Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Thursday, October 27, 2016

Documentary Hits Fossil Fuel Industry-Funded Climate Change Deniers


Greedy Lying Bastards is as timely a movie as you will ever see. The global warming documentary — directed, produced and narrated by Craig Rosebraugh — pulls no punches in a damning indictment of the fossil fuel industry-funded climate change deniers who have successfully deceived the public and prevented climate change action in Congress at a time when Americans are feeling the damaging effects of a changing climate — from Hurricane Sandy to western wildfires to devastating droughts.

A look at recent headlines proves why this film is so important:

— The Environmental Protection Agency proposed new clean fuel regulations that would require refineries to make gasoline with less sulfur to reduce polluting tailpipe emissions. The EPA’s move to toughen fuel standards predictably drew attacks from Big Oil’s lobbying arm, the American Petroleum Institute, and Republicans such as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), who in 2011 received large campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including a PAC representing ExxonMobil.

— Tea Party senator and climate change denier Ted Cruz (R-TX) removed a mention of climate change from a routine resolution commemorating International Women’s Day. Cruz cut the part that said women “are disproportionately affected by changes in climate because of their need to secure water, food and fuel for their livelihood.”

— And perhaps the most infamous climate change denier in Congress, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), recently said he was proud to be targeted by Greedy Lying Bastards. Inhofe, who has repeatedly called global warming a hoax, said, “I was not surprised to see myself front and center on the promotional material for this climate change movie, and quite frankly, I’m proud of it.”

The film exposes the front groups the fossil fuel industry uses to attack the 97 percent of climate scientists who agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change, making the comparison to the tactics used by the tobacco industry to attack the scientific findings linking smoking to cancer.

ExxonMobil and Koch Industries are exposed in the film as the two worst culprits in funding misinformation campaigns to delay action on climate change and confuse the public.

Rosebraugh made the film because he is “concerned about the future of the planet and our ability to exist on it. I wanted to undertake a project that would uncover the hidden agenda of the oil industry and provide answers as to why as a nation we fail to implement clean energy policies and take effective action on important problems such as climate change.”

Click here for screenings in your area. You can watch the trailer below:

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo
  • howdidisraelget200nukes

    Two words…….Sherman Act.

    Obama has no balls and no interest. Gun control and immigration are far more important.

    • Siegfried Heydrich

      Dude, you can’t fight all of the battles all of the time. There’s only so much political capital he has, and only so many fights he can have at once. You’re a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good.

      • howdidisraelget200nukes

        It seems to me that Teddy Roosevelt was able to do it, why cant Obama?

        Simple. He is looking forward to those board of directors positions that pay 2 mill per year each.

        • TR lived in a much simpler time where there were nowhere near as many issues with which to deal. He also didn’t have an opposition determined to bring him down as well bringing down the gov’t. In his day, the kinds of obstructionist behavior in which the GOP is engaging would have been literally unthinkable. Elected officials were expected to govern competently, and to reach compromise to that end. Sadly, this is no longer the case.

          And I find it amusing that you are projecting Republican values and motivations on the President. I realize that this concept may lie outside your ability to comprehend, but not everyone is motivated by a venal desire for monetary gain. Heresy, I know, but some people simply aren’t as greedy as you would like to believe.

        • Michael Kollmorgen

          Back in TRs day, Corporations didn’t have a Stranglehold on the government as it does today.

          • RobertCHastings

            Holy, f—ing shit, Michael. Something ELSE we agree on! This could be the start of something good.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            Haha, ya never know – do we:)

          • CPAinNewYork

            You’e mistaken. Back in Teddy Roosevelt’s day, corporations did have a stranglehold on the government. It took a multimillionaire president to fight them effectively.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            You might be right. Though it seems it wasn’t as visible as it is today.

            You might be right here too. Being rich does have its advantages. You can’t be played too easily.

          • S.J. Jolly

            Don’t look now, but the rich get played, too. Both politically, and financially. Having a fat check book doesn’t mean you’re proof against “too good to be true” schemes.

