One week ago, Tropical Cyclone Nargis struck Burma, tracing an unprecedented path of devastation across this poor nation of 55 million, called Myanmar by its military dictatorship. On May 6, Jeff Poor wrote for the Business & Media Institute (BMI) a story entitled, “Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a ‘Consequence’ of Global Warming,” which was subsequently linked on the Drudge Report. Poor claims:

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Poor wrote that Gore said in an interview on National Public Radio, “The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” (Listen here.)

In fact, the audio clip has been doctored and the conclusion that “Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a ‘Consequence’ of Global Warming” is false:

Gore Says Myanmar Cyclone Not A Consequence Of Global Warming. The BMI headline ignores that Gore says in the interview that “any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes.”

Gore Properly Described Relationship Between Storms And Global Warming. In the interview, Gore discussed Nargis and the devastating storms that struck China in 2006 (Typhoon Saomai) and Bangladesh in 2007 (Cyclone Sidr). He goes on to say that “the emerging consensus” among climate scientists is that the “the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming, and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”

Story Presents False Clip Of Interview. The audio clip included with the online story includes two segments that have been spliced together, out of order, to mislead the listener as to Gore’s actual meaning. The actual transcript (see below) makes it clear Gore was saying that the “consequences” of global warming we’re seeing was the melting of the polar ice cap, which is unequivocally due to anthropogenic climate change.

Business & Media Institute Is Part Of Right-Wing Message Machine. BMI is a right-wing “free-enterprise” front group that is part of Brent Bozell’s conservative media machine, the Media Research Center. Poor describes himself on his Facebook page as a “professional jerk” with “very conservative” political views.

The actual transcript reveals that Gore was speaking in response to a question about conservative pastor John Hagee’s claim in a 2006 interview with Terry Gross that “Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.”

Poor’s story is being amplified and further distorted by the right-wing media machine. This morning, the Fox News “Fox and Friends” team covered the devastation of Nargis by attacking Gore’s “ill-advised” comments, claiming he is “in hot water again with climatologists.” Steve Doocy hosted Dr. William Gray, who has claimed that manmade global warming is “a big scam.” Here are Doocy’s two questions to Dr. Gray:

Al Gore says that the cyclone that’s killed a lot of people linked to global warming. Is that accurate?

When Al Gore says the big cyclone has killed all those people because of global warming, that’s, according to you, just wrong.

Watch it:

The people truly guilty of “using tragedy to advance an agenda” are Pastor Hagee, Jeff Poor, Matt Drudge, Steve Doocy, and their conservative ilk.

Digg It!

UPDATE: HT Dr. Jeff Masters of the Weather Underground Wunder Blog: Sea surface temperatures were over a full degree Celsius above average in the region where Nargis intensified before landfall, as can be seen from this May 1 National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration satellite map:

UPDATE II: Glenn Beck pushed the false story on his CNN show on May 7, and Media Matters exposes that Brett Baier claimed on the May 8 edition of Fox News Special Report: “Former Vice President Al Gore says global warming is to blame for the cyclone in Myanmar.”

UPDATE III: From ConWebBlog:

Poor’s BMI article now notes a “clarification” that “The original audio for this story included two accurate audio clips but placed in the incorrect order. They are now included on this story as separate clips.” Poor posted a version of his article at NewsBusters, but it doesn’t mention that Gore said that “any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming,” it contains the original misleading out-of-order audio clip, and it contains no “clarification.”

Actual Transcript of Al Gore’s Interview with Terry Gross: Read more

The top climate scientists at the UK’s Hadley Center for Climate Prediction get no respect. No matter how many times they try to explain that their data clearly shows the world is warming (see “Hadley Center to delayers: We’re warming, not cooling“), people, including those commenting on this very blog, keep insisting their data shows otherwise (see here).

As I wrote before, the 8 warmest years in the 150 global temperature record are, according to the Hadley Center, in order, 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2007. After the Hadley folk wrote a bunch of essays debunking standard denier myths (see here and below), they actually felt compelled to publish another piece on April 29 (here), pointing out again:

The global climate is currently being influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Ni±a (see Expert speaks on La Ni±a). The current La Ni±a began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average. Indeed, the years 2001-2007 recorded an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average, which is 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the years 1991-2000.

Another way of looking at the warming trend is that 1999 was a similar year to 2007 as far as the cooling effects of La Ni±a are concerned. The global temperature in 1999 was 0.26 °C above the 1961-90 average, whereas 2007 was 0.37 °C above this average – 0.11 °C warmer than 1999.

[Hadley doesn't even mention we are at a temporary solar irradiance minimum, which subtracts "no more than about 0.1°C," according to NASA (see "Hansen throws cold water on cooling climate claim.")]

And the Hadley folk predicted last year in Science (see here) that short-term warming is about to accelerate (just as the recent Nature article did, see here), and they reiterated that prediction in their April 29 post:

Read more

The science is clear about the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are the dominant cause (see “Absolute MUST Read IPCC Report: Debate over, further delay fatal, action not costly“). But, sadly, that isn’t clear to most Republicans.

Anybody who thinks the public debate is over — anybody who thinks the Big Lie doesn’t work — should look at the latest poll results from the Pew Research Center (here):

The proportion of Americans who say that the earth is getting warmer has decreased modestly since January 2007, mostly because of a decline among Republicans.

Only 49% of Republican now even believe that the earth is warming! Thank you so much deniers, delayers, and mainstream media (see “Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming” and other links at the end).

Even more worrisome is just how many people don’t believe humans are the cause of warming:

Read more

Once your power source has reached, say 10% of the electricity grid, let alone 20%, it should be time to cut the cord to government funding.

Yet after more than $70 billion dollars in direct subsidies, billions more in insurance subsidies, plus another $13 billion available through the energy policy act of 2005 — Sen. McCain and others still feel that climate legislation must not merely create a price for carbon dioxide that would advantage all carbon free sources of energy, but that we must also throw billions of dollars of more pork at the industry. At some point, infatuation has turned to obsession (see “McCain calls for 700+ new nuclear plants (and seven Yucca mountains) costing $4 trillion).

I am not against building new nuclear power plants, far from it (see “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution.”) But when is enough enough in terms of massive taxpayer support for a mature industry? We had such an incredible clamor for welfare reform in the 1990s, to change “government’s social welfare policy with aims at reducing recipient dependence on the government.” If we reduced the poor’s dependence on government, why not the super-duper rich?

TOTAL SUBSIDIES TO NUCLEAR APPROACHING $100 BILLION

Read more