Newt’s Environmentalism? Gimme a Break

Now that Newt is the GOP flavor of the week, let’s have a look at what he has said and done about energy and climate. Many this week have derided John King’s utterly amateur opening of Thursday’s  debate, and credited Newt’s aggressive, indignant response with assisting his surge in polls.

I am not posting the exchange with John King because I cannot bear to watch it again. Watch it here if you have the stomach. And here is a solid enough fact check of the debate.

Why couldn’t King have been even a tiny bit subtler, or more sophisticated in pointing out the relevance of the question? I know, CNN hosted the debate, and subtle is not their strong suit.  And, yes, it was the day one of his former wives told an ABC interview that Newt wanted “an open marriage,’ so he could continue his affair — that she needed to “share him with other women.” I for one wouldn’t care much about that if Newt was not still preaching “family values.”

If I were King: “Mr. Gingrich, on the campaign trail you have spoken out against gay marriage and in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act by appealing to the principle that ‘Marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.’  Could you explain what you mean by ‘sacred’?”

(“Washington Post” image above from Don Slutes via Marion Dillon Morris. If only.)

Lots of things are popping up on the internet this weekend about Newt’s environmental views. The best one I have read is from Joe Romm, which he posted before the polls closed and I have re-posted below, in its entirety.  It makes abundantly clear that Newt is about as anti-environmental as any serious candidate for president since, well, ever. It is a good antidote to those of us still shaking our heads over this clip:



Now, onto what he really believes and what he has done over the years.

Breaking: Clean Energy Defunder Wins South Carolina Primary

Re-post from ClimateProgress

By Joe Romm on Jan 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm

No single politician since Ronald Reagan has done more to set back America’s leadership in clean technology than Newt Gingrich.

National Zoo plaque [click to enlarge, credit: J. Maskit]

Emperor Newt is pro-poison, that’s for sure (see “Gingrich proposes abolishing EPA” and Report Details How Fox News Fueled Newt Inc. and Pushed His “Drill Here, Drill Now” Agenda).

So it’s no surprise, he is also anti-antidote.  In the 1990s, the Gingrich Congress tried to shut down the Department of Energy, slash all clean energy research, stop the joint government-industry effort to develop a superefficient hybrid car, and zero out all programs aimed specifically at reducing greenhouse emissions and accelerating technology deployment (for some history, see my 1996 Atlantic Monthly article and this 1997 article).

He didn’t succeed — but he did stop the significant expansion of clean energy funding Clinton-Gore had begun.  And he did force the DOE to sharply scale back its programs aimed at clean energy deployment and GHG reduction.

A decade later he tried to pass himself as a friend to the environment.  In 2007, he wrote A Contract with on the Earth.  As I wrote at the time, if you look up the word ‘Orwellian’ on Wikipedia — “An attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past” — there should be a picture of Newt’s new book.

He suckered a lot of folks.  There’s this classic interview in Salon, “Give Newt a chance” — it is definitely all the Newt that is fit to print.

To cut to the chase, readers will not be surprised that a conservative pretending to care about the environment adopted the anti-regulation, pro-technology approach suggested by GOP strategist, Frank Luntz, and popularized by his protege, George Bush (see Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah”).

Since Gingrich continues to push this misdirection, I’ll excerpt some of my earlier posts on Newt.

Newt famously co-authored and then worked to enact the anti-environmental Contract with America. But Newt tried to rewrite history with Salon:

I don’t think that the environment was a central focus of the Contract With America. I don’t think that it was bad for the environment. I don’t know of a single thing in the Contract that was bad for the environment.

I think Salon had to pause in the interview at that point to allow Newt to douse the flames that began engulfing his trousers. In fact, the CWA was a clever, stealthy attack on the environment as detailed by NRDC in a lengthy analysis (summarized here) by the Sierra Club, and by the National Wildlife Federation, which wrote at the time: “Taken as a whole, the House plan constitutes the broadest and deepest attack ever mounted against laws that protect public health, the environment, natural resources and wildlife.”

The only thing more gut-busting than Gingrich claiming that the CWA and related legislation wasn’t bad for the environment is his embrace of technology as the answer to climate/energy problems.

