How do you describe the bizarre weather patterns and environmental issues sending our planet into a tailspin? Do you call it “global warming?” Or do you prefer “climate change?”

True story: Earlier this week over on our sister website, Organic Authority I had just finished up an article about the impact droughts are having on beef prices, causing the return of ‘pink slime.’ I cited global warming as the cause, per the information I was reporting on. Our Editor-in-Chief, Laura Klein, asked me to change it to ‘climate change’. “I feel that ‘global warming’ is a politically-charged phrase,” she wrote to me in an email, adding, “most of America still questions the validity of (whether it’s really happening or not), and the term ‘climate change’ to me feels like – it’s happening there’s no doubt, there’s no questioning that weather patterns are changing and the polar ice caps are melting.”

I let Laura know that the reason I prefer “global warming” is because of the emotions it triggers, and that the term “climate change” was the more politically charged one, having been first widely used by Republican strategist Frank Lutz. I am not a Republican. And I prefer to keep my political beliefs out of my semi-clean Los Angeles air and currently un-flooded home. (I’ll be open to political haranguing over our freaky weather problems if and when Sharknadoes start threatening my family.)

Laura and I agreed to disagree (and, ahem, to keep my job, I changed it to “climate change”). Then, not a day later, this study dropped into my inbox. We both had a good laugh over it, and we also realized it’s a pretty big discussion happening in our country: Is it “global warming” or is it “climate change?”

The report, called “What’s In A Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change,” conducted by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication looked at both “climate change” and “global warming” and just how the American public views and uses these terms.

“Americans are 2 times more likely to say they personally use the term global warming than climate change in their own conversations,” the report noted, even though most Americans say they are equally familiar with both terms. In fact, the study found that Americans were four times more likely to say they hear the term “global warming” over “climate change” in public conversations.

The term “global warming” appears to be more strongly associated with a “greater certainty that the phenomenon is happening,” particularly among men, liberals, and 31-48-year-olds. Among independents and liberals, “global warming” is more often associated with the understanding of the (scientific) reality and urgency, and the personal threats as a result. People who favor “global warming” also seem to be more likely to be active in campaigns and efforts to address the issue.

“While for some in-the-know, the two phrases are often seen as synonymous,” reported EcoWatch, “the general public tends to favor the term ‘global warming’—and perhaps we should take note.”

But the climate deniers are still out there. “Big contenders with even bigger pocket books, like the Koch Brothers, are able to pump money into anti-climate campaigns, bills and agendas, drowning out the voices of scientists who continue to prove that climate change—or, global warming, rather—is real, caused in part by humans and happening right now,” noted EcoWatch.

Another client of mine recently asked me to delete copy from a paper that referenced global warming as a cause for supporting organic farming. They found that much of their audience, sadly, still doesn’t believe there’s enough evidence to support the claims, even despite the recent comprehensive White House report, and the recent news about the West Antarctic glacier melting “past a point of no return,” which will lead to rising sea levels by as much as four feet in the very near future, say experts.

Is the term “climate change” too soft, too disarming to ignite the immediate, urgent changes we need to make in order to protect our environment and our species from going extinct? Granted, debating over what to call this situation is precious time we could all be spending doing something about the effects these weather fluctuations are having on our present and our future. But there’s something to be said for consensus reality and coming to an agreement about this major shift to the planet. Our perceptions about the world we share play as significant a role in shaping our future as our actions do. Assuming we have a hospitable future on Earth, that is.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

New Model Predicts Global Warming Will Leave Your Grandkids In Hot Water

Global Warming Gets a Titanic Wake-Up Call: James Cameron’s Eco Documentary

The Coming Global Water Crisis And 3 Ways To Deal With It

Image via Yale Project on Climate Change Communication

The post Is it ‘Global Warming’ or is it ‘Climate Change’? appeared first on EcoSalon.

The $524 million and counting that Mitt Romney has raised for the Presidential campaign could be used to do the things conservatives claim they want for America.

The amount of money now spent on presidential campaigns in the United States is obscene. It’s staggering. For the 2012 election between President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney, there’s over a billion dollars in play. Compare that to the 1996 election between Clinton and Dole, when just over $400 million was spent all together. Both sides are increasingly dependent on ‘super PACs’: political action committees funded by donors whose identities often remain hidden from the public. Because after all, according to the Supreme Court, corporations are now people, giving the country’s most profitable industries an even tighter grip on the political process.

But what if, instead of funding attack ads and smear campaigns, that money went toward the things that each candidate’s backers actually claim to support – for example, in Romney’s case, bringing jobs back to America, raising future entrepreneurs and reducing the incidence of abortion? Let’s take a look at how the $524 million raised thus far by Mitt Romney’s supporters could have been better spent.

Do as Jesus teaches: help the poor.

