Right Wing Doctors Audio Clips To Distort Al Gore’s Comments About Cyclone Nargis»

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.”

Actual Transcript of Al Gore’s Interview with Terry Gross: Read the rest of this entry »

Sen. Ben Nelson Describes Disastrous Global Warming Bill As ‘Realistic’»

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)

In the past two weeks, Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH) has been circulating draft climate legislation in line with President Bush’s Rose Garden global warming speech, which called for industry tax credits and for U.S. global warming emissions to continue growing until 2025. To do so would be sheer lunacy. But Voinovich embraced the plan and translated Bush’s goals into the Incentives-Based Alternative Climate Policy Act. Voinovich’s bill was crafted by a who’s who of industry front groups, including the Alliance for Energy and Economic Growth, the National Manufacturers Association, the Edison Electric Institute, the American Chemistry Council, and the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council.

The Environmental Defense Fund’s Steve Cochran summarized the Voinovich proposal as “bankrupt,” saying:

It’s a detailed prescription for doing nothing. If you think climate change is a hoax, this is your bill.

Friends of the Earth president Brent Blackwelder agreed, saying the Voinovich bill is “repugnant and immoral.” He warned:

Any senator who votes for such sham legislation will answer for it at the ballot box.

But as Darren Samuelsohn reports in E&E News, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) is placing himself in the Voinovich camp. Samuelson writes:

In contrast, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) maintained that he is a long way from backing the Lieberman-Warner bill. Instead, he is taking a close look at an alternative climate bill circulated from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) that opens with tax incentives for new energy technologies but falls back on cap and trade if the other ideas have not worked by 2030.

“It’s a more realistic approach to what technology is going to be required,” Nelson said. “Just legislating it, doesn’t get you there.”

Joe Romm at Climate Progress responds to Sen. Nelson: “Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!“

EPA’s Johnson Claims ‘Ongoing Back Issues’ Prevent Him From Testifying Before Congress»

As each day brings new scandals involving the Environmental Protection Agency to light, the pressure for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to respond is growing. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA)’s Oversight and Government Reform Committee had scheduled a hearing for tomorrow with Johnson to testify on White House interference with ozone standards.

Today, Al Kamen reports that the hearing has been postponed because Johnson refused to appear:

EPA officials say Johnson had a “recurrence of ongoing back issues stemming from a car accident years ago.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is conducting a hearing right now into the politicization of EPA scientific decisions (live webcast). Administrator Johnson declined the invitation to appear.

The Wonk Room wishes Administrator Johnson well and hopes that his recurring back pain subsides. Once he recovers, he should be ready to testify on these and other ongoing scandals involving his agency:

UPDATE: Council on Foreign Relations fellow and former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson argues today in the Washington Post:

There are few things in American politics more irrationally ideological, more fanatically faith-based, than the accusation that Republicans are conducting a “war on science.”

UPDATE II: The Sacramento Bee reports that the EPA will probably not regulate toxic rocket fuel contamination of water:

In a Senate hearing Tuesday, EPA assistant water chief Benjamin Grumbles did not dispute studies showing that perchlorate increases risks of brain damage in fetuses and infants and thyroid disorders in adults.

But, Grumbles said, there’s a “distinct possibility” the environmental agency won’t take action because they don’t know whether regulation would meaningfully reduce those risks.

Jason Burnett — The John Yoo Of The EPA — Steps Down»

Yesterday, John Yoo agreed to testify before the House Judiciary Committee about the Bush Administration’s torture and interrogation practices. Yoo is the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General responsible for a series of controversial legal decisions, most famously the “torture memo” that argued physical torture “must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” Yoo stepped down after President Bush’s first term.

Yesterday, Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett of the Environmental Protection Agency announced his departure from the EPA. Like John Yoo, the 31-year-old Jason Burnett is the author and advocate of a series of legal arguments that subvert the very purpose of his agency.

Burnett’s shameful record includes:

– Promoting arsenic in drinking water. Working with American Enterprise Institute scholar Robert Hahn in 2000 and 2001, Burnett wrote a series of papers arguing that the Environmental Protection Agency should let economic costs trump scientific recommendations when setting regulatory health standards. Burnett argued that an arsenic standard proposed in the waning days of the Clinton Administration “cannot be justified on economic grounds.” The Bush administration eventually adopted the Clinton standard after outcry followed its original announcement to abandon it.

– The “Queen of Hearts” mercury regulations. Working in the EPA Office of Air and Radiation from 2004 to 2006, Burnett authored the industry-friendly mercury regulations that were rejected by a federal appeals court in 2008. In its decision, the court said the EPA’s “explanation deploys the logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting EPA’s desires for the plain text” of the Clean Air Act.

– Overruling soot health standards at behest of industry. Fine particle matter — soot — kills more people than any other form of air pollution. On July 12, 2006, Johnson, Burnett, and two other EPA officials met with 15 top industry lobbyists. Two months later, Administrator Johnson issued a standard forty percent above the recommendation of staff scientists, the independent Clean Air Scientific Advisory Council, and the American Medical Association, leaving 77 million Americans at medical risk.