Last year, Newt proposed replacing the EPA with an “Environmental Solutions Agency.” It’s no surprise that Newt is unaware we already have an Environmental Solutions Agency that develops innovative new technology — it’s called the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, which I helped run in the mid-1990s.  Gingrich tried to kill it when he became speaker in 1995.  He probably thinks he succeeded.

It should leave everyone ROTFLMAO that when Salon asked Newt a few years ago, “What do you think that the U.S. should do about global warming right now?” he answered:

I think we should have a billion-dollar tax-free prize for a hydrogen engine that can be produced at a commercially available price. I think that we should have a substantial prize for developing the first engine that can be mass produced that gets 100 miles or more to the gallon of fuel. I think that we should have a substantial research program under way for dramatically better ethanol products than corn or cane sugar.

We should have a 100 percent tax write-off for investment in the technology needed to make composite-material cars using the material comparable to that which works in the 787 Dreamliner that Boeing is building. Because composite material is stronger than steel and much, much lighter than steel, and you could produce a safer car at lighter weight, which would get dramatically more mileage.

Unless you can create economically desirable, environmentally positive technologies, you are never going to get China and India to adopt.

Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah. Same as Luntz, Bush, CrichtonLomborg, and the rest of the global warming delayers. This phony environmentalism is what I call the technology trap in Hell and High Water.

This answer also ended any claim that Gingrich is a tech-savvy person. After all, you can build an affordable hydrogen engine today: It’s called an internal combustion engine (which can easily be modified to burn hydrogen), but it is low-efficiency, and thus worthless (since hydrogen production is also an inefficient process). What the Department of Energy has been trying to do for over a decade with Detroit — a program the Gingrich Congress (and the automakers!) ironically tried to gut — is build an affordable high-efficiency hydrogen fuel cell. And the hydrogen advocates claim fuel cells would be commercial today — if we could only get unit sales of fuel cell cars to a few hundred thousand a year (up from zero today).

Moreover, a viable hydrogen engine without a solution to the hydrogen storage problem or tens of thousands of hydrogen fueling stations around the country (costing tens of billions of dollars) is completely useless. So this prize idea is dumb. A pure waste of government dollars of a kind Newt used to mock.

To beat this near-dead hydrogen horse, let me note that Gingrich goes on to say:

If you had a hydrogen car and the French level of nuclear power production for electricity, you’d have a very high quality of life, great mobility, lots of electricity, and virtually no carbon-loading. You can create very advanced technological solutions that dramatically improve life in a way that’s better.  The quality of air in California is better than it was 30 years ago. The quality of water in the country is better than it was 30 years ago.

Seriously!  First, even forgetting the problems with building hundreds of new nuclear plants to more than quadruple U.S. nuclear capacity — at a cost of many trillions of dollars (see here), basing your transportation system on cars using hydrogen made from zero-carbon electricity is possibly the dumbest transportation policy idea ever conceived as I explain in my Energy Policy article, “The car and fuel of the future” .

Why is California’s air — and the country’s water — better than it was 30 years ago? Gingrich disingenuously implied the answer is “very advanced technological solutions that dramatically improve life” but, in fact, the answer is very tough government regulations — indeed, California is allowed tougher air regulations than the rest of the country, as Newt must know since he is so damn smart.

Yes the environmental gains Gingrich praised and used to defend a “technology only” strategy were made possible by the kind of regulations Gingrich tried to gut in the 1990s and that he continues to oppose today — including a cap and trade system for carbon emissions:

We have been caught in a trap where environmental solutions are defined on the left as higher taxes, bigger government, more regulation and more litigation, and so conservatives just shrug their shoulders; since they oppose all four of those solutions, they refuse to get engaged in environmental issues.

One of the major reasons that Terry Maple and I wrote A Contract With the Earth was to reopen the debate, and to say that there are solutions which involve incentives, science and technology and markets. Entrepreneurs are potentially much more powerful and successful than regulatory and litigation solutions. We ought to be having a dialogue about which solution works better rather than being engaged in a purely partisan debate to see who can yell “anti-environmentalist” more.

As someone who fought for years against the Gingrich Congress’s assault on incentives and technology and market-based solutions, I can only laugh at Gingrich’s attempt to rewrite and whitewash history.