It’s safe to say that the GOP aligns itself with Biblical values. That doesn’t mean there aren’t Christian Democrats – much to the contrary – but Republicans are more vocal about it, and far more eager to blur the lines between church and state. But isn’t it kind of funny that for all of the Christianity that Republicans try to bring into politics, they almost never mention the actual teachings of Jesus? Maybe that’s because Jesus was really kind of a bleeding heart liberal, dedicating his life to helping the less fortunate.

If Mitt Romney and Co. really want to let the Bible guide their legislative decision-making, maybe they should consider what Jesus would do and give to the poor. A good portion of the $524 million wasted on TV campaigns full of lies and misdirection could provide any of the following:

1. Feed 10,480,000 children for a year. According to World Food Program USA, it can cost as little as 25 cents to provide a child with a healthy lunch.

2. Start 1,048 mobile health clinics and fund each of them for an entire year. Mobile health clinics can respond to natural disasters, and serve thousands of people living in poverty in the United States, including migrant farm workers and their families.

3. Feed 1,200 homeless New Yorkers a hot, nutritious meal and provide counseling and referral services every day for 238 years. It costs about $2.2 million a year to run New York’s Holy Apostles Soup Kitchen.

But that’s ridiculous, right?

Bring jobs back to America.

The Romney campaign has really been laying into President Obama on outsourcing American jobs, despite the fact that multi-millionaire Romney has profited handsomely from investments in companies that pioneered shipping American jobs overseas. Just over a month ago, the GOP blocked the number 1 item on President Obama’s to-do list: giving tax breaks to companies that “insource” jobs to the U.S., while eliminating deductions for companies that move jobs to other countries.

There’s an easy solution for this, but Romney’s major campaign contributors aren’t going to like it, because it would cut into their own profits. Imagine if the corporations that have donated to Romney used that money to start bringing back some of their own outsourced jobs. Some of the corporations whose owners or political action committees have donated handsomely to Romney who also ship jobs overseas include Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and the notorious Bain.

Cut drug use with programs that actually work.

We’ve spent more than a trillion dollars on the war on drugs. Romney’s $524 million in campaign funds is obviously a drop in the bucket compared to that figure, but consider this: we could be spending far less on more effective long-term solutions. It costs nearly $25,000 to imprison one person for a year. Drug courts, in contrast, have an annual cost of just $900 to $3500 per person.

Drug courts are mandatory programs that keep drug-addicted individuals who have been charged with crimes out of jail. Participants in drug court programs are provided with intensive supervised treatment for a minimum period of one year, held accountable by a drug court judge for meeting their obligations to stay sober once they are released, and randomly tested for drug use. Drug court programs also require participants to appear in court before the judge on a regular basis for reviews of their progress.

Despite the fact that drug courts are highly effective, with 75% of adult graduates staying out of the criminal justice system after completing the program, drug courts serve just a small fraction of the estimated 1.2 million drug-addicted people currently in prison or on probation.

Prevent unwanted pregnancies, and by extension, many abortions.

Women should have the right to choose – period. No nitpicking over the circumstances of the pregnancy. No attempts to redefine or excuse rape. No questioning the extent to which a woman’s life must be in danger to justify an abortion. No questioning at all. But if Republicans want so badly to limit the number of abortions that are performed across the country each year, they should stop standing in the way of contraception and sex education. Planned Parenthood and other care providers offer crucial access to these services, potentially cutting the number of unplanned and unwanted pregnancies among their clients.

Plus, there’s the financial aspect. Conservatives like the big-money Koch Brothers (who have contributed millions to Romney’s campaign and many others) argue that cutting federal funds to Planned Parenthood makes fiscal sense, and Republicans tried to revoke all $317 million in Title X funding for family planning and preventative health services.

But in the long run, it actually costs more. As Slate’s Amanda Marcotte argued last year, patients who can no longer rely on Planned Parenthood will likely end up at other clinics that cost the government more money for the same services. If the GOP wants to save millions upon millions of dollars, they should spend that $317 million and more.

Improve public schools, educating future entrepreneurs.

Why is America falling behind in the global race for business leaders and other highly talented individuals? At its very core, American conservatism and indeed, capitalism itself is rooted in the idea that any individual can be wildly successful, if he or she works hard enough. But getting into an exclusive and increasingly pricey college is a lot easier if your family is wealthy, especially if you’re sent to private schools where you don’t have to worry about underpaid teachers, outdated textbooks and equipment and dilapidated facilities.

We could produce a lot more of the entrepreneurs that the GOP loves to trumpet – not to mention scientists, engineers, doctors and other highly skilled workers – with higher-quality public schools. The financial needs of our public school system definitely go far beyond $524 million. According to Teach for America, the nation’s major city public schools are in need of at least $15.3 billion in new construction, $46.7 billion in repair, renovation and modernization needs, and $14.4 billion in deferred maintenance needs, and that figure would multiply many times over when considering the entire nation. But it would be a start.

Pay for some of the “We Built It” state GOP projects that were actually funded by the federal government.

