’t make much sense. Back in 2008, before she quit her job mid-term, the proud moose hunter led the state of Alaska in a lawsuit against the federal government, stating that the listing of polar bears as a threatened species would cripple oil and gas development.

Speaking about the federal government’s decision to a group of loggers in 2010, Palin said, “We knew the bottom line… was ultimately to shut down our development. And it didn’t make sense because it was based on these global warming studies that we’re now seeing (is) a bunch of snake oil science.” The one-time Fox News talking head did not specify the studies that led her to this conclusion, probably because very few credible ones exist.

Michael Crichton, Author

He has one of the most recognizable names in the history of American fiction, responsible for such mega-hits as the TV medical drama ER. But what you might not know about Michael Crichton is that he was an ardent denier of global warming, writing a seriously misleading techno-thriller called State of Fear that attacks climate science and even advising former President George W. Bush not to address global warming.

Though Crichton studied medicine as a student at Harvard, the author had no experience in climate science. This didn’t stop him from claiming that State of Fear was written “on a firm foundation of actual research challenging common assumptions about global warming.” The book argues that the environmental and scientific communities totally fabricated the threat, portraying all environmentalists in a consistently negative light and using the story to smear real-life scientist James Hansen. This work of fiction remains a major influence on the thinking of many prominent climate change skeptics.

Steve Milloy, Fox News Commentator

He’s a Fox News commentator, founder of a website called JunkScience.com and author of a book called Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them. So you can probably already imagine the kinds of comments that Steve Milloy has to make about global warming. Milloy, a former lobbyist for fossil fuel and nuclear energy, pesticides and the National Mining Association, recently offered a $500,000 prize to anyone who can “prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming.” What’s the catch? “JunkScience.com, at its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any.”

As reported by DeSmogBlog, Milloy proclaims himself to be a pioneer fighting against “faulty scientific data used to advance special, and often hidden, agendas.” Funny that Milloy doesn’t mention his own special interests and connections, including years of funding from major tobacco companies like Philip Morris. Milloy is also an adjunct analyst for the conservative thinktank CEI, Competitive Enterprise Intitute, a global warming disinformation machine that is partially funded by Exxon Mobil.

Rep. Joe Barton, Texas

Known as “Smokey Joe” for his opposition to the Clean Air Act and his efforts on behalf of polluters, Texas Representative Joe Barton famously argued against wind power because harnessing the wind would “slow the winds down,” effectively causing “the temperature to go up.” But that doesn’t mean he supports efforts to fight global warming, which he calls “a triumph over good sense and science.” Climate change is natural, he says, and in response, we should just “get shade.”

In fact, Barton argues, carbon dioxide is obviously harmless since it carbonates beverages. In opposition to the Waxman-Markey bill that aimed to cap CO2 emissions, Barton stated, “I’m creating it as I talk to you. It’s in your Coca-Cola, your Dr. Pepper and your Perrier water. It’s necessary for human life. It’s odorless, colorless, tasteless, doesn’t cause cancer, doesn’t cause asthma. There’s nobody that’s ever been admitted to a hospital because of CO2 poisoning.”

George Will, Columnist at the Washington Post

Among the most reliable sources of global warming disinformation is Washington Post columnist George Will, who regularly rails against “global warming alarmism” armed with misleading quotes selected from 1970’s newspaper articles about global cooling. Criticizing a 2010 error by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the retreat of Himalayan glaciers, Will himself offered a number of incorrect statements and misrepresented data as supposed proof that there is no scientific consensus on glacial retreat. Even after his distortions were revealed, Will continued to claim that he “accurately reported” the contents on an Arctic Climate Research Center document on declining sea ice, ignoring widespread calls for better fact-checking. These supposed facts are then repeated ad nauseam by climate change skeptics, entering the vast mythology of supposed scientific data supporting their views.

Glenn Beck, Radio Host

“Al Gore’s not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization… and you must silence all dissenting voices. That’s what Hitler did. That’s what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].”

Would you expect anything less from Glenn Beck, the chalk-wielding, sobbing former Fox television personality? The weird thing is, after years of making claims like these, repeating the popular refrain among his conservative buddies that global warming is “the biggest scam in history,” Beck went and gave an interview to USA Weekend in which he said “You’d be an idiot not to notice the temperature change,” admitting that there’s a legitimate case that global warming has been caused, at least in part, by mankind. Then again, Beck himself says “If you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.”

Photos: dawn, wikimedia commons 1, 2, gage skidmore 1 2 3 4 5, lifeisaprayer, junkscience.com, scott ableman

The post Top 10 American Global Warming Deniers appeared first on EcoSalon.