If you seriously think we could end up with 80% of our power from nuclear energy (like France) and hydrogen cars also running on nukes any time soon — without any major new regulations — and if you think that outcome would be a good strategy for dealing with global warming (and assuming you buy anything this used-car salesman is selling), then Newt is your guy.

Otherwise, try to enjoy the unintentional humor from Gingrich’s public statements. It’s the only positive thing Newt has to contribute to the debate.

Emperor Newt spies a tasty treat [Credit: J. Maskit].  ”The scientific name of the emperor newt (Tylototriton shanjing) is derived from two Mandarin words, “shan” meaning mountain and “jing” meaning spirit or demon.”

NOTE:  In the unlikely event Newt loses the South Carolina primary, we can be quite confident it will still be won by someone who would defund clean energy — see “Okay, Romney, Now You’re Just Lying About Solar” and “Romney Energy Plan Doesn’t Give a Mitt About Foreign Oil, Clean Cars, Jobs.”  But Nate Silver’s projection this afternoon suggests Newt has little to worry about except how big his victory is going to be.

Related Posts:



Must See TV: Bill Moyers is Back

A great new television series began this weekend. And it won’t just be of interest to those of us already following the broader story behind the damage done by the most anti-environmental Congress in history. Moyers & Company probes a range of the deeper issues about democracy in America by presenting riveting interviews with fascinating thinkers not usually seen on television.

It’s very good news that Bill Moyers has come out of retirement to explore the connection between money in politics (and Big Oil money is central), our failing democracy, and the rise of plutocracy in America. His one-line summary of the series, which he picked up from a tee shirt a protester was wearing at an Occupy rally: “The system is not broken; it is fixed.”

If you want to cut to the chase instead of reading my commentary and watching some short introductory clips, the first episode is the first video posted below. It provides an overture of many themes to be taken up in future shows by interviewing Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, authors of Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer — And Turned Its Back on the Middle Class.  This is one of the more important books about American democracy in recent years. Instead of offering mere partisan polemics, it is a trenchant, impeccably researched and beautifully written analysis of how “America’s vast inequality is no accident, but in fact has been politically engineered.”

OK, an old guy talking to college professors from Yale and Berkeley may not sound like fast paced entertainment, but remember, Moyers is the guy who brought us Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, one of the most popular shows ever broadcast on public television. Millions of people loved what Moyers recently described as a show whose plot-line was “Two guys in ties discussing mythology.” Here is the entire first show of the new series:

Moyers & Comapany 101: On Winner Take All Politics

Finding the show on television may be a little more difficult than it should be because, as reported by NPR last week, Moyers & Company is “not televised in a nationally standardized PBS time slot — in fact, it’s not even televised by PBS. Instead, it’s distributed by American Public Television and offered to local PBS member stations on an individual basis. And even though PBS doesn’t seem to put a high value on the return of Bill Moyers, the local stations do. Moyers & Company is being shown in 93 percent of all TV markets, including 27 out of the Top 30 — a very impressive number.”  You can find out when it airs in your neighborhood by entering your zip code into the PBS station finder widget. Or download the audio podcast here. (My own workaround: I was surprised at the high quality when I streamed the HD vimeos posted here from my ipad and iphone to the big screen in my den via AirPlay with AppleTV.)


The series begins precisely where his last series, Bill Moyers’ Journal, ended. In his editorial sign-off in 2010, Moyers warns of the dangers of money in politics, wealth inequality, and the rise of plutocracy in America. As Joe Romm noted when he posted this clip back in November, Moyers delivered these remarks long before the Occupy Movement began.


And Moyers is still funny and quick on his feet. Have a look at this exchange with Stephen Colbert last week.


Also in conjunction with the beginning of the new series, Arianna Huffington sat down with Moyers for an interview (the audience consists of Huffington Post editors). It’s a great conversation about politics and spiritualty in which Arianna and Bill bring out the best in each other. See it here.


