A few hours ago, a news item about our old pals at the Heartland Institute was flying around the internet at light speed.

It seems that in preparation for their annual climate denial conference, which this year ends the day before NWF and concerned citizens will be gathering in Chicago for public hearings on proposed limits on carbon pollution from coal fired power plants, the partly Koch and ExxonMobil-funded right-wing think tank decided to suggest that ‘believing’ in climate change puts you in league with serial killers and terrorists. You know, MAYBE. Just throwing it out there.

Via The Guardian (and now many, many others):

The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based rightwing thinktank notorious for promoting climate scepticism, has launched quite possibly one of the most ill-judged poster campaigns in the history of ill-judged poster campaigns.

I’ll let its own press release for its upcoming conference explain, as there’s simply no need to finesse it further:

Billboards in Chicago paid for by The Heartland Institute point out that some of the world’s most notorious criminals say they “still believe in global warming” – and ask viewers if they do, too…The billboard series features Ted Kaczynski, the infamous Unabomber; Charles Manson, a mass murderer; and Fidel Castro, a tyrant. Other global warming alarmists who may appear on future billboards include Osama bin Laden and James J. Lee (who took hostages inside the headquarters of the Discovery Channel in 2010).

Aside from being an example of the most ridiculous sort of ad hominem attack imaginable, this campaign is rife with logical and organizational inconsistencies. Kate Sheppard from Mother Jones points out that it hasn’t even been three months since Heartland issued a release carping about the need for “common decency” in discussing climate change. Classy move.

Heartland’s statement accompanying the project launch stated that “people who still believe in man-made global warming are mostly on the radical fringe of society.” And yet, “the United Nations, the so-called mainstream media, and leading political figures” are also talking about climate change. So, which is it? Fringe phenomenon, or incredibly widespread (and presumably conspiratorial) trend? As proof of its own bona fides, Heartland claims that “many of the world’s leading scientists, economists, and political leaders” have appeared at its climate denial conferences. WHOA—‘leading scientists?’ Aren’t those guys just fringe radicals? (actually, yes, the ones who attend Heartland conferences probably are.)

(Also of note: it’s highly questionable whether some of the featured madmen even had any special affinity for climate change as a cause. As E&E News reports (sub. req.), the words “climate change” don’t appear in the Unabomber’s manifesto, nor are there references to “global warming” or “carbon.”)

Less than an hour before people on the East Coast left work for the weekend, Heartland Institute President and CEO Joe Bast issued the following statement in response to a massive outcry:

We will stop running [the billboard] at 4:00 p.m. CST today. (It’s a digital billboard, so a simple phone call is all it takes.)

The Heartland Institute knew this was a risk when deciding to test it, but decided it was a necessary price to make an emotional appeal to people who otherwise aren’t following the climate change debate.

So, make a note: from now on, lying and acting like a disgruntled online commenter who invokes Hitler to end an argument = ‘an emotional appeal.’

General Motors pulled its funding of Heartland in March over the last round of climate denial messaging. One wonders how Heartland’s other funders will feel about this ‘test.’

Kay's Polar Bear Drawing

Her written words were passionate, and the drawing she enclosed obviously heart-felt. Carefully sketched were two sad polar bears sitting on very small ice floes; both bears were crying. In the corner she drew a diagram of the sun shining on the earth to depict global warming, with a label pointing to the Arctic where polar bears live.

Kay’s letter touched my heart. And just like she was feeling, it made me both sad and angry.

Sad, because the reality is, beyond even a shadow of scientific doubt, global warming driven by the excessive burning of fossil fuels will forever change the planet and the life it supports, unless we take real and significant action immediately. Angry because politicians continue to play reckless and dangerous political games with Kay’s future and, in fact, the future well-being of every child.

Reckless Indifference or Responsible Action?

Providing our children a future with polar bears, a healthy environment and a safe place to live should not be a mere political game. It’s a deep responsibility, incumbent upon all of us to take meaningful and effective action, regardless of political persuasion.

Tragically, organizations like the Heartland Institute continue to feed the fires of climate change controversy despite the overwhelming scientific evidence, with reckless indifference to the future well-being of Kay and millions of children just like her. Congress continues to duck the global warming issue, failing to take any significant action to curb global warming pollution. Even worse, lawmakers continue to try and stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions, even though the Supreme Court has ruled that under the Clean Air Act the EPA clearly has the authority to do so.

