Fox News Hosts Criticize SpongeBob And Department Of Education Over 'Global Warming Agenda'

Steve Doocy and Gretchen Carlson aren't big fans of "SpongeBob SquarePants."

As MediaMatters reports, the "Fox & Friends" co-hosts on Wednesday attacked Nickelodeon, the network on which the show airs, for "pushing a global warming agenda."

"SpongeBob is talking a lot about global warming, and he's only looking at it from one point of view," Carlson said.

The criticism stems from a July 20 Department of Education event called "Let's Read! Let's Move!," which featured author Maya Soetoro-Ng (also President Obama's half sister), as well as NFL linebacker Chris Draft reading to students and encouraging them to exercise.

CNSNews.com, a conservative news site, reports that the students at the event received a book called "SpongeBob Goes Green! An Earth-Friendly Adventure."

UPDATE 4:56 p.m.

Justin Hamilton, press secretary at the U.S. Department of Education, told HuffPost that the Department of Eduction doesn’t generally provide the books, but rather corporate partners like Target, Nickelodeon and United Way make books available to kids.

“The kids get to pick whatever books they’re interested in,” he said. “We’re very happy that corporate sponsors have made good books available for kids to select and take home.”

Fox played a clip from what it said was a "SpongeBob SquarePants" cartoon shown to the students. The cartoon features the character Mr. Krabs saying, "Thanks to global warming, the temperature will soon go through the roof, and we'll have an endless summer."

Carlson said, "The government agency showed kids this cartoon and handed out books that blame man for global warming, but they did not tell kids that that is actually a disputed fact. Oops."

Doocey, her co-host, said:

"Clearly Nickelodeon is pushing a global warming agenda, and while there's no disputing the fact that the earth is getting a little warmer, the big question is, is it man made, or is it just one of those gigantic climactic phases that we're going [through]? ... For a while we're cold and then we get warmer and then we get colder and warmer, which one is it? There's science on both sides. There are a lot of scientists who say, 'It's this,' others say, 'It's that.'"

The Huffington Post's Tara Kelly recently reported on a study finding that conservative white men are most likely to "reject the scientific consensus on climate change."

A report featured in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic (human originating) climate change.

To be fair to the "Fox & Friends" hosts' concern over "SpongeBob SquarePants," Carlson admits that for her, the children's cartoon is "hard to follow sometimes."

UPDATE 3:53 p.m.

MediaMatters spoke to Tim Tuten at the Department of Education who said that no "SpongeBob SqaurePants" cartoons were shown during the July 20 event.

From MediaMatters:

"We've never shown any videos ever, so I have no idea where that is coming from," he said. Tuten added that participants were permitted to choose one of dozens of diverse books to take home with them and the SpongeBob book was one of those options.

WATCH the video courtesy of Media Matters:

SpongeBob SquarePants isn't the only animation to recently upset some conservatives. "Cars 2," which is currently in theaters, came under fire earlier this summer from critics who called the movie "left wing propaganda."

Comments

[realpolitic]

01:03 AM on 08/27/2011

"SpongeBob is talking a lot about global warming, and he's only looking at it from one point of view," Carlson said.

Ye. he's only looking at it from the scientific point of view.  SpongeBob is smarter than Gretchen and her other Fox News acolytes.

[HudsonSpeaks]

08:51 PM on 08/30/2011

D'oh! You stole my line. Yes they the one point of view they are presenting IS the scientific point of view. It is the same as the "teach the debate" talking point used by Intelligent Design proponents. By pretending there IS a debate on the topic, you start slowly wearing down the facts of the case.

Imagine if a child's cartoon had a character that mentioned how the Earth is round, and orbits the Sun...gosh I would love to see Fox and Friends tear that apart for its "ONE" point of view on the topic...

[realpolitic]

02:32 AM on 08/31/2011

Yes, great points and well said!

[HighInfoVoter]

10:30 PM on 08/11/2011

Carlson admits that for her, the children's cartoon is "hard to follow sometimes."

Poor Gretchen, can't even keep up with SpongeBob.