I also like this interview he conducted with Jon Stewart in 2007 on Bill Moyers’ Journal about “fake news:”


Back to the specifically environmental side of things and Moyers’ ability to probe deeply and widely into pressing issues.  In talking with students and my own college-age children recently, I was aghast at how many of them did not know Bill Moyers’ work. A few of them to whom I showed some of these clips did recognize him from something he produced with Public Affairs Television in 1991 that I still use in environmental philosophy classes for high school and college students.  A gathering he and Laurence Rockefeller organized at Middlebury College (where Rockefeller taught religious studies) was made into an excellent documentary, Spirit and Nature. Among those featured in the discussion: The Dalai Lama; Native American Elder Audrey Shenandoah; Islamic Studies professor Sevyed Hossein Nasr; Protestant theologian Sallie McFague; Rabbi Ishmar Schorsch. And the music provided by the Paul Winter Consort is a nice touch.

Although it is not Joseph Campbell and the Power of Myth, many young people find Spirit and Nature engaging and thought-provoking 20 years later, as do some atheist philosophy professors.  (Watch a clip of the Dalai Lama here.) It’s too early to tell where the new series, Moyers & Company, will go during the next year or two, but it’s off to an excellent start.

Hysterical “Say What?!” Moment for the Ages

Baba Wawa has interviewed an impressive range of larger-than-life odd-balls. Michael Jackson, Fidel Castro, and Muammar Gaddafi couldn’t shake her cool, and they said some pretty strange things. But she loses it with Herman Cain for a few moments, utterly unable to contain her astonishment at his aspirations to become Secretary of Defense. Her “What?!” should be on the masthead of this blog.

Her beautiful recovery and some background are included beneath it in the second clip.



CLICK HERE FOR A WONDERFUL FOLLOW UP QUESTION, and some of the background that led to her initial reaction. (This clip won’t work on mobile devices – permission issues.)


Must Read Re-Post: Another Koch Bros. Anti-Science Success Story

From Think Progress Green, via Political Correction, via the National Journal

Koch Political Group Brags About Bullying GOP Lawmakers Into Denying Climate Science

By Marie Diamond (at ThinkProgress Green) on Dec 7, 2011 at 11:07 am

In its cover story this week, the National Journal explores a curious phenomenon: while the science supporting climate change has only gotten stronger, the onetime Republican consensus on the issue has fallen apart. The reason, quite simply, is the right-wing polluter Koch Industries and its political front group Americans for Prosperity.

As Political Correction notes, just three years ago, Republicans including Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) all expressed a belief in human-caused climate change. Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) even supported legislation to reduce carbon pollution. But all of these prominent leaders have since joined the rest of the Republican party “in a sudden and near-unified retreat to silence or denial.”

What’s changed for Republican politicians is “the influx into electoral politics of vast sums of money from energy companies and sympathetic interest groups”:

Republicans have long had close financial ties to the fossil-fuel industry, of course. Between 1998 and 2010, the oil-and-gas industry gave 75 percent of its $284 million in political contributions to Republicans. […]

Among the most influential of the new breed of so-called super PACs is the tea party group Americans for Prosperity, founded by David and Charles Koch, the principal owners of Koch Industries, a major U.S. oil conglomerate. As Koch Industries has lobbied aggressively against climate-change policy, Americans for Prosperity has spearheaded an all-fronts campaign using advertising, social media, and cross-country events aimed at electing lawmakers who will ensure that the oil industry won’t have to worry about any new regulations.

AFP President Tim Phillips proudly takes credit for the GOP’s turnaround and readily admits that his group threatened politicians with “political peril” if they “played footsie” with green solutions:

Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, says there’s no question that the influence of his group and others like it has been instrumental in the rise of Republican candidates who question or deny climate science…“We’ve made great headway. What it means for candidates on the Republican side is, if you…buy into green energy or you play footsie on this issue, you do so at your political peril. The vast majority of people who are involved in the [Republican] nominating process—the conventions and the primaries—are suspect of the science. And that’s our influence. Groups like Americans for Prosperity have done it.”

Thanks to AFP “science has become political,” Phillips says, and “most of these candidates have figured” that out. AFP used to claim, “We’re not arguing the science of climate change,” but got bolder as it gained more influence, boasting, “if we win the science argument it’s game, set, and match.” With AFP menacing lawmakers in the background, threatening to choke off campaign money and dangling their political careers in front of them, it’s no wonder so many Republicans have willfully ignored the indisputable truth of climate change.

As ThinkProgress has reported, AFP is notorious for its astroturfing, or fake grassroots efforts, that include tactics like planting carbon-copy opinion pieces in local newspapers. They’ve become the unparalleled enforcer of far right-wing ideology, funneling millions of oil and coal industry dollars cash across the nation to spread their message of global warming denial.