Unable to see beyond the next election, politicians are gambling away Kay’s future, all the while fixing the odds in their own favor for short-term political winnings.

I wrote back to Kay, encouraging her to keep learning about global warming and to tell her friends about the trouble polar bears are in and why. I told her that some of them, like her, would also want to take action to help solve the problem. I believe we actually can save polar bears and lots of other wildlife that are affected by global warming. Kay’s “big voice” combined with others is necessary to win a brighter future for children like her.

Not a week later, Kay wrote back to me. She is working on a day where her schoolmates will ride their bikes and walk to school in lieu of motorized transportation…she calls it the “Polar bear shuffle.” Kay is taking action. Meanwhile, our elected officials continue to stall, duck and even deny the issue.

If an eight-year-old girl can step forward to invest in her own future, is it too much to ask our politicians to truly invest in every child’s future by taking action to curb global warming now?

Let’s not gamble Kay’s future away, and instead protect wildlife for her and future generations.

Here’s how you can help Kay:

• Send a message to the EPA in support of limiting carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants >>
• Find out how you can conserve energy and reduce your carbon footprint >>
• Learn about NWF’s Eco-Schools USA program, which helps schools green their facilities and curriculum >>

Click here to view the embedded video.

“Human activity isn’t changing the climate…CO2 is harmless!…People can’t change the weather…A scientist will say anything if you pay them.”

Then, the coup de grace: “Of course it’s true. I learned it in school.”

Climate Reality is referring to the coal, oil and auto industry-funded Heartland Institute’s plan to “change the science taught in our public schools” by way of an under-development curriculum that purports to teach that climate change is scientifically “controversial.” Climate Reality asks: “Is the truth really for sale?” NWF and other organizations have posed similar questions in the last few weeks, only to be bombarded with cease-and-desist letters and vague threats.

To the untrained eye, Heartland is spitting in the wind. After all, American education is getting greener all the time. Witness the State Board of the Maryland Department of Education’s landmark new policy requiring high school students in the state to attain a basic level of environmental literacy before graduation, or the inclusion of environmental education provisions in an amendment to the reauthorized Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), marking the first time environmental education has been formally included in federal K-12 education policy. More significant still are the purely elective efforts, evidenced by an increase in environmental science Advanced Placement exams and ‘greening’ recognition across geographical and political lines (34 states have now opted in to the U.S. Green Ribbon Schools Award, and half of them have Republican governors and are generally viewed as ‘red’).

But Heartland didn’t get where it is by scrapping for half measures or lost causes. The “climate controversy” plan is actually incredibly canny—and highly cynical. Heartland senses that the decision-makers of generations to come are getting informed and chooses to exploit that awakening: sowing doubt under the pretense that more information, no matter the source, necessarily means a fuller understanding.

Basically, just as schools, teachers and students alike are starting to seek a clearer picture of how the world works and how they affect it, contrarian shysters are scrambling to smear the whole thing with Vaseline.

NWF cares about this issue. We support federal environmental education programs, many of which are in jeopardy. We are the U.S. host for the prestigious Eco-Schools program, which certifies schools that green their physical structures and curricula. We can use your help in making sure that America’s environmental education renaissance doesn’t drown in misinformation posing as legitimate “curriculum.”

If you’d like to help America’s kids learn accurate, balanced environmental science, ask Congress to pass the No Child Left Inside Act, a bill to help states develop stronger K-12 environmental literacy programs.

For more information on environmental education, check out Eco-Schools USA’s Climate Change pathway on incorporating global warming education into the curriculum in a practical and instructive way. You can also see the Guidelines for Excellence developed by the North American Association for Environmental Education or the reworked  Framework for K-12 Science Education, from the National Academies’ Board on Science Education.

Eagle Cam is Back! Watch Iowa Bald Eagle Eggs Hatching Live

Decorah Bald Eagles (UStream screen shot)

February 18 – Did you join us last year as we watched two Iowa bald eagles care for newly hatched eagle chicks? Thanks to the Raptor Resource Center, the eagle cam we all came to love is back!  Join the National Wildlife Federation family again this year as we watch the eagles hatch and grow!

Who operates and maintains this eagle cam?

