Carly Fiorina wrote a painfully anti-science, pro-pollution Washington Post op-ed this weekend.
She is supporting what I am supporting. In fact Carly made a statement yesterday that was the strongest statement I’ve heard yet in terms of the whole global warming hoax. So I was very proud of her.
Here is all the Post thinks you need to know about Fiorina:
For the Post, Fiorina’s relevant bio ended a decade ago and nothing she did since related to politics or climate change should be of any interest or concern to readers. Yet even the HP credential is ironic given that HP’s stated views are the exact opposite of hers: “HP supports U.S. federal and state efforts to mandate overall GHG emissions targets.”
Last month, Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of Google, explained that ALEC is “just literally lying” about global warming and “making the world a much worse place.” That’s a key reason “Tech Companies Are Dropping ALEC En Masse,” joining many electric utilities and even oil companies — beyond the many mainstream companies that abandoned ALEC two years ago for their advocacy of “Stand Your Ground” laws.
The Fiorina op-ed shows it is two steps forward and one step back for the Post. Earlier this month, the Post took a major step toward improving its woefully inadequate climate coverage. It hired long-time science blogger Chris Mooney, who has since written a series of great pieces.
Back in August, the Post launched a series of editorials demanding a change in both dialogue and action on climate. As the paper’s editorial board explained, the debate has devolved from serious talk by both parties before Obama’s election into inaction because “a faction that rejects the science of global warming dragged the GOP into irresponsible head-in-the-sand-ism.”
But who represents that faction more than Inhofe and those like Fiorina who embrace him and endorse his radical anti-science views?!
Sadly, the Post’s embrace of science was always tempered by its embrace of “false balance.” Editorial page editor Fred Hiatt suggested at the time the paper will now be “more inclined to take op-eds that challenge” their view that climate science is real and that the threat posed by it is “existential.” Looks like he was serious.
And so we have them publishing nonsense from Fiorina like this:
This month, a climate-related pressure campaign by Greenpeace forced the Danish toy-maker Lego to end its relationship with Shell. Too often companies succumb to the interests of a small minority of well-organized, professional activists intent on chilling speech and marginalizing the voice of business and job creators in U.S. society.
So how exactly was Lego “forced” by Greenpeace to sever its ties with the oil giant? Well, let’s go to the link Fiorina provided — the Fox News (!) version of an AP story:
Danish toy maker Lego says it won’t renew a deal allowing Shell to hand out Lego sets at gas stations in some 30 countries, following a viral campaign protesting Arctic drilling.
In July, Greenpeace launched a video showing an Arctic landscape with a Shell drilling platform made of Lego bricks covered in oil.
Apparently the best example of “professional activists intent on chilling speech and marginalizing the voice of business and job creators” that Fiorina could find anywhere on the interwebs was mean old Greenpeace releasing a … [insert chilling music here] … video that … [show image of marginalized job creator here] … then went viral.
The entire op-ed is beyond lame. Over and over again Fiorina pretends to be open-minded on climate science so she can then deny the need for any serious action:
Climate change is a big issue; informed discussion is desperately needed and solutions are not immediately obvious.
Huh? The solutions are immediately obvious, as every major independent study on the subject has explained: We slash carbon pollution ASAP, which is a very low cost solution. We have lots of choices, including wind power, solar PV, solar thermal, geothermal, other renewables, nuclear, conservation, and energy efficiency. We just don’t have a lot of time.
How can pro-ALEC Fiorina possibly claim with a straight face she favors “informed discussion.” As Google’s Schmidt notes, ALEC is “just literally lying” about global warming. Heck, the head of ALEC said earlier this month: “I don’t know the science” of climate change.”
To have an informed discussion one must first have actual information, not disinformation:
When discussing climate, scientists may agree that some policy change is warranted, but they also agree that action by a single state or nation will make little difference.
Yes, scientists “may” agree that “some” policy “change” is warranted. In fact, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, for instance, pleaded for immediate action in a major report this year because “We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts.”
Fiorina offers no links or evidence to support the claim that scientists “agree that action by a single state or nation will make little difference,” since that is the standard argument made by the anti-science crowd. In fact, scientists and other climate experts generally argue that if the richest country in the world — which is responsible for the most cumulative carbon pollution to date — fails to act, it’s hard to see how the other nations of the world will join together in the collective action needed to avoid catastrophe.
To support her opposition to the proposed EPA carbon-pollution standards for power plants, Fiorina actually cites a CATO study, and then writes:
But this information seems to be lost on the activists, who are all too willing to brand companies and groups as “climate change deniers.”
This is the same CATO that just last month published a “mind-bending piece” (in the words of a Post writer), which argued that “The rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere … is cause for celebration” — not just today but “far into the future.”
Fiorina is a climate inactivist and confusionist. Consider this line:
No form of energy is perfect. The debate is so much more complicated than the simplistic notion of switching from traditional energy sources to renewable ones.
This is Fiorina’s hand-waving prelude to why we must love coal.
Saying “No form of energy is perfect” is just another way of saying climate change isn’t a big deal. It’d be like a quack treating an obese patient with diabetes saying, “No form of food is perfect — so along with the occasional fruit and vegetable, go ahead and have The Cheesecake Factory’s Bruléed French Toast with its 2,780 calories, 24 teaspoons of sugar, and 93 grams of saturated fat.”
The bottom line is that ALEC is a place companies can use to fund legislation that harms the public — you, me, all of us — without directly getting their hands dirty. Or at least they could before activists and the media exposed them. Now that the truth is out about their pro-pollution efforts, serious companies are abandoning them.
Fiorina doesn’t want climate action. She uses her HP credential to press her case even though HP endorses climate action.
If the Washington Post is serious about improving the dialogue on climate change, it should be embarrassed to have published her piece.