(HT: Political Correction)


Herman Cain, the Self-Proclaimed “Koch Brothers’ Brother from Another Mother,” Drops Out of Race: Comedians and Democrats Praying for Newt

The Onion’s Rapid Response team immediately ran this headline: “Rumors Of Extramarital Affair End Campaign Of Presidential Candidate Who Didn’t Know China Has Nuclear Weapons.”

Understated, not even mentioning the Libya interview. Oh, have the standards changed. To think that Gerald Ford’s mistake about Poland not being under Soviet influence was thought at the time to be a record-breaking foreign policy gaffe. How about Perry failing Government 101 by claiming the other night that he would use an executive order to repeal legislation passed by Congress and signed by a President?  Records are being shattered all over the place.

First, Cain’s lovefest with the Koch Brothers. The Brother from Another Planet declares, at his campaign’s pinacle, “I am the Koch Brothers’ brother from another mother.”



“Sing Off” fans, have a listen to Cain’s swan song:



So, he is at peace with himself, his wife, and God, but apparently not the Koch Brothers (in the last 30 seconds: “it’ll be hard to raise the necessary funding.”) And what’s with false and unproven allegations causing it? “False and unproven?” (“I didn’t do that. And you can’t prove it” is pretty funny.)

One of the things I find astonishing is that he had absolutely no field operation or ground organization whatsoever, and was the leading contender for the nomination so late in the game.  Like almost zero staff in the field.  This is new in presidential politics. It has never happened. And you can’t write this one off to the social networking and new media creating a virtual ground organization on the internet.

Sure, the Blue State Boys used new media to get Obama elected, but did so with a combination of grassroots and Chicago-style field operation. Cain being in the final group pretty close to the beginning of the primary season, let alone being the frontrunner for a good while there (until, um, he received a little scrutiny) could not have happened before Citizens United allowed (as in, actually made legal) the money laundering relationships between non-profits, wealthy and privately controlled special interest advocacy groups.

A quick look at the flow of money to candidates, especially in the case of a former frontrunner with no traditional campaign organization behind him, makes it crystal clear that Citizens United is what made Cain the Koch Brother from another mother.

And the new ways that money has been infused into politics in recent years also goes a long way in explaining the most anti-environmental congress in history, and what is beginning to undo the entire structure of  environmental law in the United States, including the very existence of the EPA. 

The only way to fight that much money is the way Obama’s election campaign did in 2008: voter turnout. But the GOP has thought of that. Actually, state governors and representatives had it spoon-fed to them by the Koch-funded AFP and ALEC. Besides gerrymandering districts to just those groups that turned out in force to elect President Obama, and doing so sometimes in ways so crude in its goals and execution, conservative courts have already overturned them, ALEC has additionally led a massive voter suppression movement to disenfranchise the very same groups from even voting. If you think this is paranoid, read the ALEC model legislation (It is attached, with notes from the Center for Media and Democracy), the Brennan Center Report, and the court case rulings that have blocked some of these moves in earlier Say What?” posts. The voter suppression stuff is serious and well-planned.

The Next Big Thing: An Open Letter to Bill McKibben and Joe Romm About Why Every Environmentalist Should Occupy a Voting Booth, with an update here


The 99% Movement and Environmentalists: Economic Justice, The Echo Chamber, and Really Old Problems With Democracy


Your Scorecard: The 110 Anti-Environment Votes in Congress This Year


Inhofe Still Delusional, Still a U.S. Senator

He is at it again. In a post last June, we noted that Sen. Inhofe just does not believe there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists about climate change. And, said Inhofe, (at least that is what I hear him saying in this clip), even if there were overwhelming scientific evidence of a long-term global catastrophe, it would be a distraction from what really matters: short term local economics. Watch it here before looking at today’s re-post of Brad Johnson’s blog, where it takes things even further.