Seizing on a (misinterpreted) remark that President Obama made during a speech, Republicans turned “We Built It” into this summer’s GOP slogan. It’s like 2008’s “Drill Here, Drill Now,” except even more nonsensical. They took the phrase out of context to make it sound as if the President was telling business owners that they weren’t responsible for their own success. The Romney campaign immediately responded with an ad saying as much, and a number of speakers at the Republican National Convention repeated it.

The funny thing is, many of the things those speakers are so proud to have “built” were paid for by the federal government. For example, Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas praised this Congress’ record of “implementing free enterprise policies that create jobs, cutting spending and repealing Obamacare” while failing to mention that he secretly requested $81 million in stimulus money.  Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan called President Obama’s stimulus plan “wasteful,” but turned around and sought money from it for his own state. Instead of putting millions toward false and hypocritical attacks, perhaps conservative donors should help their party do what they claim to do and pay for their pet projects themselves.

Photo: DonkeyHotey

The post 8 Ways Romney’s Campaign Money Could Improve America appeared first on EcoSalon.

Could the 2012 presidential campaign be more ripe for Oscar gold?

We’re down unofficially at least to two candidates for this year’s Republican presidential nomination, and each is a compelling figure, a larger-than-life character whose story begs – hell, practically demands – for Hollywood treatment. While a buddy comedy (Newt & Mitt, or G ‘n’ R) would seem to be the most obvious vehicle for these two, I depart from my editors and offer a subtler, more arthouse-y approach to the candidates. No biopics here: Each movie presents an aspect of the candidate to which audiences could(somewhat) reasonably relate. The final scene of each, of course, shows one of our heroes entering the Oval Office, settling down for the first time as your No. 45.

In the Mitt Romney movie, we’re presented with a Gothic horror story in which Mitt is actually a split personality portrayed by two different actors. It’s a coming-of-age story – a bildungsroman, if you will—in which our hero is tempted by his dark side before discovering his true identity. It’s Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, except that in Mitt’s case, Mr. Hyde has more perfect hair.

First off, I hire a nice wooden rocking chair to play “Jekyll” Mitt. This is homespun, “Sure-I-made-$21 million-last-year-but-I’m-still-just-like-you!” Romney, the guy who tied his dog to the top of the car like Joe Six-pack and Edward Fortyhands, aka you and me. Sure, the whole “Mitt is wooden” thing is overplayed, but that means that it’s no longer played, which is really all you’d ask or expect a rocking chair to do.

“Hyde” Mitt is played by a Herman Miller Aeron chair. It’s cool and sleek, just like Mitt’s debate hair, with enough mesh to provide the most amount of style with the least amount of substance. It’s also an $800 chair, generally available to none but the most chair-happy spenders among us. This Mitt constantly tries and consistently fails to relate to Six-pack and Fortyhands. He’s got all
sorts of knobs and levers that let him contort into any imaginable position; there’s no zero, no firmly grounded center. If you’ve got no backbone, you can use his. And correlatively, he can dial down his spinal tension and elegantly lean on you when he doesn’t know what he thinks you want.

Ultimately, the two Mitts clash in an epic battle for soul-selling supremacy. They trade insults, throw jabs and hooks. Rocking-chair Mitt develops cracks he can’t afford to repair under Aeron Mitt’s health-care policies; Aeron Mitt can’t find the appropriate mechanical placement for his seat. Finally, Aeron manages to coat his enemy with chair grease and burn him to the ground, a stunning victory for modern design and a testament to the strength of a lack of conviction.

Befitting its subject, the Newt Gingrich movie is much more of a romp, with a lot more sex and a lot less Mormonism. It’s sort of a frat-house farce in which Newt is the house mom who’s always shooing scantily-clad chicks out of the house and scolding “her” boys for vomiting in the urinals, occasionally while vomiting into one himself. But at the end of the movie, Newt realizes he’s more SigEp than schoolmarm and leads the entire house in a naked raid on the university president’s house. It’s more fun to be chastised, our hero learns, than to do the chastising yourself.

House-mom Newt is played by a bunch of radishes. Red-faced and slightly spicy, you know he’s good for you but you’re also aware of his more complex, sinister side. Ancient Roman philosopher Pliny called the radish “a vulgar article of the diet” that has a “remarkable power of causing flatulence and eructation,” and some people just flat-out can’t stand them. Just like Newt. I cast radishes as Newt because of their more dualistic qualities. They’re polarizing vegetables. Take, for example, the radish’s reputation for curing flatulence (when combined with salt and pepper). And think about it: when Newt gets his hair right – that is, with just enough pepper to temper all that salt – he’s definitely a good prick with which to pop pontificating gasbags. Provided—and here’s why we gave the role to the radishes—he’s not acting the pontificating gasbag himself.

They might not win the Oval Office, but maybe we can get them an Oscar instead.

Image: Dave_B_

The post Box Office Gold: Newt & Mitt’s Excellent…er, Amazing…er, Entertaining Adventures! appeared first on EcoSalon.

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.