The Raptor Resource Project maintains the cams, of which there are two. The feed is streamed online 24/7. Both are positioned on one of the nest’s supporting limbs about 4-5 feet above the nest. The main cam is automated and is trained on the nest. The other cam has pan-tilt-zoom capabilities. At dark the main cam switches to infrared (invisible to the eagles) night-time view.

NWF Pledges to Fight Heartland Institute Intimidation Campaign

February 21 – The National Wildlife Federation today received a cease and desist letter from the Heartland Institute demanding that all references to Heartland’s so-called “Denialgate” leaked internal documents be scrubbed from the National Wildlife Federation website. However, the letter makes no specific legal accusations and the Heartland Institute continues to refuse to say whether the documents are legitimate, whether its reported plan to infiltrate America’s schools is true, or who is funding it.

The National Wildlife Federation’s Wildlife Promise blog discussed the documents posted to other sites in two posts, Koch-Funded Plan in Development to Teach K-12 Kids Global Warming isn’t Real and From the Heartland: An Inside Look at the Extreme Right’s War on K-12 Climate and Environmental Education. The Associated Press reported that David Wojick, the contractor cited in the documents as the author of a proposed climate disinformation campaign targeted at K-12 students, confirmed “the document was accurate about his project to put curriculum materials in schools that promote climate skepticism.”

EPA Permit Too Weak to Protect Great Lakes, U.S. Waters from Ballast Water Invaders

Zebra mussels

The organizations call on EPA to strengthen a proposed permit to regulate ballast water discharges from commercial vessels. The comment period on the permit ends today.

National Hunting, Angling Groups Applaud Move to Finalize Clean Water Act Guidance

February 23 – This week, the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers submitted revised Clean Water Act guidance to the Office of Management and Budget. Sportsmen applaud this critical step in restoring important protections for America’s waters.

“These rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands are essential for hunting and angling, providing fish and wildlife habitat and an economic boost to local economies,” said Steve Moyer, vice president of government relations for Trout Unlimited. “Every year, millions of anglers spend $45 billion to fish in rivers, lakes and streams across the country. Together, hunting, angling, and wildlife watching contribute an estimated $122 billion to the economy annually.”

And here are highlights from NWF in the News:

• HTRnews.com: Groups say EPA ballast proposal too lenient
• Sheboygan Press: Environmentalists threaten suit over ballast rule
• Bridge MI: A plan to curb carp, before it’s too late
• Nola.com: Gulf of Mexico oil spill partial settlement would give Louisiana $13.5 million

For more, visit www.nwf.org/News

Inside, there was a cease-and-desist letter from the Heartland Institute focusing on a recent post I did for Wildlife Promise.

The letter “respectfully demand(ed)” that I remove links and references to documents obtained by ThinkProgress and DeSmogBlog that circulated widely last week and appeared to lay bare the inner workings of a think tank that has long sought to undermine climate science (just how does one respond to a ‘respectful demand,’ anyway? Magnanimous acquiescence?).

Among the documents I referenced: a memo indicating that Heartland was paying to develop a curriculum for K-12 schools intended to paint global warming as “a major scientific controversy” rather than the systematically-reached conclusion of decades of peer review and careful research.  This and other details were reported on by the New York Times, the Washington Post, many other major outlets and countless blogs, but NWF has reached out to several print journalists who say they have not received letters. What made us so special? (Wait; was this a Valentine of sorts?)

In any case, we didn’t want mainstream press to feel left out, so we sent it to them, too, and we posted it on our Media Center.

Since the original leak, Heartland has issued a statement claiming the strategy memo is a fake, but the budget documents—including the 2012 fundraising plan I quoted—have not been disputed, and therefore neither has the fact that part of their strategy is to push marginal ideas including a nonexistent “major controversy” about climate science.

In fact, the Associated Press reported that David Wojick, the proposed curriculum designer named in the documents, confirmed “the document was accurate about his project to put curriculum materials in schools that promote climate skepticism.”

The Heartland Institute and its funders are not waging the war on environmental literacy by themselves. We never said they were. But if, as they claim, the strategy memo “does not express Heartland’s goals, plans, or tactics,” why don’t they tell us what they are all about, and give us their word that secret climate agitprop directed at kids is not part of their M.O.? (you know, we’d even accept it in the form of a FedEx package).

