The fresh and jazzy new BBC Scotland “Nine” news programme has come under a wave of criticism after inviting a renowned...
Energy Transfer Partners, owner of the Dakota Access pipeline, has filed a $300 million Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) lawsuit against Greenpeace and other environmental groups for their activism against the long-contested North Dakota-to-Illinois project.
In its 187-page complaint, Energy Transfer alleges that “putative not-for-profits and rogue eco-terrorist groups who employ patterns of criminal activity and campaigns of misinformation to target legitimate companies and industries with fabricated environmental claims and other purported misconduct” caused the company to lose “billions of dollars.”
In the case, Energy Transfer is represented by lawyers from the firm Kasowitz Benson Torres LLP, one of the namesakes of which is Marc Kasowitz. Kasowitz is a member of the legal team representing President Donald Trump in the ongoing congressional and special counsel investigation of his 2016 presidential campaign's alleged ties and potential collusion with Russian state actors. The press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit details that Kasowitz attorney Michael J. Bowe is leading what the firm describes as an ongoing probe into the environmental groups' “campaign and practices.”
A new report from Media Matters for America details the astounding lack of coverage of climate change from major U.S. television news outlets in 2016. According to the report, there was an overall decrease in coverage, dropping about 66 percent from the previous year.
News outlets that included ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News Sunday spent a combined total of 50 minutes discussing the issue of climate change on nightly and Sunday morning news programs in 2016.
Proponents of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) have seized upon a paragraph found within the recent national intelligence report examining Russia's attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. elections to push a long-promoted but unfounded claim: that Russia and President Vladimir Putin fund the U.S. anti-fracking movement.
Crossposted from PolluterWatch blog on Jay Lehr.
If you're John Stossel and you want to host a segment to rail against the US Environmental Protection Agency, who ought you call?
It turns out, a man who was convicted and sentenced to six months in prison for defrauding the EPA!
Stossel's guest last night, Jay Lehr, was sentenced to six months–serving three–in a minimum security federal prison back in 1991, and his organization at the time was fined $200,000. So Jay Lehr knows about EPA corruption better than anyone: he was the guy caught “falsifying employee time sheets on a government contract” for EPA, according to the Columbus Dispatch.
Corporate-controlled media outlets have figured out that debate, or more appropriately heated debate and confrontation, can generate larger audiences than a bunch of people sitting around a table agreeing with one another. And this can work for some topics, such as the best way to tackle immigration reform or how to reduce the federal budget deficit.
But when faced with an issue that clearly only has one side, the corporate media continues to parade anti-reality talking heads into their studios, hoping that they can help boost ratings. That is what has happened with the issue of climate change.
The American media have not been the only guilty parties. Media outlets in other parts of the world have been just as willing to put climate change deniers on television to spread misinformation about an issue that will effect the lives of all of earth’s inhabitants.
But unlike the American media, outlets in the rest of the world have realized that the issue of climate change is far too important to allow deniers on their networks to attack the scientific consensus with no actual evidence.
This month, the BBC instructed its reporters to stop giving credence to climate change deniers on the air. The network said that they do want to remain neutral on scientific issues, but that there is a very real distinction between neutrality and false balance. Think Progress explains the difference between the two:
Look out, folks. Bill O'Reilly is about to talk about global warming again on the O'Reilly Factor.
Of course, he's already reached his conclusion that “Nobody can control the climate but God.” It's just that he doesn't have any data to back up his anti-science position.
So he has one of his producers on the hunt today, apparently scrambling last minute, looking for “the very best arguments” to support climate change denial. Here's the email DeSmogBlog received this morning:
I feel for O'Reilly's producers, honestly. It must be tough to face this “very tight deadline” problem when asked to provide factual support for a baseless, ideologically-motivated assumption.
Good luck, Robert and friends. It's a difficult job making stuff up so your boss can maintain his politically driven network's ignorance about climate science.
Who knows, maybe he'll surprise us this time. Stay tuned.
“FrackNation,” the documentary film about hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) with close conservative movement ties, recently had its showing cancelled at Winona, Minnesota's annual Frozen River Film Festival (FRFF).
Citing DeSmogBlog's two-part investigative series published in May 2013 on “FrackNation,” FRFF Director Mike Kennedy told the Winona Post his rationale for cancelling the film is that it was, “pretty apparent they were paid to make these movies to counter Gasland [Part II].”
“DeSmogBlog.com appears to be the main source of allegations that 'FrackNation' was industry-funded,” wrote the Post. “DeSmogBlog claims connections between [film Co-Director Phelim] McAleer and conservative groups, industry groups help[ing] promote the film after its was made, and the fact that McAleer directed an industry-funded documentary in the past, as proof that 'FrackNation' is cut from the same cloth.”
The cancellation has caused a major kerfuffle in conservative media circles, covered by outlets ranging from Fox News, Fox Business, The Blaze TV, Town Hall, Watchdog.org, Hot Air and others. McAleer was a featured guest on “Fox and Friends” on January 23.
We've now entered the fourth day of the government shutdown, and the economic impacts are already being felt by states all over America. As it turns out, the environmental services provided by the government – everything from running our national park system to renewable energy development – is quite an important part of our economy.
The most obvious and immediate effect is the loss of roughly $76 million every day from the closure of national parks and zoos. This loss of revenue will have a ripple effect throughout local economies, impacting small businesses, restaurants, lodges, and so on.
According to the Center for American Progress, the hit to the National Parks Service is adding “insult to injury,” as they were hit particularly hard by previous funding cuts, as well as the sequester cuts earlier this year:
Since 2010, the budget to operate national parks has been slashed by 13 percent in today’s dollars, or $315 million. Chronic underfunding of national parks and public lands has contributed to an estimated $12 billion backlog of deferred maintenance at national parks.
As a result of mandatory funding cuts under the sequester, the national parks were unable to hire 1,900 workers for the busy 2013 summer season. Several national parks, including the Grand Canyon, Glacier National Park, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park, had to implement seasonal closures, reduce visitor-center hours, and cancel interpretive programs. Twenty-nine national wildlife refuges had to close for hunting in 2013 as a result of the sequester.
But even though tourists won’t be able to enjoy our federal lands, the dirty energy industry is still allowed full access. As the funding for energy exploration is provided by the companies themselves, they are exempt from the federal rules put in place that demand all “non-essential” services be immediately put on hold.
This doesn’t mean that drillers are enjoying this shutdown. The Interior Department was forced to stop the permitting process for energy exploration, leaving the dirty energy industry unable to open up any new areas for exploitation.
Media Matters put out a video this past week with clips of all the recent FOX News mentions of a global warming name conspiracy. The Fox 'conspiracy' is that 'liberals' stopped calling it global warming and started calling it climate change. Little did they realize, apparently, that the man responsible for the partisan polarization over the terminology of climate change vs. global warming is none other than FOX News contributor Frank Luntz. Watch:
As Media Matters points out:
Scientists use “global warming” when speaking about the increase in average global surface temperatures. They use “climate change” to refer to all the other disruptions that greenhouse gas emissions are causing – from rising sea levels, to abruptly changing precipitation patterns that increase the likelihood of droughtsand wildfires in certain areas and extreme flooding in others, to acidifying oceans that disturb the marine food web.
If you're still confused, head over to Joe Romm's post, Debunking The Dumbest Denier Myth (Again): ‘Climate Change’ Vs. ‘Global Warming’