          • S.J. Jolly

            Politics in America always has been a struggle between “the many”, and the “the money”, as to which would rule. Between the voting public, and those who can purchase influence beyond their numbers.

        • First, Teddy Roosevelt did not do it alone, and he did NOT have today’s greedy Republicans and Tea Party assholes to deal with. Before Obama, OR ANY president of any party can do something, they need to have the teamwork/cooperation of Congress.

          • CPAinNewYork

            You’re also mistaken, because the Republicans were greedy by Teddy Roosevelt’s day. True, he didn’t have to deal with Tea Party assholes, but he did have to deal with the corrupt politicians and ruthless individuals like J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and others of their ilk.

            Except for the Founding Fathers, American politicians have always been a greedy and corrupt lot and even one of the Founding Fathers was corrupt.

          • awakenaustin

            Which founding father was corrupt? Just curious.

            There is no “by definition” group or litmus test I am aware of for deciding membership. It is a pretty amorphous term we have used to describe the major influential political figures of that day. Was Jefferson a founding father even though he was not in Philadelphia during the writing of the Constitution? What about Samuel Adams (the 2nd cousin of John and not the beer – although the beer is named for him)? He like Jefferson wasn’t there at the writing of the U.S. Constitution. There were guys at the Convention who came late to the Revolution. Were the anti-Federalists as well as the Federalists founding fathers? Just curious.

            Politicians, like every grouping of persons, are no more likely to be corrupt or greedy than any other group. It makes it easier to explain the decisions of others, the decisions we don’t like anyway, if we assume or presume they are more corrupt or greedy or immoral than we ourselves are. I am not claiming that corruption doesn’t exist nor that some people aren’t much more greedy than others (after all we as a nation have elevated greed from a deadly sin to a virtue) nor that some actions are not more immoral than others. Possibly a character flaw on my part, but I just seem to see a lot more grey than black and white.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Hamilton was corrupt, in that everything that he did was for the rich. When his rich friends had bought up the Continental debt instruments from the discounters at bargain prices, he agitated for the federal government’s redeeming them at face value. That gave his rich friends a windfall profit.

            Also, Hamilton was being blackmailed by the husband of a woman with whom he had conducted an affair.

          • Michael Kollmorgen

            “Except for the Founding Fathers, American politicians have always been a greedy and corrupt lot and even one of the Founding Fathers was corrupt.”

            Bingo! You just won the Mega Lotto:)

            But, there is one slight exception. Our form of government breeds corruption, all the way down to the local level.

        • S.J. Jolly

          Obama’s situation, vs the right-wing conservatives, is more akin to the of Abraham Lincoln vs the slave-holding states. Including repeatedly stated beliefs that he will destroy their way of life.

          • CPAinNewYork

            Lincoln did inadvertently destroy their lives, by destroying their economy when they seceded.

          • S.J. Jolly

            Which made their fears self-fulfilling .

  • charleo1

    I was reading just this morning, where an Exxon pipeline carrying this heavy
    thick, bituminous, sludge oil from Canada, has ruptured and spilled several
    thousand barrels of this high carbon, extremely hard to clean up, (it sinks to
    the bottom,) crude oil, into the Arkansas River. Exxon was just fined 1.2 million
    dollars, for a similar spill into the Yellowstone River. A punishment so lenient,
    and insignificant to Exxon, as to be little more to them, than the usual cost of
    of doing business. Global warming, should be an all hands on deck issue.
    Given the many severe, and long lasting consequences of a warmer planet.

    But, the politics of addressing it here, in this Country, where we consume
    more energy, in comparison to our population, than any place in the world.
    is so hopeless, that the greatest environmental crisis in the history of mankind,
    is hardly even mentioned. This is but a symptom of a much larger problem,
    that effects every facet of our lives. Corporations run this Country, as never before.
    We know this. All of us know this. Political leaders know this. If the oil, and coal
    corporations do not want this issue brought up, debated, studied, or even it’s
    very existence acknowledged, that is exactly what is going to happen.

    • CPAinNewYork

      But, it is being brought up, debated, studied, etc. If Big Oil has been trying to suppress it, then Big Oil has failed. The question I have is “Does the American public want to address global warming and the possible financial consequences of stopping it”?