Dear Heartland: we love your earth-friendly logo, but we have a difference of opinion. NWF won’t stop relaying information in the public domain, and we won’t back down in the broader fight on behalf of environmental education and true ‘sound science.’ Regardless of the veracity of any one document, we need to examine the tactics consistently used by the extreme right to keep solid science out of America’s K-12 classrooms. And right now, you’re the face of that problem.

Kids Learning About Pika Habitat

The recent revelation that the Heartland Institute was pledged $100,000 in anonymous funds to develop a K-12 school curriculum to inject how controversial climate change science is is just one of these tactics.

It has been alleged, per a set of leaked internal documents, that the Institute, a free-market policy and advocacy organization, is again working to undermine K-12 climate change education. The leaked documents, which Heartland claims were illegally leaked and faked, are not needed to examine consistent tactics used by the extreme right to keep sound and needed climate change education out of America’s K-12 classrooms.

5 Tactics for Mis-Educating Kids About Climate Change

Here are five common tactics that extreme right organizations, such as Heartland, use to keep children from being equipped with the knowledge they will need to cope with the future problems we “adults” are imposing on them.

1. Create Controversy Where There is None

No matter how well-established a complex scientific subject is (human-caused climate change for example) it is still complex!  There will always be fringe theories, factual inconsistencies, and even whacky ideas that run counter the mainstream scientific view.  But, much as an attorney will strive to get a criminal off by planting “reasonable doubt” in a jury’s mind, the extreme right will seek to elevate these fringe theories and minor inconsistencies to the level of full credibility and parity.  These same groups have used this technique, for example, to say that the doctrine of creationism should be given equal time in American science classrooms with the science of evolution.

Though climate change science is settled within the scientific community,  the simple, loud assertion that it remains “uncertain” has a chilling effect on it being used in the classroom and there are thousands of teachers who become nervous about even teaching subjects perceived as controversial.  Moreover, state and school district curricula designers are likewise deterred from promoting climate change education due to the persistent and undeserved cloud of scietific controversy.  Planting seeds of doubt and treating a subject as controversial was a tried and true method used by the tobacco industry during prime smoking and health debates.

2.     Exploit the “Radical Media’s” Inherent Reasonableness

The American media loves to report stories that compare opposing viewpoints.  This is mostly thought of as balanced journalism.  It is taught in journalism schools, is considered professional rigor and is a door to exploitation by the extreme right.  Even when a subject is largely without serious scientific controversy, journalists will often find a contrarian and give his or her viewpoint equal time. We saw this practice in operation for many years with respect to smoking.  Each time a public health agency or university would issue a new study on how smoking contributed to cancer, the tobacco industry invariably appeared in the same article asserting that it was not yet proven that smoking caused cancer.  Climate change science suffers from a bad case of this problem.  Studies done that compare scientific literature to media reports show there is zero disagreement over climate change’s causes in peer reviewed scientific  literature but more than half of all news articles treat this same science as “in doubt.”  It is highly ironic that, for all of the extreme right’s whining about liberal radicalism in the media, it is so completely skilled at capitalizing on the tendency of journalists to want to present both sides of an issue even when there is no real issue.

3. Demonize the Nation’s Hardworking Educators

Principals and teachers are the extreme right’s favorite punching bags.  Instead of seeing America’s 3.5 million educators and school administrators as hard working Americans to whom we have safely entrusted the future of our children for the past two centuries, the right describes them as agenda-driven radicals bent on filling students’ minds with politically loaded dogma.  The alleged Heartland Institute documents say that “Principals and teachers are heavily biased toward the alarmist perspective.”  In reality, America’s principals and teachers are not alarmists.  They are reflective of American society and are made up of all kinds of people with all kinds of religious and political views.  What they share, however, is a desire to provide the most professionally delivered and helpful education possible to our children.  They are also highly responsive to community norms and parent comments and, as such, are not inclined to even teach subjects deemed controversial in that community.  It is true that schools do offer sex education and science teachers will indeed avoid treating creationism as a bonafide scientific subject, but this does not make them crazy radicals.  America’s educators are real people, working in real places and doing the very best they can for our kids.