Our tendency to post and tweet callous comments reflects a nation lacking in empathy.

As a global community, we have suffered some devastating catastrophes in the past decade: the 9/11 attacks, the 2005 South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti earthquake, the BP oil spill, and the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Along with these catastrophes, we have a steady flow of news stories depicting the cruelty people inflict upon each other every day around the world.

As these tragedies unfold in the media, there is an outpouring of sympathy from the vast majority of people, along with donations, offers to help, and sincere grief for the fallen. But there is also a disturbing number of people who seem to feel no compassion for others at all, and, thanks to the combination of traditional and ever-rising social media, these hateful voices become viral.

Heartless in the face of natural disaster
Even in the wake of a natural disaster, some people found a way to ridicule, dismiss or even blame the victims. Some high profile figures even seem to feel compelled to make shocking comments and jokes in the wake of tragedy using Twitter where they have thousands of followers. 50 Cent, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, among others posted now-famous comments and jokes in extremely poor taste about the disaster and its victims.

50 Cent joked about having to evacuate his “hoes” from L.A., Japan and Hawaii, while Rush Limbaugh laughed with a caller about the irony that the tsunami hit a nation known for its leadership in recycling and hybrid cars. Glenn Beck not only laughed about the Japanese victims, saying it was a message from God, but in the past he has called Hurricane Katrina victims “scumbags” and mocked the residents who were unable or unwilling to leave before the storm.

These men are known for their “shock value,” but that does not excuse cruelty.

Whom does it hurt?
Clearly, cruel speech hurts the victims who have to endure their suffering being made light of, and despite the outpouring of aid from the U.S., the backlash from these incidents makes us, as a nation, look like selfish, over-privileged fame-seekers. Does it hurt the ones who made the comments? It’s doubtful that 50 Cent, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck gave their comments a second thought. They won’t be hurt professionally or lose their seething audiences. And, as Robert Elisberg mused, that’s troubling. As he pointed out, fans will continue to idolize Beck and Limbaugh, but there is no evidence that even one of them protested and said that in this instance, any of these comments were out of line.

Therein lies the danger. That this shock value is accepted. That this attitude of casual cruelty seems normal and is emulated. Was there backlash? Thankfully, yes. Many people denounced their comments. But, plenty of non-celebrities got into the act of making jokes and calling it, inexplicably, karmic payback for Pearl Harbor, killing whales and dolphins, or other senseless justifications. Hundreds of Facebook statuses and Twitter feeds echoed similar thoughts.

In a rant heard around the world, UCLA student Alexandra Wallace posted a video on YouTube complaining about Asian students in the library disrupting her studying when they called home to check on their loved ones. She mocked the way they spoke and criticized them for not having “American manners.” Looking back, she might be choking on that characterization right about now.

While the hatemongers of social media can only be identified by having their statuses reposted in incredulous news pieces, Wallace’s video went viral. It was the biggest 2 minute 52 second mistake of her life. Unlike the mostly untouchable 50 Cent, Limbaugh and Beck, Wallace has effectively ended her college career at UCLA, destroyed her reputation, and most likely will have torpedoed her entire professional career as that video is destined to live on the internet forever.

In a time where connectivity is bringing us closer together as a global community, we shouldn’t forget that our international neighbors have a front row seat to the insensitive and insulting remarks of the vocal few that overshadow the concerned many.

Unfeeling toward crime victims
Vicious comments aren’t limited to victims of natural disasters, crime victims are fair game, too. In a recent piece, we discussed the public reaction to Lara Logan’s sexual assault in Egypt. Public figures made light of it, a journalist lost his job over it, and the less-than-sympathetic public seemed divided between racist comments about her Egyptian attackers and blaming a woman professional for being there in the first place. In this public poll, more than half of the voters felt that Logan is to blame for her own attack.

Looking back to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, there isn’t a wide electronic trail of negative public opinion. But then, this was pre-Facebook and Twitter. Apps and smartphones make it all too easy; just a decade ago, people didn’t have an instant outlet to broadcast their every vicious thought. There was certainly some anti-Muslim sentiment from the cable news punditry, but save for Ann Coulter lambasting widows and Glenn Beck pronouncing his hatred for some of the “whining” 9/11 families, our nation seemed to join together in dignity and offer support to the victims.

Whether we have coarsened as a people, or whether social media simply provides a more visible mirror, is unclear. Are we teaching the next generation that shock value, even if it’s cruel, is a justified outlet for pain, entertainment, attention? Is that the way our society really feels toward others? In a time where vast numbers of people continue to give to others, despite still-challenging economic conditions, a vocal slice can undo all the good with thoughtless spewing.

image: Rego

The post Shouting Down Compassion appeared first on EcoSalon.