      Remember the people who railed against the cold war with the Soviet Union and the excesses of the defense industry? Where were they when the cold war ended and people lost their jobs? Those same people are probably now railing against Big Oil and global warming.

      There’s an old saying: Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.

  • The sad part about the efforts made in the Bush era to deny global warming (aka climate change) is the fact that the parade of “scientists” that supported the administration mantra were well aware of the rapid melting of glaciers, our polar caps, increased droughts, increased storms and changing patterns, and the distinct probability of major shortages of potable water and rising sea levels. Their crime was not ignorance, but a deliberate effort to deny the obvious to profit from the status quo.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Mr. Vila:

      Good comment, but what about the loss of jobs when the pollutants have been eliminated?

      Also: If only the United States eliminates the pollutants, what will the effect be on global warming if the rest of the world continues with the pollutants? Will it go away?

      • Job loss?? What about clean air and water! You won’t need a job without either of those because you will be dead!!

    • S.J. Jolly

      As with the tobacco industry fight, a few decades ago, against admitting to the harmful effects of smoking, in delay there is continued fat profits.

  • Lovefacts

    I love the comments that it’s too costly to change. Well, what happens when the ozone layer is so thin liplants, animals, and we can’t live on the surface or there’s no clean drinking water?

    We have one planet. I really wish when Adam named all the animals, fish, plants, etc. the true meaning of the Hewbrew had been translated. It isn’t dominion. It’s caretaker, shepard. Maybe then we humans would have more respect for this wonderous planet called Earth. Of course it would help if we voted the naysayers out of office.

    • CPAinNewYork

      Pleasant sounding drivel. What are the downsides of eliminating global warming?

      • awakenaustin

        What is the downside of not doing something about it? If we ignore it will it go away? There will be some outcome. The issue is which approach, doing something as opposed to pretending there is no problem and doing nothing, makes the continuation of life on this planet most likely. Secondly, assuming some kind of survival which alternative holds the most promise of the greatest long term benefits.
        Is it easier to deal humanely with the short-term dislocation caused by lost jobs and incomes due to efforts to deal with and prevent further global warming (new jobs created by these efforts?) or deal with the long term dislocation of moving New Orleans, Galveston, and the rest of the coast inland five to twenty miles.
        Bad weather has adverse economic effects also.
        Meanwhile, I think we should all increase the GNP by getting in our cars and racing up and down the highway as fast and as oftern as we can, go into our homes here in Texas and crank our air conditioners down to 65 degrees and turn our water sprinklers on and water the lawn a couple of hours every day.

        • CPAinNewYork

          Your point is of course well taken. I recall from the movie “On the Beach” that the nuclear war that was eliminating the Earth’s human population was caused by our not being willing to take any more abuse from the Soviets. We went to war. The final result was the elimination of the entire human race.

          Was it worth the effort?

          We’re faced with a similar dilemma now. Do we stop the industries from producing the hydrocarbons that produce global warming and save the planet, or do we save our lifestyles and continue to endanger the planet?, because the polluters also provide the income on which our lifestyles depend?

          I’ll make a prediction: We’ll save the planet, but, being the unreasonable beings that we are, we’ll agitate for our former lifestyles. We’ll want it both ways.

          • Independent1

            I’m sorry, why is everyone assuming that doing something about global warming, like trying to find alternatives to fossil fuels is suddenly going to put tons of people out of work? Finding realistic alternatives to fossils is going to take time, and I see no reason why in that process there can’t be a phase over for people now drilling and refining oil. I’ve even seen ads from Exxon which makes me think they see the handwriting on the wall, and therefore are working to find alternatives themselves to fossils. What I see as being needed is for our government to stop building barriers for the companies striving to find different solutions to power the worlds economies in the years ahead, From where I sit, there is much greater potential for creating jobs in the years ahead in manufacturing alternative fuel sources to fossils than there is in worrying about the job losses that will be come from alternative energy sources replacing oil and coal. The downside to moving away from fossils and reducing CO2 buildup in the atmosphere (spending some money and possibly forcing some people in the fossil fuel production business to retrain into manufacturing other energy sources), has a far less catastrophic potential than doing nothing and letting global warming reach the point of no return which could spell extinction for all animal and plant life on the planet.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I’m sorry, too, but would you please tell us exactly what is going to be done to enable people to maintain themselves during the interim phase in period? I agree with you that the phase in period will take time, but you don’t say how much time and you don’t say what will fill the void in production and jobs during that phase in period.