– Climate contempt. Following the Supreme Court mandate to take action on global warming pollution, Jason Burnett “worked on EPA’s controversial decision to deny a California petition seeking to regulate cars and trucks for climate change.” S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, described the decision as “legally and technically unjustified and indefensible.”

Darren Samuelson, who broke the story of Burnett’s resignation on E&E News (sub. req’d), interviewed Burnett on how he perceives his global warming legacy:

“I have confidence future administrations will be able to make more informed decisions” based on the work EPA is currently doing on the issue, he said.

What The Gas Tax Holiday Has To Do With Global Warming»

Gas prices have risen dramatically, and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) have proposed suspending the 18.4-cent-per-gallon federal gas tax over the summer, a proposal criticized as “stupid,” “pandering,” and “destructive nuttiness.”

But the problems with the proposal run deeper than the economic reality that the plan would add up to a “huge windfall for refiners” that also increases “our transfer of wealth to Saudi Arabia.” It is also the type of thinking that could lead to an utter breakdown of our national imperative to deal with global warming. Fuel taxes are the fundamental governmental mechanism for limiting the consumption of gasoline and making users pay for the costs of pollution — just as cigarette taxes capture the “negative externalities” of the societal health costs associated with smoking.

As Sir Nicholas Stern described in his report on the economic costs of global warming, “Climate change is a result of the greatest market failure that the world has seen.” Because polluters have never paid a price for the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, no steps were taken to avoid fossil fuel consumption. Read the rest of this entry »

McCain Seemingly Agrees With Glenn Beck That Solutions To Climate Change Can Be Delayed»

On his radio show this week, climate change denier Glenn Beck asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) if “a new peer reviewed study,” which he says shows that global warming “looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years,” gives America “time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security.” “Yes,” replied McCain:

BECK: You know, there’s a new peer reviewed study out today that says global warming now looks like it’s going to be on hold for ten years. Does that buy us any time to not spend the money on global warming and maybe concentrate on things like Social Security and fix some of those things that are right around the corner?

SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, Glenn, but where we may have a disagreement, I believe that the development of green technologies such as General Electric, the world’s largest corporation, has dedicated to the development of nuclear energy as the French are able to generate 80% of their electricity with nuclear power. There’s no reason why America shouldn’t.

Listen here:

UPDATE: As Joe Romm explains at Climate Progress, Glenn Beck is misinterpreting a new paper in Nature that modeled the effects of interdecadal oceanic cycles on global surface temperature. In one sentence, the authors used the phrase “next decade” to refer to the period from 2005-2015 versus 2000-2010, instead of the common-sense definition of 2010-2020. The study in fact provides evidence to support that the next decade — 2010-2020 — will be the warmest on record and “is poised to see faster temperature rise than any decade since the authors’ calculations began in 1960.”

UPDATE II: Joe Romm also calculates what McCain’s nuclear goal means:

To satisfy McCain’s odd desire to be like the French and get 80% of our electricity from nuclear power in the coming decades would require building more than 700 (GW-sized) nuclear power plants by midcentury — more than one a month.

Ali Velshi Hosts Glenn Beck To Promote Liquid Coal»

Recently, CNN’s senior business correspondent Ali Velshi has been promoting coal-based liquid fuel as a response to high oil prices, even though it leads to climate disaster. Yesterday, the Wonk Room noted that Velshi has even implied coal is cleaner than himself. This afternoon, Velshi continued his obsession with liquid coal in a discussion with CNN’s Glenn Beck. Beck is a self-described “big dumb rodeo clown” who believes the United States is a “suicidal superpower” for not turning coil into gasoline:

This can be done — coal to oil — at $55 a barrel. That’s about half of what we are paying right now for oil. We can have cheap oil that is actually good for the nation because it is all home grown. We’re sitting … just Montana is the Saudi Arabia of coal.

Montana does indeed have vast coal reserves. But coal-based fuel is in fact a dangerous and expensive prospect once the high costs of its pollution are factored in — especially its carbon dioxide global warming emissions.

Velshi then noted that his “clean coal” boosterism has raised questions about his journalistic integrity:

Well you know, South Africa, most of the gasoline it uses is produced from coal. I did something on this the other day and the number of e-mails and comments I got about how I’m shilling for the coal industry . . .

After Beck scoffed, “Oh please,” Velshi then made his most accurate pronouncement about coal to date:

I don’t think it’s clean. It’s not cleaner. It just happens to not be oil.

Glenn Beck — whose response to the threat of climate change is to complain that polar bears eat people — was terribly alarmed by Velshi’s moment of truth:

Now hang on just a second. We can sequester the CO2 now. We can make it cleaner than it has been.

In fact, there is not a single coal plant producing electricity or fuel that sequesters carbon dioxide anywhere on the planet. Although we definitely can make coal cleaner, the coal industry is doing everything it can to ensure that the American taxpayer foots the bill. If Velshi were truly interested in the economics of coal, he would host financial analysts that discuss the economic risks of coal power, not global-warming deniers like Glenn Beck.

Watch it:

Transcript: Read the rest of this entry »