No, Al Gore did not say the recent cyclone in Burma was caused by climate change
No, Al Gore did not say that cyclone Nargis which devastated Burma was caused by climate change, he knows better than that. In fact he said the opposite, making it very clear that no individual whether event can be attributed to climate change. This is what he actually said:
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.
Of course that didn’t stop the Business and Media institute, Fox News and Drudge from claiming that Al Gore said that “cyclone Nargis was a ‘consequence’ of global warming”. They did this by splicing together, out of order, two segments of Gore’s interview with NPR to mislead the listener as to Gore’s actual meaning (see transcript bellow).
Perhaps the greatest intellectual dishonesty (aside from editing Gore’s comments to make them say something he didn’t) came from Fox news (shocking!) who in order to prove that Al Gore is out of touch with the science called upon discredited scientist William Gray.
[William Gray] whose beliefs are at odds with the scientific literature and the bulk of expert opinion when it comes to AGW. This is also the same William Gray who has previously stated that “Gore believe[s] in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews,” which gives you some indication of the objectivity of Gray as a reliable source on this topic.
But at Fox News, Gray gets presented without challenge as the scientific authority on the matter. This is complete intellectual dishonesty; if Fox wanted to promote the discredited views of Gray it could at least inform the audience that his views are at odds with the bulk of scientific opinion on this matter.
Is it any wonder that climatologists trust Al Gore more than the media on issues of climate change.
Actual transcript of Al Gore’s Interview on NPR with Terry Gross:
GROSS: 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.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment: Civil discourse only!
Please read the comment policy.
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Nice try, Dan. Gore’s verbose double-talk about this storm and the increase in “big storms” (like the Burma cyclone) clearly meant to connote that AGW is responsible. Please, Dan. We’re not all idiots. Didn’t you ever hear of “subtext”? “I’m not talking about Dolly Parton’s breasts when I mention her propensity to dress in clothes with plunging necklines. Honest!”
A good rule of thumb for the AGW hysterics is: Unusually bad weather (like hurricanes and typhoons, droughts and heatwaves) is evidence of AGW. Abnormally cool weather (too many examples to list) is evidence of normal climatic variation. Really.
And you think WE skeptics confuse climate with weather — two totally and completely (but utterly and profoundly) unrelated and wholly different things!
You still don’t understand do you.
There is an important difference between an individual storm and the trend towards more powerful storms, that you seem willful to ignore. Really it is basic statistics.
It is also worth noting that even a recent computer model trumpeted by deniers has reaffirmed the relationship between climate change and cyclones.
How can you say that when after virtually every instance of ‘bad whether’ people like Al Gore or climate scientists make it abundantly clear that no single whether event can be blamed on climate change. Perhaps this line has been repeated so often that you simply no longer notice it.
All Gore was saying is that an increased frequency of large powerful storms is one of the many possible consequences of climate change, and that is a statement that is well supported by a large body of science.
Perhaps the most telling aspect of you comment, however, is that you seem infuriated what Gore said (even though he didn’t say what you claim he did), yet seem unconcerned about the editing of Gore’s comments to make them say something he did not.
“You still don’t understand do you.”
I do. You don’t understand the concept of “implication.”
“How can you say that when after virtually every instance of ‘bad whether’ people like Al Gore or climate scientists make it abundantly clear that no single whether event can be blamed on climate change.”
I can say that because after every significant bad weather event (remember Hurricane Katrina? What about the drought — now over — in the American Southeast? How about 1998′s record warm year? How about Western Europe’s last heat wave? How about … well, you get the picture), AGW hysterics are there to cry “Proof of AGW!!!” Oh, of course, the best of them (like the Right Reverend Al Gore) are too smart to come out and say, “This particular weather event is PROOF of AGW.” Instead, they say, “Of course no one weather event can be attributed to AGW, but we can expect increased weather events SUCH AS THESE and we can expect them to increase in intensity.” That is, they are saying, Dan, that Katrina is just what we would expect of AGW. This is nothing more that a sly way of saying AGW caused Katrina — or the Burma cyclone — or what have you. For you to deny this is just … well … let’s just call it disingenuous. Just wait for the next weather catastrophe, Dan, and see what happens. I can predict the hysterics’ response better than the weathermen can predict tomorrow’s weather … or Al Gore can predict the 22nd century’s climate.
