Al Gore Debunks Hagee's Katrina Theory; FOX Does What FOX Does Best

Al Gore in an interview on NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross:

GROSS: In your book you mention that you think Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, convinced Americans to look differently at climate crisis ...

GORE: Some.

GROSS: ... even though no one can say for sure whether Katrina was directly a result of the climate crisis or not. But one reaction to Katrina—one now famous reaction—was from Pastor John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain sought. And on our show about Hurricane Katrina, he said, "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgement of God for that. I believe that Hurricane Katrina was in fact the judgement of God against the City of New Orleans." And he went on to explain that this was punishment for a gay pride parade that was about to happen, that promised to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in all other gay pride parades. What do you think about when you hear a reaction like that to Katrina?

GORE: My friends in New Orleans said, ‘Well, if that’s the case, how come God spared the French Quarter?’ Of course that’s silly.

It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is even though any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming — we’ve always had hurricanes — nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms, the larger ones, 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 hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection, energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.

And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated.

And last year a catastrophic storm, last fall, hit Bangladesh. 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. The entire north polar ice cap, normally the size the lower 48 states, give or take an Arizona, is melting before our eyes. 40 percent melted in the last twenty years. And in the summer months, it could be completely gone, in one scientific estimate, in as little as five years.

Desmogblog backs him up in this article:

It is impossible to link any single storm to climate change but there is mounting scientific evidence that our warming world will produce more intense storms such as Nargis, with a predicable human toll. Last year, Cyclone Sidr slammed into Bangladesh, killing as many as 10,000 people and leaving 20,000 homeless.

...

The science is already there. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had clearly observed that cyclones will increase in their intensity as a result of global warming. According to the IPCC: “There is observational evidence of an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.”

The IPCC also noted that based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical sea surface temperatures.

Professor Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported in the journal Nature in 2005 that warmer oceans worldwide are making devastating storms such as Hurricane Katrina more likely by making cyclones on average more powerful and longer lasting. He found that the destructive power of tropical cyclones worldwide had increased by 70% in the last 30 years.

Another paper was published in the prestigious journal Science , backing up Emmanuel’s disturbing findings. These researchers found that the number of deadly Category 4 and 5 storms worldwide has almost doubled in the last 35 years.

This is no act of God. The authors of both these papers attributed this disturbing trend at least in part to human-induced climate change.

Now FOX News has been distorting Al Gore's statement, claiming in effect that he linked the Mynanmar cyclone directly to global warming. FOX conveniently left out the part where Gore said, "any individual storm can't be linked singularly to global warming."

This is exactly the sort of thing that Bill Moyers refers to when he says, "the media doesn’t allow complicated thought to be articulated in ways that enlighten instead of misinform people." The media, in this instance FOX News, tends to take and simplify complex scientific conclusions by isolating and presenting only those aspects of that issue that serve the story—or in some instances, only the aspects that support a particular political agenda. The end result is that the information being presented often contradicts scientific consensus.

By reporting only half of what Gore said—that science can identify trends in global climate change that are linked to an overall increase in the intensity of hurricanes—and then pretending to refute his statement with the part they omitted, and which they are now presenting as the totality of scientific opinion—that scientists cannot positively link the cause of single, specific storm to global warming—FOX gives the impression that scientists find no correlation between global warming and an increase of average hurricane strength. The end result is that their viewers end up believing that this debate, which is manufactured by the media and not truly present as such within the scientific community, is real. We see the same thing with the scientific theory of evolution, with the connection between global warming and human activity, and with the very existence of global warming.

Scientists Misrepresented in Global Warming Document

At least 45 of the 500 scientists named in The Heartland Institute's list of "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares" have expressed anger over being included in the list. The Heartland Institute did not seek the scientists' consent before creating the list nor did they inform the scientists that they would be cited in the document.

Here are some of the scientists' responses (taken from desmogblog):

"I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite."

—Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh

"I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there."

—Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University

"I don't believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article."

—Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

"I'm outraged that they've included me as an "author" of this report. I do not share the views expressed in the summary."

—Dr. John Clague, Shrum Research Professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Someone needs to tell Louisiana's Senate.

Senate Fails Louisiana's Children

The Advocate reports that, after a ten minute debate, the Louisiana senate approved a bill that challenges science teachers to "stray from traditional science theories, including evolution." The bill passed by a vote of 35 to 0—yes 35 to 0—which is an astounding measure of just how pathetically spineless (or how uninformed) our politicians really are.

The bill, which is has been pushed by The Louisiana Family Forum, now moves on to the house.