4. Play the Worried Parent Card

If you want to get American parents riled up, just tell them their kids are getting faulty information and flawed education at school.   This favorite tactic by the extreme right is used to keep climate change or environmental education of any sort out of the classroom.  It portays it as “junk science,” inaccurate, one-side or any of a dozen labels that translate to “bad education.”   Truth is the environmental education community and science educators are rigorous and careful about the integrity of their teaching and the materials they provide.  It has been a decades-long mission by environmental educators to have programs that are fair and accurate, scientifically sound and balanced.  This has been proven, even in Congressional inquiries.  What makes environmental education different from many classroom subjects, however, is a focus on skill development and that includes going beyond education on scientific principles and problems to having students actually learn about solutions.  Most people think of education on problem solving as an educational breakthrough but the extreme right wants parents to think of this as brainwashing radicalism.   The real question: is it kinder to hide information about environmental challenges from our children and keep them in the dark about climate change or to give them the tools to handle it as they takes the reins of society?

5. Paint with the Government Conspiracy Brush

When the extreme right gets really frustrated with a lack of traction for its campaigns to keep climate change and environmental education out of K-12 schools, it resorts to the old “loss of freedom” ploy and describes such educational efforts as signaling a government takeover.  It is always interesting how the concept of providing our youngsters with the tools they need to fend for themselves in an uncertain environmental future is somehow cast as a government conspiracy.  To most, developing self-help environmental skills is a very American idea steeped in the notion of free choice and individualism.

The Heartland Institute is not a lone participant in the extreme right’s war on climate change education and giving our kids a real understanding of what is happening and what can be done about it.  It is unfortunate, but noteworthy, that the Institute and other combatants in the war on k-12 and climate change and environmental education have such deep roots in funding from the fossil fuel industry.

School wouldn't be worth a whole lot if we taught every fringe 'controversy.' (flickr | sidewalk flying)

Case in point: ThinkProgress Green says it has acquired documents that show the partly Koch and ExxonMobil-funded Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank, is working on developing a curriculum for K-12 schools intended to paint global warming as “a major scientific controversy” rather than the systematically-reached  conclusion of decades of peer review and careful research. (Update: the Heartland Institute has since issued an advisory claiming that the documents are ‘fake and stolen.’ Stay tuned.)

The curriculum will be developed by Dr. David E. Wojick, who has worked as a consultant for multiple coal interests and is an old hand at ‘making the case for uncertainty’ in climate science:

Dr. Wojick proposes to begin work on “modules” for grades 10-12 on climate change (“whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy“), climate models (“models are used to explore various hypotheses about how climate works. Their reliability is controversial”), and air pollution (“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

This project would apparently cost about $100,000—chump change compared to the $8 million Koch Industries spent lobbying Congress in 2011. I guess even veterans of the science obfuscation game learn new tricks sometimes (though not all of ‘em work out).

Sadly, this isn’t a new wrinkle. Last year, a libertarian school board member pressured California’s Los Alamitos Unified School District to make sure a new environmental science class includes “multiple perspectives” on climate—namely, those that accuse scientists of being dogmatic worrywarts—and education experts (ahem) like Rush Limbaugh and Jim Hoft have made a habit of excoriating the so-called ‘junk science’ that informs environmental education in between reports on President Obama’s birth certificate.

These measures try to paint educators as, at best, irresponsible—at worst, bent on keeping kids from the truth. The implication that some contrarian curriculum is all it takes to set things right only adds insult to injury, and at a time when many students are struggling.

Any scientist would tell you that there’s a high bar for what is conclusive. But when the preponderance of legitimate climate scientists confirm that global warming is manmade and a threat to life on earth, can the remainder even be considered capable of controversy? Aren’t they more like the random guy on the metro with a theory about the moon landing being a hoax? Should we teach that one too?

(As an aside: I definitely do plan on picking up a ‘Teach the Controversy’ t-shirt soon.)

If you’d like to help America’s kids learn accurate, balanced environmental science, ask Congress to pass the No Child Left Inside Act, a bill to help states develop stronger K-12 environmental literacy programs.

For more information on environmental education, check out Eco-Schools USA’s Climate Change pathway on incorporating global warming education into the curriculum in a practical and instructive way. You can also see the Guidelines for Excellence developed by the North American Association for Environmental Education or the reworked  Framework for K-12 Science Education, from the National Academies’ Board on Science Education.

Has there ever been such a gathering of global warming denying astroturf groups in one place? Friday's meeting of the Flat Earth Society on Capitol Hill may be breaking a dubious record.

It's titled, "President Obama to be challenged on dire climate warning!" but of course even the title is misleading — it's not President Obama warning us about climate change, it's thousands of the best scientists in the world.