[Cayce58]

01:19 PM on 08/11/2011

It isn't a disputed fact. Scientific America magazine--"The debate is over. Its happening and its our fault."--2006 You deniers are arguing about a political issue. Science has already decided. In 2007, an article appeared in Newsweek magazine detailing Exxon Mobil's campaign to debunk the4 science. They publicly apologized for paying anyone with any PHD $10000 to write an article condemning the science. That's not science. OK I'm done. FRONT RIGHT HEADS IN SAND, NOW--PLEBES

[Publicola]

03:11 PM on 08/09/2011

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities­. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything... In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782

[Chris 1]

11:01 PM on 08/08/2011

Too bad nothing is settled regarding co2 causing warming;

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/

Don't tell the Aztecs human sacrifice doesn't improve crop results. It's about the same thing for liberals and central planning agw policy.

[ILoveFiction]

11:59 PM on 08/08/2011

If Jo Nova says it, it must be true.

That's a good skeptic.

[jimboy71]

12:32 AM on 08/17/2011

Do a little research on sacrifice...it DID improve crop results by reducing the amount of mouthes to feed. It also made wars less destructive by keeping people from sacking cities.

May seem barbaric to us, but the firebombing of Dresden and the camps weren't any too pretty either.

[Roadrun]

07:16 PM on 08/08/2011

So one is a cartoon .... and the other is entertainment for children.

[lrseidler]

05:48 PM on 08/08/2011

When I saw this clip of Rep. John Shimkus (Energy and Environmental Subcommittee), the Republican mindset became very clear...the Earth may seem doomed but don't worry because we have the ultimate protection...or so the Bible (written by HUMANS) promises.
http://scottbrophy.com/2011/03/19/what-me-worry/

[givemtheirwish]

03:10 PM on 08/08/2011

Talking of Sponge Bob, it was hilarious hearing Rev ALGORE, BS in Tea Leaf Reading, meltdown (unlike Arctic Ice Floes) at the Aspen Institute.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MgxEzQ5D64w

AGW is coming apart at the seems now. More scientists being investigated every month (as per Polar Bear fraudsters, sorry I mean eminent scientists et al).

BTW, for all Climate Realists you should have a look at the Hockey Schtick Blog. Some good stuff.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/08/more-priceless-quotes-from-al-gore-its.html

[chrisd3]

08:11 PM on 08/08/2011

"Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore Al Gore!"

When you have no science on your side, all that's left is to attack a politician.

[givemtheirwish]

08:16 PM on 08/08/2011

That's Rev ALGORE to you!!

[Cayce58]

12:58 PM on 08/11/2011

Attacking the messenger instead of the message means you have no message of your own.

[fumes]

09:37 AM on 08/08/2011

RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE HAPPENED BEFORE???

nooooooooooooooooooo.. only we can do that with trace additions of a trace gas!!!

or not:

Thank climate change for the rise of humans

05 August 2011 by Andy Coghlan

Grove found that the mean temperature changed suddenly on three occasions during the last 5 million years. Each change was equivalent to the difference between glacial and interglacial temperatures - but none of these episodes coincided with the hominin "golden age". What marked out this period was a greater range of recorded temperatures, suggesting it was a time of rapid but short-lived fluctuations in climate. Grove says such conditions would have favoured the evolution of adaptability that is a hallmark of the genus Homo (Journal of Archaeological Science, DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2011.07.002).

Grove says the classic survival traits of H. erectus, forged during this period of change, include teeth suited for generalised diets and a large brain - both of which should have been advantageous at a time of swift climate change.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128244.700-thank-climate-change-for-the-rise-of-humans.html?full=true&print=true

[qwert1234]

10:12 AM on 08/08/2011

Any particular reason the first sentence of both your post and your link are strawmen? And let me guess: because some of our current traits were selected for during times of rapid change in climate (which makes sense evolutionarily), rapid change in climate is good, or at least not problematic for our species anwyay? Does that about sum up your position?

[StephenBP]

06:58 PM on 08/08/2011

2 million pounds per second carbon dioxide actually gets us well out of the trace gas range.

Really, can't you come up with some arguments that are worth presenting?

Oh wait! That's right! You can't!

So is this the new conservative position? Let the climate go to hades and let God sort out who should survive? If it is, I take that as your tacit acknowledgement that rapid climate change may very well be under way and man is causing it.

Have a great evening.

[rfmaneater]

07:34 AM on 08/08/2011

I always knew that the people at Fox had a sponges in their head. I just never knew that it was SpongeBob.

