around the web

Instead of the bland, Frank Luntz-ian term "Climate change," try:

Climate disruption
Oil company-caused climate disruption [source]

Instead of "Climate change denier," try:

Atmospheric carbon pusher
Air poisoner
Corporate air poisoner
Icecap melter
Institutional icecap-melter
Venusians (after our planetary neighbor baked to cinders by greenhouse gases)
Vulcans (death cult worshipping volcano-like impacts on the air)

On the topic of counter-propaganda responding to the carbon pushers, see also:

Coen Brothers' "Clean Coal" advertisement [hooktube]

Duly noted: the futility of using fossil-derived power to link to an anti-hydrocarbon video, causing more fuel-burning.

The bland phrase "climate change" makes rising sea levels seem like a minor shift caused by Mother Nature rather than a planetwide catastrophe caused by us. Environmental activists use the term regularly despite its having originated with Republican strategist Frank Luntz (of "death tax" fame). A Naked Capitalism commenter opined that "global warming" isn't helpful to convince the uninitiated if it's snowing outside. Richard Stallman suggests “Global heating” as a more accurate substitute. “Climate disruption”? "Oil company-caused climate disruption?"

One oil company, having recently been outed as knowing about this all along, is fighting back, claiming that climate science is opinion and that the US First Amendment protects their right -- as a corporate person -- to have the opinion that they weren't responsible. This is actually in court right now.

In a nutshell, attorneys general Healey (Massachusetts) and Schneiderman (NY) have been investigating Exxon and Exxon has sued to stop them.

[Exxon's lawyer] Anderson told the judge that the two attorneys general were attempting to prevent Exxon from exercising its First Amendment right to free speech and said that Healey and Schneiderman were attempting to silence those who disagree with their opinions, specifically the causes, impacts, remedies and severity of climate change.

[Judge Valerie] Caproni wasn’t convinced, telling Anderson that Healey and Schneiderman don’t care about Exxon’s opinion, they care about Exxon’s disclosure.

“You don’t have the right to lie in your SEC filings,” said Caproni, who added that while Exxon can’t be penalized for its opinion, it can be penalized for lying.

Judge Caproni has a sharp wit, as shown in this exchange (quoted by Climate Liability News):

Exxon attorney Justin Anderson told Caproni that evidence suggests the investigations were motivated by activists, including those associated with the Rockefeller Family Fund.

Caproni scoffed at the suggestion, suggesting that Exxon should then sue the Rockefellers.

“Ironic,” said Caproni, who pointed out that it was Rockefellers who originally founded Standard Oil, a predecessor of Exxon.

“Disturbing,” said Anderson.

“Fascinating,” said Caproni.

“Could be both,” said Anderson, adding that he wondered what happened to make them jump on the climate change bandwagon.

“They care whether subsequent Rockefellers can breathe,” said Caproni.

A minor point, but look at the way Daily Kos' 404 page is phrased:

This is boilerplate used by many sites but Kos doesn't have to use it. Suggesting first that the visitor might have mistyped a URL blames the victim -- nice. The page "may have moved," or it may be a Kos-hosted blogger took down content, as appears to be the case here.

Benjamin Studebaker, The Republicans are Trying to Use the Tax System to Attack Their Political Enemies:

We’re seeing lots of good pieces which point out that many of the claims the Republicans are making about their tax plan are not true, that the plan favors the rich at the expense of the middle. But today I want to make another point about the plan, one that doesn’t seem to be getting the attention it merits. You see, it’s not just that the Republican plan helps the rich and hurts the middle. Those distributive consequences are real, and they matter, but this goes deeper than that. The Republican plan specifically targets liberal and left-leaning groups in the country for tax increases. It is an assault on the political neutrality of the tax system.

The tax system is anything but politically neutral (get married, own a home) but Studebaker points out two targets of the current plan: grad students (taxing doctorate candidate stipends) and blue states:

The Republican plan also intends to prevent Americans from deducting their state and local income and sales taxes from their federal taxes. This means that if you live in a blue state with higher taxes and more generous public services, the federal government will double tax you. The goal of this is obvious–to drive business and investment out of high-tax blue states. In the short-run, this enriches low-tax, cheap-service red states. In the long-run, this forces blue states to lower their income and sales taxes to remain competitive, turning them into red states. Lower taxes at the state level means gutting public services and dishonoring pensions. Gutting public services takes money from the public schools and from the state universities. It helps privatization campaigns convince ordinary people that government programs aren’t worth maintaining, which leads state governments to divert even more resources away from the public system to voucher-based private alternatives. Those funding diversions further run down the public services, leading to a spiral of state abandonment.

Lest we lay all this on "Republicans," let's note that the Clintonites also favor "austerity," just perhaps not this blatantly.