Special Interests? View Oil and Gas $ to Jim Inhofe


Re-Post from today’s ThinkProgress Green (December 1. 2011)

Inhofe: Calling Climate Change ‘The Greatest Hoax Ever’ Is ‘Doing The Lord’s Work’

By Brad Johnson on Dec 1, 2011 at 3:09 pm

In a new interview with Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) reiterated his delusional claim that manmade global warming is “the greatest hoax ever.” Inhofe believes that the last eight years of record warmth and catastrophic weather have vindicated his claim, and that he is “doing the Lord’s work” by demonizing attempts to limit fossil fuel pollution:

You might remember, it was 2003 when I made the statement that the idea that manmade gases, CO2, are causing catastrophic global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. I was hated at that time, but now people realize I was right. That, by the way, is the title of my book that’s going to come out in January.

“We’re both doing the Lord’s work, Noel,” he told his interviewer.

Inhofe’s assessment is not shared by many.

Pope Benedict XVI, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, believes there is a “global responsibility” to find the “moral will” to combat the “threatening catastrophe” of climate change.

American ecumenical organizations including Church World Service and the National Council of Churches of Christ have sent letters to President Obama, urging him to do all he can towards reaching “a fair, ambitious and binding agreement that sets forth a truly moral response to climate change.”

“Global climate change is predominantly caused by our burning of fossil fuels,” Inhofe’s own church, the Presbyterian Church of the USA, has recognized. The church issued a resolution in 2008 that “calls upon all Presbyterians to take this seriously, to pray asking for God’s forgiveness and guidance, to study this issue, to calculate your carbon emissions, to educate others, and to use less energy, striving to make your life carbon neutral.”

[end of re-post, and back to Say What?]


More video of Inhofe in action:

Earlier this year, Sen. Inhofe proudly posted this video to show how his views about “the science not being there” solidly refuted the concerns reflected by a “global warming alarmist attempting to ambush him.”


Also see, if you can take any more of this:

There’s More! Influential Senator Joins House Flat-Out Lie or Scandalous Incompetence


OMFG. WSJ Gets Loopy. Me, Too.

The recent IPCC report on the connection between global warming and extreme weather did not make much of a splash in the news.  OK, it was a pretty boring report, but still, I am told the science (some of which was pretty hard to follow) was sound, if overly conservative.

It probably did have one important consequence: sandwiched in the few weeks  between its release and the start of the Durban climate talks, we were treated to Thanksgiving leftovers from the already debunked (repeatedly) “Climategate” e-mail trove of out-of-context, fairly routine talk among scientists.  Even that did not have the impact it did last time around; but, what with the e-mails mined for nuggets that might look damaging when taken out of context, and the Durban talks now going on,  there is a renewed buzz of activity among those who are firmly, squarely, and confidently irrational. Why am I actually surprised by any of this, or that it appears in stark form in today’s Wall Street Journal?  OK, what they are saying is just plain anti-science, but everyone knows that if anything is said often enough in prominent places, a lot people will believe it.

So, how to respond? In my line of work, we are accustomed to examining arguments for either their false premises or for conclusions that do not follow from the evidence or premises. How old school, I know, trying to reason with people.

I was just in the middle of cataloging the confusions, errors, and bad reasoning in today’s downright loopy WSJ editorial about the, um, get ready for this, dying global warming religion. Read it if you have the stomach. You’ll regret it, I promise.

“The Great Global Warming Fizzle: The climate religion fades in spasms of anger and twitches of boredom”

Then, after about an hour of looking at things like storm activity, floods, droughts, temperatures, and some of the connections between climate and weather, I have just become too fed up to continue. There are great bloggers out there who have more patience than I do today, and I will provide their links to the WSJ’s denialism, not just of long-term climate change, but of the short-term extreme weather being experienced all over the globe.

So, for tonight, I have decided to forget about trying to explain why it appears that the evidence relied upon by the WSJ is so much more than flimsy, it actually seems to be misunderstanding even the difference between weather and climate, let alone their connection, or things as basic as how to measure changes in weather during the past few years. Instead of analyzing the WSJ’s ridiculous argument, it seems to me that a change of tone is needed. Maybe not, but I need it.

Which means that all I can muster at the moment is a reprise of a short video I had re-posted a few months ago. It does explain the difference between weather and climate, and the tone seems right. Plus, it is British, so the accents make it sound smarter.



For a more serious piece by David Jenkins on David Frum’s blog about why conservatives should reject the wave of GOP science denial, click here.


%d bloggers like this: