George Clooney is reluctant to endorse environmental causes because he flies private jets — a concern 5-jet-owning John Travolta doesn’t have. Clooney told Time:

You don’t want to be a spokesperson unless you are absolutely committed to a cause because you can hurt it. I’ve been asked to help represent environmental groups. I’m a big proponent of cleaning up the environment. I have two electric cars. But I also have a big weak spot because I’ve flown on private jets. However, I welcome any of these dumb pundits who make celebrities out to be bad guys to a discussion about Darfur. Because I’ve been there and I’ve met all the players, and I guarantee you, the pundits haven’t.

If only all celebrities were as serious as Clooney. Take Travolta (please!):

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to “do their bit” to tackle global warming.

Travolta may well hold the celebrity record for private jet travel: “Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions” — probably 100 times what you produce. He also has some very dubious ideas on what to do about global warming that make him sound more like Vinnie Barbarino:

Read more

Proving conclusively that we have a long, long way to go before the mainstream media stops promoting climate misinformation disinformation, the Washington Post gave global-warming delayer Bj¸rn Lomborg a front-page opinion piece in its Outlook section.

Lomborg repeats his nonsense about polar bears and sea level rise and why global warming (at least on Planet Lomborg) is no big deal, which I have previously debunked here and here and here respectively. He also claims Greenland’s “Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing,” which is the opposite of what experts say here or here (if anyone has a source for Lomborg’s claim, I’d love to see it — not that Lomborg is a stickler for facts).

The reason for this post is not to debunk Lomborg again, but to answer the question posed in the headline. S&N don’t like being linked to Lomborg (see here) — who can blame them? — but I think the link is legitimate. Read Lomborg’s article. The similarities are scary. Like S&N, Lomborg acknowledges the reality of human-caused climate change. But like S&N, Lomborg attacks the climate strategy endorsed by most environmental groups:

Read more