brought to you by www.energyboom.com
 
“An imperative read for a successful future.”
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO  
 
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science

Desmog Video

You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.


 



Inhofe's Bizarre Cameo at Copenhagen

The leading elected “climate skeptic” in the United States got a taste of just how marginalized his world-view is when he breezed through Copenhagen last week.

The infamous Senator James Inhofe flew nine hours to Denmark and left hours later when he could only muster a handful of reporters to hear his conspiratorial views on climate change.

According to Politico, Inhofe’s whirlwind visit was meant to deliver two messages: that climate change is a hoax, and that the US will never pass cap and trade legislation.

Decked out in black snakeskin cowboy boots, Inhofe’s loopy views did not seem to win over the few reporters on hand to hear them in the conference centre stairwell.

A reporter asked: “If there’s a hoax, then who’s putting on this hoax, and what’s the motive?”

“It started in the United Nations,” Inhofe said, “and the ones in the United States who really grab ahold of this is the Hollywood elite.”

One reporter asked Inhofe if he was referring to California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Another reporter — this one from Der Spiegel — told the senator: “You’re ridiculous.”

His important work done, Inhofe burned another tank of jet fuel flying back to Washington.

On a completely unrelated note, the Oklahoma politician has received $662,506 in contributions from oil companies between 2000 and 2008, making him the leading recipient of oil funding in the US Senate where he is the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

However, one should not assume Senator Inhofe is soley concerned with interests of the oil industry. He also received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th Congress.

What's next?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
#711766
RickJames. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 17:59; Moral Dilemmas

From Inhofe's perspective, burning jet fuel is no moral dilemma at all. I'm surprised you would call him on it.

I mean - you're almost asking for everybody to pile on about the green sides extravagance with the dino juice.

as always - I'm staying above the fray.

- also I should commend the reporters quoted above for their professionalism and even handed news gathering. It's quite refreshing to see honest, non partisans in the news biz. ... Did they throw snowballs at him too?

#711793
Mark Francis. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 19:11; Journalists should treat

Journalists should treat cranks as... cranks.

#711848
RickJames. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 09:32; Glenn

when you take sides, you cross over from journalism to opinion and you become Glenn Beck - which is fine, but you have to stop calling yourself a journalist.

#711773
CamMacKay. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 18:02; Inhofe

Inhofe was the most powerful man at copenhangen, who steered the course of events in 3 hours more than weeks of negotiating between politicians. Inhofe also represented the views of billions of people excluded from Copenhagen, If he was younger he would make an excelent presidential candidate.

#711774
paul s. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 18:19; And with the oil and coal

And with the oil and coal money given to Inhofe, it's apparent that Inhofe's message "confused" the delegates to the point of paralysis that they were no longer sure about AGW.

Billions of dollars spent on a lavishly financed conference is no match for the highly-sophisticated anti-AGW rhetoric of a crotchety, old Senator. If only he and Monckton had stayed away from putting their mind-spells on the AGW folk, humanity would have been saved.

#711781
Antocalypse. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 18:40; I like your sarcasm

It's more likely that Inhofe and Monckton were there to be seen, and to create more idiotic sound bites that could be regurgitated again later for their industry masters.
Did these two clowns defeat science at Copenhagen? Certainly not. But greed and short-sightedness sure did.

#711802
paul s. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 21:25; What defeated Copenhagen

What defeated Copenhagen then? You had the greatest collection of warmies in history in one spot. Why didn't Obama deliver? Why didn't Brown?

#711809
Ed_B. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 05:31; It was China that defeated Copenhagen

China needed to kill Copenhagen to protect the 2 trillion in teasuries they held.

The Chinese have consistently read Climateaudit and after Briffas Yamal series got exposed, then Climategate, the Chinese concluded the science as all made up. They then went into a panic at the thought that Obama would trash the US economy with Cap and Trade, thus devaluing the US $.

#711814
FEMACK. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 05:51; In your dreams!

China pay attention to Climateaudit -- now thats delusional.

#711820
Antocalypse. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 07:15; Do you even read the posts?

I repeat, greed and short-sightedness defeated Copenhagen. Read, man, read!

To pin its success or failure on one or two principals, or who had the loudest cheering section, would be to simplify the meetings. It would be like saying the earth is in a cooling trend because the last couple of years were cooler than the hottest on record.

#711826
RickJames. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 07:28; Purpose of Copenhagen

Perhaps you didn't notice but the purpose of Copenhagen was to afford everyone the opportunity to blame someone else for climate inaction. It worked out very nicely.

#711854
paul s. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 12:25; Read Marxist agit-prop? No thanks

I see, no one is to blame. You should read Monbiot's latest column, he is very CLEAR on who is to blame: BHO.

#711791
Mark Francis. +1; Mon, 2009-12-21 19:10; LOL! Kool-aid! I rarely say

LOL! Kool-aid!

I rarely say such things, but really!

So, Cam, it's all a conspiracy, eh? LOL.

#711817
RickJames. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 06:58; Politics and Money

Interesting figures on Inhofe's oil and coal sourced contributions.

Of course he's just one senator and all his peers are likewise juiced up with cash from somewhere. Why don't they even the playing field and kill all the contributions public and private? Furthermore they could restrict campaign money to bare minimums so no one can buy their way into politics. Forget TV ads and all that junk. Let every candidate get a blog.

no - theres no way they would begin to consider that. Politics and Money are the system.

#711844
Lionel A. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 08:43; He also received $152,800 in coal contributions during the 110th

Aye. The very people responsible for this:

One year anniversary of the day clean coal died

http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/22/anniversary-day-clean-coal-myth-died-tennessee-ash-spill/

which links back to desmogblog

23 December 08
Massive Coal Ash Spill in Tennessee puts the lie to Clean Coal

http://www.desmogblog.com/massive-coal-ash-spill-tennessee-puts-lie-clean-coal

How can you justify any other action?
I figure Inhofe should cough up and help those affected. As should Bush and Cheney.

#711852
paul s. +1; Tue, 2009-12-22 12:19; Is this 2008?

Seriously, the Bush and Cheney thing is getting a little tired. Who writes your stuff for you? Can't you get some fresh material?

#711908
Lionel A. +1; Wed, 2009-12-23 03:54; the Bush and Cheney thing is getting a little tired

Crimes against humanity are not washed away with time.

Unlike the poor souls caught in a wave of coal slurry.

#711956
paul s. +1; Wed, 2009-12-23 11:08; So how are Bush and Cheney

So how are Bush and Cheney responsible for the coal slurry? You never say.

Oh, that's right, EVERY SINGLE THING, no matter how tenuous the link, that occurred when they were in power is their fault. Are you a 9-11 Truther too?

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER

Like what you read here? Get our top five stories in your inbox every week. » here's a preview
Enter your email and subscribe now!

About the climate cover-up

About the climate cover-up

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts.

Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.



Desmog Tip Jar

Desmog Tip Jar

Help us clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science. Thanks to our dedicated readers, the DeSmog project counters the seeds of climate confusion.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. The Desmog project is our answer to industry PR spin.

Thank you for all you do. Please donate what you can. Whether its $10 or $100 every bit helps.

Powered by PayPal

Flickr Photos

Flickr Photos
Hoggan, Robertson, HarcourtJames Hoggan - ColourJames Hoggan - Black and WhiteRichard Littlemore

Member of the Progressive Bloggers Network

MEMBER OF THE PROGRESSIVE BLOGGERS NETWORK

Progressive Bloggers