WASHINGTON – After drawing criticism last year for taking a private jet to accept an environmental award, Academy Award-winning actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio took a commercial flight to and from last weekend’s People’s Climate March in Washington, according to a source close to the actor.
DiCaprio was also driven around locally in a Tesla electric car.
In May 2016, DiCaprio flew to New York from France on a private jet to accept an award at the Riverkeeper Fishermen’s Ball. He reportedly flew back to Cannes after the ball.
PJM learned that the actor traveled from New York to Washington and back on a commercial flight for the march, at which he did not deliver any speech.
‘The book burning has commenced!’
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO on MAY 2, 2017 I f there’s one thing we can count on in this world, it’s self-styled environmentalists being total hypocrites when it comes to the environment. On Saturday, the “People’s Climate March”in Washington, DC was packed with tens of thousands of hippies, tree-huggers, celebrities, politicians and climate change alarmists all shouting about the dire need for the government to “save” the planet, as they all bonded over their mutual hatred for President Donald Trump, of course. The marchers, unsurprisingly, left DC trashed. Signs about the precious environment ironically littered the street, trash overowed the garbage and food and drink containers covered the green grass. It was apparently too much for the (CO -exhaling*) hippies to dispose of their garbage in an environmentally-friendly manner before taking ‘Environmentalists’ Leave #ClimateMarch TRASHED Screenshot: Twitter 2 5/…
The range of predicted future warming is enormous — apocalyptism is unwarranted.
The epithet “climate denier,” intended to invoke Holocaust denial, has always been tasteless and inapt. Climate change is not like the Holocaust, nor is questioning the accuracy and predictive power of a scientific model like questioning the historical fact of a genocide that murdered 6 million Jews. But climate activists delighted in defining their opposition this way, with help from prominent figures such as Barack Obama, who in 2014 used Twitter to condemn “climate change deniers” and promote a website, run by Organizing for Action (formerly Obama for America), that featured large black-and-white pictures of then–House speaker John Boehner and Senator Marco Rubio atop a green “Climate Change Deniers” banner. “On climate,” asked the site’s headline, “whose side are you on?”
For a while, this seemed to work. Framing the climate debate as one between noble keepers of the scientific flame and people akin to Nazis gave the former group license to say almost anything. To the casual observer, even the most egregious exaggeration about climate science could seem reasonable compared with its outright rejection. Thus, Obama’s assertion in his 2015 State of the Union address that “no challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change” became widely accepted. When Senator Bernie Sanders warned during a presidential debate that “the scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change . . . the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,” he was not laughed off the stage.
Often, the politicians and pundits targeted with the “denier” label did deserve blame. Ignoring the best available scientific research — an obvious starting point in any other policy debate — was irresponsible or dishonest. Their arguments rarely emerged from any valuable scientific insight, but usually from a fear that acknowledging the scientific basis of climate change would mean accepting radical and costly responses. This was doubly counterproductive: Not only did it grant by default a mainstream foothold to outlandishly overblown climate fears, but also it sidelined and undermined more important and compelling policy-based objections to the activist agenda.
Warmist rips fellow warmists as ‘more interested in political & intellectual purity than they are to fighting climate change’
Look at today’s People’s Climate Marches. They include entire sections dedicated to the anti-nuclear movement? Can anyone tell me what happens when you pull nuclear out of your energy mix? Well Energieweinde showed that the nuclear was not replaced by renewables, but rather by coal. When Diablo Canyon closes in California, the result will be an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases emitted as they will be making up that low-carbon power with natural gas.
So what have the climate crew done for us recently? They are punishing one of their biggest allies in the free press, while alienating political leaders who have gone to bat for them. They are fighting against low-carbon energy alternatives because those alternatives don’t represent their preferred technologies. Rather than accepting compromises that could help advance their cause and implement policies that can provide realistic reductions in carbon emission they are out on the streets holding their protests. Protests where they reserve entire sections for groups intended solely to the task of attacking potential allies. I despair for my cause and have started to resign myself to failure because these people are more interested in political and intellectual purity than they are to fighting climate change.…
Planned Parenthood: ‘The Climate Crisis could have devastating effects on people’s reproductive health’