          • Independent1

            I’m sorry that I can’t aswer that because I don’t agree that working to reduce global warming is going to cost any substantive numbers of people to lose their jobs and therefore need any help in “maintaining themselves in the interim phase”. In fact, I believe just the opposite: America has already created hundreds of thousands of NEW JOBS in alternative energy sources such as wind (just ask a lot of people in IOWA), and in other research efforts. Despite the erroneous GOP rhetoric that Obama wasted 90 billion on alternative energy projects, the reality is that only 26 billion of the money in TARP allocated to alternative energy was ever awarded, and close to 90% of what was awarded resulted in active, thriving alternative energy ventures (which by the way considering that we’re talking about research, is a very high success rate). So the notion that pursuing energy alternatives to fossil fuels is going to put people out of work, is like most other GOP pronouncements – just another fairytale made up to keep people from pursuing something that is worthwhile and may reduce the profits of an industry that feeds the party billions of dollars.

          • CPAinNewYork

            I believe that we have a problem with global warming, but I also believe that a careful program should be put in place to implement the massive changes needed to replace the hydrocarbon emissions with something more environmentally safe. Wind power doesn’t seem to be a one-on-one replacement for the polluting industries that employ thousands of Americans and represent a huge part of our infrastructure.

            You may not be able to answer my questions personally, but we cannot plunge blindly into dismantling the present industries with vague references to the development of “alternatives.”

            I’m all for cleaning up the environment and stopping global warming, but I want to know in advance what the alternatives will be.

      • Drivel?? I hope you are one of the first to not survive!!

        • CPAinNewYork

          You are not only a jerk, you are mean spirited jerk.

      • Lovefacts

        I can breathe unpolluted air and not risk an asthma attack. I can drink water that doesn’t have to be filled with chemicals or heavy filtered to get rid of the pollutents and their effects. I can walk in the sun without fear. My children and grandchildren can walk the same beaches I did as a child because they won’t be underwater because Greenland, Iceland, the Arctic and Antarctic are melting. We’ll develop clean and renewable energy sources. Our cars won’t need petro products to run. Our national debt & balance of payments problems will lower because we won’t be using petro-based products. And these are just a few. Of course, staying alive is a big one, too.

      • So let’s have the debate over the cost and the loss of jobs. Let’s also let some money flow to developing wind, solar, etc. instead of ignoring the problem. The fact is, big oil would rather continue to destroy the planet instead of creating a new clean industry.

        • CPAinNewYork

          I tend to agree. What do you want to do about it? What is your solution to the problem?

  • Mark Forsyth

    Well,still no reports of environmental disasters caused by windmills nor any rumours of widespread sunshine leaks from solar panels.But my Native First Nations cousins who live in Ft.Chippewyan,which is downstream from the tar sands ops, continue to sicken and die from rare cancers they have never seen in that area before, even though The People have lived on the land for thousands of years.The water is no longer safe to drink or swim in.The fish are poisoned and now the wild game that drinks the water are also compromised and contaminated.But don’t expect to hear about it from the Alberta Provincial Authorities or from Big Oil either.There are too much profits to be made to bother worrying about some insignificant Native folk.They are merely an inconvenient nuisance standing in the way of “progress” who live and breathe,bleed like you and me when they are cut,who think and speak and try to raise their children.But seemingly they are of no consequence. As a result,a possible scenario would be that a parent,after watching a child sicken and die,in their anger,grief, and frustration,would grab a rifle and find the first oil people they could find and kill them.This would give the Alberta Provincials all the reason they need,encouraged by Big Oil of course,to wipe out those pesky and bothersome bums at Fort Chippewyan.And likely we wouldn’t hear about that either.