What I know about Jesus is based solely on what I’ve heard and what I’ve read. My opinions on the man come from hearsay along with some good books, so to speak, that paint a fairly clear picture of his times and culture, if not of Him Himself.

Unfortunately, when having any “What Would Jesus Do?” discussion, this leaves me at a distinct disadvantage to those who apparently know Jesus personally. And it turns out there are a lot of people out there who are on more than a first name basis with the guy. Not only that, they’re also happy to tell us all what he thought and, to some, thinks, about a host of issues including environmentalism.

These very knowledgeable people have a number of oft-used arguments explaining why environmentalism is “against” Jesus and God and the Bible. While they’re not specifically limited to the fundamentalist religious right (just a couple years ago, for example, the Pope was warned by council of an Antichrist who is “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”), they do seem to be in possession of the greatest amount of truth on the matter. Here are some examples of how green clashes with God:

• The End of Days: Coming soon to an ecosystem near you. Environmental disasters are canaries in our coal mine of sin (or blackbirds falling from the sky). Jesus is coming and the Word is there’s going to be some global warming involved, anyway.

• Who’s driving this bus? You? Me? No. Just ask the Representative from the Great state of Illinois, John Shimkus, who reminds us “God will decide when to end the Earth, not man.” Well, there you go. Stop that silly worrying and drill, baby, drill!

• Stop monkeying around! Many in the religious right see a distinct connection between environmentalism, evolution and humanism. Think of it like a domino effect – first we evolve and pretty soon we’re all wanting to save the planet. It’s a slippery slope.

• Greenies are all about the S-word. Environmentalists tend to rely on the cult of science that proves things such as the earth being much, much more than 6,000ish years old.

• Kill the competition. The far Christian right works to paint the Green movement as type of religion. Unsurprisingly, like most movements other than their own, it’s after our children and determined to undermine our way of life.

Many of these points are laid out in the recently released and much-covered video film series Resisting the Green Dragon, described by its creators as “a biblical response to one of the greatest deceptions of our day.” Watch it and get the “the armor you need to rise up slay the Green Dragon and promote the true gospel of Jesus Christ.” The storyline, celebrated by Glenn Beck and told by a who’s who of right wing religious think-tankers and Christian group leaders, paints environmentalism as “a threat to the Christian state” (Michigan? New Hampshire? Oh yes, the United States) and takes pot shots at the movement’s “gospel” – some movie called Avatar.

But back to our man.

While many of these know-Him-alls’ points are said to be based on the Bible, it’s pretty tough to pin an anti-green label on Jesus. In my own anecdotal research, I have yet to hear someone say “Jesus said it’s okay to trash the planet.” The truth is that most data, even some from the Good Book, leads us to an entirely different conclusion than God vs. Green.

What, briefly speaking, do we know about Jesus? What kind of lifestyle did he lead and embody? As near as we can tell, given the time lapse between his death and the emergence of scripture, what types of ideas did he champion?

Jesus, it seems, lived a communal lifestyle in a close-to-the-land manner. He shunned wealth accumulation at the expense of the poor, spoke of the meek inheriting the earth and of creation – all creation – as being a gift from his father, God. He identified with pain and suffering and sacrifice for the good of the whole, promoting a spirit of equal access to many, as opposed to special privileges for the few. Exploitation, he preached, was a sin. A good summation comes from The Reverend Stuart C. Lord, Dean of Dartmouth’s Tucker Foundation, who answers that he calls “The Lifestyle of Jesus Question” with four key concepts: inclusivity, community, integrity and humility.

Let’s take a moment to consider the tenets of environmentalism.

Environmentalism, says Merriam-Webster, is the “advocacy of the preservation, restoration, or improvement of the natural environment; especially: the movement to control pollution.” Inclusive? One people, one planet. Community? Is there anything more community-oriented than efforts to preserve, restore and improve its home. Integrity? What do they say about cleanliness? Where is it? Oh yeah. And what about that final concept, humility? Who are we to look a gift-God in the mouth. It’s enough, perhaps, to say thank you, give a bow if you wish, and refrain from defiling what’s been given.

If we dare ask the question of why anyone would want to paint the concept of environmentalism as anti-Christian, we have to be prepared to take a serious look at the co-opting of broad-based cultural and religious movements into corporate fiscal and political agendas. Other questions come to mind, like: Why are so many poor against national healthcare? Why are anti-spending hawks so gung-ho for massive military expenditures? When asking how so many have become convinced of the sheer nonsense that taking care of our Earth – our God-given home, if you like – is somehow heretical or socially dangerous, it would be folly not to consider the obvious. Read: follow the money.