The event is sponsored by a veritable Who's Who of polluter-funded front groups: the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Heartland Institute, Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the International Climate Science Coalition.

The featured speakers:

• Fred Singer, affiliated with no less than 11 think tanks and associations that have received funding from ExxonMobil. Singer is also known as "The Missing Link Between Big Tobacco & Big Oil," having worked to deny both the link between pollution and global warming and the link between cigarettes and cancer.

• Roy Spencer, who works with both the Heartland Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute, each of which has received well over half a million dollars from Big Oil to fight science. His satellite research was also prominently refuted in the New York Times.

• Marc Morano, former communications director for Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who famously called global warming a "hoax." You might remember Morano from when I attended a presentation of his last year. It was called "Climate Change Politics," but instead Morano spent the whole time cracking jokes about Ann Curry and others.

Finally, the news release hypes, in big, red letters:

FREE BOX LUNCH FOR MEDIA!

It goes without saying that real journalists don't eat polluter-funded boxed lunches. Maybe I'll head over there and hang out at the lunch table just to see who does …

When I went to register on Friday, the event’s website said that the conference was full and registration was closed. I emailed the Heartland Institute’s events manager asking, “Is there any way to participate in the event or am I out of luck?” Her response:

I am so sorry but we are sold out, I have no extra space, in fact I am over my limit hoping some people will cancel. The entire conference will be on our website about two weeks after the event.

Sorry.

I thought I’d stop by the conference anyway in case there were opportunities to participate without being registered. But security agents (on the left in the photo) were posted at each main conference entrance checking badges.

I set up my laptop in the lobby by an elevator and started writing my first blog post of the day. Eventually, a couple of reporters noticed me and wanted to interview me about not being allowed inside.

As a crew from the BBC was talking to me, the Heartland Institute’s events manager approached us with a security agent by her side. I asked the events manager if there was a problem. The crew continued to film as she told us that due to increased security with the president of the Czech Republic in attendance, only registered participants were allowed on the conference floors.

I thought it was pretty extreme that they were about to have security escort me out. “I don’t want to cause any trouble. If you want me to leave, that’s fine, I’ll go” I said. “But am I really a security risk?”

The events manager turned to the camera and put her hand up. “Stop filming!” she said.

The BBC cameraman was taken aback, but since the Marriott is private property, he had to do as asked.

The events manager turned back to me and said, “I never said you couldn’t register. I said you could register as media.”

I told her that sounded great and picked up a press credential. I’ve been inside the conference ever since.

Later, I bumped into the BBC crew and we all shared a laugh. It’s amazing what can happen when the cameras are rolling. Press credentials appear out of thin air!

So what did the panelists talk about? Those reliable conservative bogeymen, the liberal media, pop culture and Hollywood elites.

They all started with one liners on Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio and Barbra Streisand. The audience ate it up.

In fact, the communications director for Sen. James Inhofe spent virtually his entire presentation mocking celebrities and journalists who’d expressed support for or reported on climate action.

Then panelists moved on to attacking that liberal media for reporting all that science from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. For some reason, a favorite target was Ann Curry. I mean, I expected the potshots at MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann and CNN’s Miles O’Brien, but even Ann Curry is controversial to these people?

The more I’ve listened to these speakers, the more I’ve realized that for most of these deniers, it’s not about the science. They can only see the world in terms of left and right, so they’ve absorbed global warming into that broader paradigm of partisan politics and culture wars.

But as National Wildlife Federation President & CEO Larry Schweiger says, “Confronting global warming is not an issue of left and right. It’s a matter of right and wrong.” We have a moral responsibility to confront climate change now to protect our children’s future.

Fortunately, while attacking the liberal media, pop culture, and Hollywood elites may play well on Rush Limbaugh, it’s falling flat in the halls of Congress. U.S. Senators like John Warner, Norm Coleman, and Elizabeth Dole recognize that climate action is not a partisan issue. They’re joining a bipartisan coalition supporting the Climate Security Act, a bill that would establish a cap-and-trade system to cut our carbon emissions.

And while President Bush has stonewalled on climate action, every one of the leading presidential contenders has expressed support for mandatory cuts in carbon emissions.

So maybe the deniers should keep playing to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Pretty soon, those may be the only allies they’ll have left.