Earlier I posted that language directly challenging accepted scientific concepts such as evolution and global warming had been removed from the bill. The bill's proponents were initially accepting of this change, suggesting that the bill was never intended to be a direct challenge to those theories but rather a call for objectivity and spirited debate in science classes. Of course, that's never what it was about and predictably that language has been amended back into the bill:

In a key change, the Senate approved an amendment by Nevers that spells out examples of those theories, including evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.

That language was removed from the bill earlier this month at the request of critics before it was approved by the Senate Education Committee, which Nevers chairs.

The executive director of the Louisiana Family Forum, Gene Mills, later criticized that action, which he said took out “explicit expressions” in the bill needed to promote wide-open scientific discussions.

Nevers downplayed the significance of putting the words back in Monday.

Surprise, surprise.

While we're at it, why don't we supplement our children's education with the geocentrist argument? Better yet, let's just hold science classes at the nearest church. This, after all, solves two problems. First, we'd no longer have to bother with silly legislation that encroaches on science education and undermines our nation's constitution. And as an added bonus, this would free up a number of classrooms to be used by other departments in our overcrowded and underfunded public schools.

"A Debate About Debate"

Some state legislators are continuing to push a bill that could potentially undermine science education. Although references to evolution, human cloning, and global warming have been removed from the bill, the suggestion that science teachers might need help with "objectivity" is an affront to educators and to science itself. It's also misleading. Science is, by definition, objective. By allowing religion and religious debate to slip silently into science classrooms, this bill in fact threatens to shatter that objectivity.

This is not "a debate about debate," nor is this an issue of free speech. It is an assault on science education.

Why is it that science is the only subject in need of legislation to promote objectivity? When I think back to my own early education, I can remember one other subject in which objectivity was severely lacking: history. On topics ranging from Marx to Columbus, many of my history classes offered only half-truths and even pure fiction. History, as I remember it being taught, was first and foremost a history of wealthy, powerful, white men. It was a history of the west told from the perspective of the western elite—in service of the western elite. In short, it was propaganda and it was hardly objective.

And still, though I feel as if I was deceived by many of my history teachers, I would be opposed to any sort of legislation that regulates or micromanages history classes. Why? Because we shouldn't be playing political games with our children's education.

Science Miseducation

In a carefully worded (and largely uncritical) article, The Advocate reports that Louisiana Sen. Ben Nevers, D-Bogalusa, chairman of the Senate education committee, is sponsoring a bill that will undermine science education. The bill, which is an excuse to slip religion into science classes, is wrapped in talk of "scientific controversies" and the suggestion that students should "tackle different views." It's title is, of course, the "Louisiana Academic Freedom Act."

Nevers denies that this bill is about religion, but as the story points out, he was asked to sponsor the bill by the Louisiana Family Forum. The article vaguely describes the group as one "that promotes traditional family values," but fails to mention exactly what those "family values" are.

Here's what LFF's website says about the group:

• In 1998, having recognized the need for a family advocate in Louisiana, a group of pastors, policymakers, and concerned citizens came together to launch Louisiana Family Forum. Now in its ninth year, Louisiana Family Forum is proud of its growth, accomplishments, and the role it plays in public policy, family-strengthening initiatives across our state.

• Our Mission: To persuasively present biblical principles in the centers of influence on issues affecting the family through research, communication and networking.

• Our Core Values: God’s equal interest in all areas of human experience ... We believe there is no part of human experience that does not hold God’s intense interest. As Creator of humanity, He is fully and equally interested in the totality of that experience.

• 2000 Accomplishments ... Education: LFF’s Attorneys Resource Council recently hosted a Constitutional Issues in Public Education Seminar. Teachers, principals, and school board members learned about constitutional options for teaching the Bible in public school, balanced science and American history education, and the current status on prayer and other religious activities at our public schools. From LFF’s leadership it is expected that a number of school districts will soon begin offering a Bible as History and Literature high school elective course and will take advantage of the informative and free Origins Science Addendum that is now posted on LFF’s website to aid public school biology students and teachers.

• 2001 Accomplishments ... Secured state B.E.S.E. acknowledgement that the Bible as History and Literature course is subject to local School board approval. This Bible-based elective course was approved in 6 parishes, with activities in 30 other parishes.

The article also fails to question the assumption that evolution is a controversial issue among scientists. While evolutionary theory may itself evolve, evolution is supported by scientific consensus. Intelligent design, however, was ruled "a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory" in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.Similarly, the notion that global warming is highly controversial within the scientific community is also misleading. Most climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities.

Wouldn't it be nice if science teachers were actually allowed to teach science?