“All Gore was saying is that an increased frequency of large powerful storms is one of the many possible consequences of climate change.”
I know what he said. YOU know what he said. I also know what he implied. You cannot fathom that concept. Let me try this: Question the timing.
“Perhaps the most telling aspect of you comment, however, is that you seem infuriated …”
I am not infuriated, Dan. I am at a loss as to how you read that into my words. There is nothing in them to give any normal reader that impression. As a matter of fact, I am quite amused by your post, and I thought my amusement came through in my words (see especially the last sentence in my last comment). Why the trouble with implication? With me, you infer things that aren’t there, yet, with Al Gore, you are unable to infer clear implications that few others seem to have any difficulty with.
I know. I know. Heretics can be so infuriating.
One last thought, Dan. The skeptics would be a lot less likely to ridicule you folks with things like “snow in Buenos Aires proves there is no AGW or “cold April in North America proves there is no AGW” or “falling global temperatures since 1998 proves there is no AGW” or “falling ocean temperatures proves there is no AGW” or “snowiest winter ever in eastern Canada proves there is no AGW” or “coldest summer ever in Australia proves there is no AGW,” if the hysterics didn’t seem so quick to claim (or imply) proof of AGW with every drought, heatwave, hot summer, warm winter, tropical storm, or figgin’ spate of shark attacks that comes along.
Deny it if you will, but then I’ll call YOU the denier.
And guess what Gore and climate scientists said after everyone of those events? That’s right they said that no single whether event can be blamed on climate change.
While some people who accept the science of climate change, but have a poor understanding of it may have blamed individual weather event to climate change those (like Al Gore) who have an understanding of the issue have been very careful to explicitly state that that that is inappropriate.
Al Gore (and climate scientists) have been saying that the increasing frequency of large powerful storms is expected to rise due to climate change for years now. He has been saying this well before cyclone Nargis, even before Hurricane Katrina. He even explicitly stated (as he has done in the past) that no one can say that cyclone Nargis was caused by climate change.
Of course there is a link between strong powerful storms and climate change, that is what Al Gore said. But he also made it clear what that link is (an increasing frequency) and what conclusions were inappropriate (claiming that Nargis was caused by climate change).
But go ahead and put words in his mouth, or accept an edited version of his comments as truth, if it makes you happy. Just don’t expect to sit back and not point out the inaccuracies in the reporting of what Gore said.
I read that and I see that you still confuse the two. You confuse how they are related, and how they are not. Al Gore, on the other hand, showed with the comments in question that he does (at least in this context) understand the difference between the two.
But really at the end of the day this is nothing more than a tempest in a teapot. If climate change skeptics really want to challenge climate change they need to to a lot more than criticize Al Gore. They need to actually challenge the science, and so far that is something that has not been done.
I think I have figured out why you seem to be misguided on this issue. You frequently seem to confuse the popular argument for climate change (which is frequently wrong) with the scientific argument.
I have said this before but it bears repeating: “the evidence for climate change that is available to the casual person of interest, including most students, is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless. In other words, the popular argument for climate change is bullshit, independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.“
“In other words, the popular argument for climate change is bullshit, independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.“
You got that right. It’s bullshit because in all likelihood the science behind it is bullshit. This will become apparent to all — even Al Gore — soon enough.
But not you.
If it were bullshit, I would expect skeptics to to a better job of demonstrating it. Instead all they do is repeat the same old fully debunked talking points.
The fact is that criticisms of science have always come from within the scientific community, not from outsiders peddling in junk science and bogus statistics as is currently the case with climate change.
I have already told you what it would take for me to question the validity of climate change. Show me real debate in the scientific community (aka peer-reviewed) and I will begin to question climate change. I will even write about it here (assuming I am still blogging).