[bobbythompson3333]

06:51 AM on 08/08/2011

Stop compaining, we know the Libs use children's shows to indoctrinate kids. Just look at that craaaap they've been putting on Sesame St for years

[palindrom]

08:03 AM on 08/08/2011

Yes; everyone knows that it goes 1, 2, 4, 7, 3 ... but the "Libs" won't tell them the truth!

[B Wood]

12:43 AM on 08/08/2011

I've taken notice more and more on how the "skeptics" operate so efficiently at spreading disinformation.

Just in the last week:

Roy Spencer publishes a paper in some backwater journal which his buddies at Heartland Institute trumpet as the silver bullet to kill the AGW hoax. Within days it is dubunked.

In the middle of the week, some bloggers tried to revive the disingenuo­us claim of polar bear populations recovering which Willie Soon tried to promote in 2008. The problem is they are comparing population data from when polar bears were freely hunted.

August 6, JoNova heralds a talk that Murry Salby makes to a conservative group that planetary temperatures drive CO2 versus human contributions. Tim Lambert and others readily show the weakness of this argument.

Today, good old Patrick Michaels cherry picks a study led by Robert Kaufmann regarding the lack of warming since 1998. The data, which is through 2008 recounts what has already been discussed a million times (extreme El Nino in 1998) and we all know that global temperatures this century account for most of the very highest since records have been kept. Kaufmann's analysis introduces the reality of China's massive increase in coal burning and related aerosols further restraining the pace of warming. Michael's research of course ignores the other factors and he instead crafts his discussion around these aerosols thereby enabling to raise questions as to why then would there be cooling in areas that the aerosols would not influence temperature.

[Robco1]

10:22 AM on 08/08/2011

Right out of the TASSC playbook. Great post, thanks!

[Poptech]

03:04 PM on 08/08/2011

Can you provide the peer-review paper "debunking" Dr. Spencers paper? I didn't think so.

[chrisd3]

08:13 PM on 08/08/2011

Let me see if I understand this.

Spencer's paper wasn't peer-rviewed, but you want a peer-reviewed refutation.

Does that about sum it up?

[B Wood]

11:14 AM on 08/09/2011

Can you find a peer review supporting Spencer?

http://www.livescience.com/15293-climate-change-cloud-cover.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback/

The paper is so pathetic, my guess is the only reaosn anyone evene critiqued it was in response to Heartland's publicity blitz.

[FormerReaganite]

12:05 AM on 08/08/2011

Sponge Bob replied; "Republicans' Tax-Cuts-For-The-Already-Wealthy have NOT stopped them from trying to poison us with these toxic wastes which they dump in our waters, right on top of us! (is this their idea of "trickle-down" eeeck-o-nomics?)"

[givemtheirwish]

03:15 PM on 08/08/2011

you know that you're only supposed to drink the libprog KOOL-AID twice a day???

[Mr K 90]

10:31 PM on 08/07/2011

Wow, it's just a kids' cartoon showing an exaggeration of a scientific concept in a cartoonish fashion. Fox News picks up on something that shows even a hint of science that they don't like and they attack it as left-wing propaganda.

[Junksciencecutecritters]

10:09 PM on 08/07/2011

Al Gore's propaganda no longer works on thinking adults, so now they're trying to brainwash children.

[chrisd3]

11:16 PM on 08/07/2011

As you know perfectly well, Al Gore only repeats what climate science says. If you want to refute climate science, you have to find some better science. But since there is none, your only option is to try to obfuscate with "Al Gore! Al Gore! Al Gore!"

Won't work. CAN'T work.

[FormerReaganite]

12:07 AM on 08/08/2011

Wait - you're expecting someone that believes in flying invisible pink unicorns to trust SCIENCE?

[givemtheirwish]

03:18 PM on 08/08/2011

"climate science" - I was about to say contradiction in terms & then realized that oxyMORON was more apt......................................

[B Wood]

06:47 AM on 08/08/2011

Gee, if Al is spreading propaganda, I wonder what you would call the information that flows out of this "distinguished" University?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/George_Mason_University

or this "think tank"

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

or maybe his closest counterpart on the deniliast side:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton

how about this esteemed denialist Senator?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/James_Inhofe

or his former sidekick?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Marc_Morano

I will admit that rational wiki is a little casual and irreverent in its approach, but after reading so many silly ad homs against Al Gore, it, by comparison, reads like the Oxford Dictionary.