That thesis paper aside, which would make note of Sliming the Green Dragon’s hackneyed brainwash-speech (constant repetition of terms like terms like “policy,” “new world order,” “liberty” and the dreaded “global governance”), isn’t it time to take a look at what The Man actually said and did? Indeed some Christian groups already are, as the Creation Care and Evangelical environmentalist movements continue to grow in the United States and around the world. Whether or not these groups will have the will to take on the well-funded Becks, Cornwall Alliances and Shimkuses of the world is another matter.

Having never dreamed that I would end a story with a quote from the Bible, I’m going to go ahead and throw down (I know, it’s Old Testament. So shoot me): “You shall not pollute the land in which you live… you shall not defile the land in which you live, in which I also dwell.” Numbers 35:33-34.

Amen.

Scott Adelson is a Jewish-born, Buddhist atheist. <ducks>

Image: Rodrigo Soldon

The post Jesus Is an Environmentalist appeared first on EcoSalon.

From the Hill…

I just couldn’t let this one go by. And it pains me to bring it up. But let’s talk about a few inconvenient truths.

Who’d have thought that President Bill Clinton was the eco-friendly “bad boy” of the Clinton-Gore administration? He made intimate phone calls to his special friend from inside the White House during his scandal; Vice President Al Gore took a private jet during his. How could our anointed Captain Planet turn his back on (in addition to one other key figure) Mother Earth?

Masseuse Molly Hagerty has been dishing about the Nobel Peace prize-winning climate change guru’s ‘crazed sex poodle’ behavior. I won’t go into the gossipy details of the alleged massage because it has no relevance here.

But, some facts have arisen about the other, more globally pressing issues about the Harvard-educated family man becoming entangled in this controversy. He was staying in Portland, Oregon, and asked staff at the luxury Hotel Lucia to find him a masseuse. Two things. One, the Hotel Lucia is lovely, lively, hip and chic. But just because it’s located in the Emerald City, doesn’t make it a green hotel. Maybe Gore forgot to do a simple search for one of these environmentally friendly lodgings. Also worth noting: Staying at the Doubletree is not any greener simply because the word tree is part of its name.

Plain and simple, Gore hasn’t been practicing what he’s been preaching all these years. Witness the purchase of his bachelor pad in San Francisco in 2006.

Gore paid $3.9 million for the apartment atop the grand St. Regis Hotel in San Francisco in 2006. There is a swimming pool, a health spa, a roof deck and even a butler available to bring refreshments along with his order of double standards. He enjoys an opulent personal lifestyle while lecturing the public on green morality.

It’s a complicated situation being a public personality. The spotlight can illuminate, yes, but it can also seduce and reveal the bad in someone as well as the good.

Tabloid fodder aside, it’s the double talk with regard to core message that’s difficult to stomach, let alone abide. San Francisco is one of the greenest cities in the country. So what kept Gore from finding, or erecting, a sustainable living space? Building a green house doesn’t take much more than money. Heck, even Glenn Beck built and lives in one.

University of Manchester Professor Geoff Beattie published a study about environmentalism and attitudes versus actions. In it he differentiated between how people felt about being “green” and what they actually believed and did about it. Sean Coughlan at the BBC reports:

Researchers, at the university’s Sustainable Consumption Institute, made video recordings of people talking about issues such as global warming – looking at how their words matched their body language, such as hand gestures and expressions.

The study found that while people could control their speech to express green opinions, their unconscious gestures suggested their “true thoughts and feelings” lay elsewhere.

Explicitly, people may want to save the planet and appear green, but implicitly they may care a good deal less.

Given it is these implicit attitudes that direct and control much of our behaviour in supermarkets and elsewhere, these are the attitudes that we have to pursue and understand and change.

It’s common knowledge that people (politicians, especially) will say one thing and do another, often the opposite. It’s just difficult to observe, in hindsight, when some of those people take a very public stance, muscle their way to icon status – and make less good on their word. The lesson here: If you’re going to fall from grace, make sure you have a cushy seat on a private jet to make your descent a comfortable one.

Editor’s Note: This is the latest installment in Christopher Correa’s weekly column, Hill/Street Greens, examining the environmental deeds (and misdeeds) of Washington, D.C. and Wall Street.

Image: socketsite

The post An Inconvenient Roof: Al Gore’s Controversial Lodgings appeared first on EcoSalon.