Marc Morano Interview: “We may lose the war in the end”

May 30, 2012

I bumped into Marc Morano early on at last week’s Heartland Institute Denia-palooza. Much to my surprise, despite the fact I’ve lambasted him a number of times in videos,  he readily agreed to an interview. A fixture on the Fox News/right wing radio anti science circuit, former advisor to Senator James Inhofe, or as I like to call him, Senator “I’m not in denial but there have never been any gay people in my family” Inhofe, Morano touched on a variety of topics, but a particular message came thru, which he repeated in his address to the group later in the day.

That is, he does not trust Mitt Romney.

Well, there – something we have in common.

More than that, Morano expressed concern to me, and to the group, that the climate denial side could have won many battles but still “lose the war”, if the EPA is successful in promulgating CO2 regulations, and if Romney were elected and reverted to views he has claimed to hold in the past on climate change. (see post below)

There was quite a bit more to the interview, which I may post in coming days.

By the way, if you want to give Morano, and Heartland, even more to worry about, consider signing the “Push Button, Save Planet’ Petition from Climate Reality – which will send a message to President Obama, supporting the EPA’s regulation of carbon pollution.

51 Responses to “Marc Morano Interview: “We may lose the war in the end””


  1. Always interesting to me…the mentality that as a lay comment writer on a blog that you might have figured out something profound that somehow NASA and NAS and DOD and RAS and AGU and AIP and so on and so forth have all figured out: namely, that IPCC is right, and you should listen to climate scientists about climate the way you listen to your doctor about taking your medicine.


  2. Sebastian you hit the nail on head re your comment to listen to your doctor.
    I always listen to my doctor – then I research current and upto date data (my doctors did his degree many years ago)
    then I will seek a second opinion and if serious will go to a specialist for further clarification-
    finally I will then research alternative opinions as sometimes the medical treatment will do you more damage than the illness.
    Sounds to me like most warmists you are still at step one when you get to the final stage you will find your opinion will change.
    At the end of the day no science is proven its always up for challenge.
    Lastly if your belief is faith based ignore what I just said as you won’t be able to comprehend the concept of personal factual investigation..

    • MorinMoss Says:

      Most of us here do our research, in matters climatological and medical.
      The skeptics do have some interesting info, as do the alternative medical mags / blogs, and they frequently share the propensity of the alt.health media to be hog-awash, with their version of healing crystals, communing with spirits, chanting to increase wealth.

      I believe GreenMan also has a video on how to distinguish the facts from the blather; keep your eyes open for the pic of the old lady with the goat’s horn.

      • greenman3610 Says:

        you’re thinking of this one

        • jdouglashuahin Says:

          This video is another total CROCK. It is the alarmist that say the debate is over and in science the debate is never over, nor should it be. This smooth talking fool never heard of Professor Henrik Svensmark or the CLOUD experiment that was done in the CERN particle accelerator that proves Svenmark’s hypothesis and there has never been a test/experiment that has shown that CO2 contributes one damn thing to what the earth’s climate does, one way or the other. For the alarmist to make the types of claims that they do regarding CO2 with out ANY proof that it does what they claim is indeed fatuitous.

          Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over”.

          “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2”
          http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/svensmark-evidence-continues-to-build.html

          More sunspots, less cosmic rays, warmer earth. During the last 50 years or so, there have been record numbers of sunspots, low cosmic ray fluxes and somewhat higher temperatures. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html

          This is an interesting and informative site to visit:
          One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
          At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(According to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate.
          http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/05/01/science/earth/0501-clouds.html


  3. I am confused….. does he not believe in GW? or does he not believe in tackling GW with regulations.

    How can anyone (who reviews the data/science etc) not accept that the world is warming??????

    How can they not recognize that GHG do increase the temp of the earth?

    And how can they not accept the plain obvious fact that the GHGs increase is due to us.

    He has to at least accept that things are warming up at a clip….

  4. Jack Savage Says:

    I think one of the things you can rely on with Marc Morano is that he will talk to anyone!
    Until your ears bleed!

    This is not always true of supporters of catastrophic man-made CO2 driven global warming, who shy away from debate with people like Morano and Lord Monckton.

    Well done, Peter Sinclair, for listening to the other side.

  5. Jack Savage Says:

    “I am confused….. does he not believe in GW? or does he not believe in tackling GW with regulations.”

    He, like everyone who has informed themselves on the subject, will know that the world has warmed very slightly overall last century, and hardly, if at all, in this. He does not believe this needs tackling, and further, that we are not in a position to “tackle” it even if he did.

    “How can anyone (who reviews the data/science etc) not accept that the world is warming??????”

    See above. They do accept it. They differ about the cause, the extent, and the need if any to do anything about it.

    “How can they not recognize that GHG do increase the temp of the earth?”

    It is a question of by how much, what sort of multipliers may apply, and whether there may be positive or negative feedbacks.

    “And how can they not accept the plain obvious fact that the GHGs increase is due to us.”

    This “fact” is neither plain or obvious. The carbon cycle is far from fully understood. Over previous centuries carbon dioxide content of the atmos followed temps rather than vice versa.
    “He has to at least accept that things are warming up at a clip….”
    Not at the moment, they are not.

    • MorinMoss Says:

      Greenman, kindly permit me the honor.

      Jack Savage, perhaps you should watch this:

      • greenman3610 Says:

        beat me to it.

        • jdouglashuahin Says:

          Is doesn’t appear that Peter Sinclair takes the ocean cycles into consideration, among many other things with his total CROCK presentations about CO2. A red alert goes up when James Hansen’s name is mentioned. It is not strange that if it is a warm event then it is a sure sign of anthropogenic glob al warming but if it is cold event then it is only “weather”.

          “As water travels through the water cycle, some water will become part of The Global Conveyer Belt and can take up to 1,000 years to complete this global circuit. It represents in a simple way how ocean currents carry warm surface waters from the equator toward the poles and moderate global climate.” [The Global Conveyer Belt has suddenly stopped for several speculated reason in the past and caused dramatic and rapid climate changes always to the cold side; therefore, warm is preferable to cold any day]
          http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-water-cycle/

          Sea Level Rise: Still Slowing Down
          Back in the summer of 2009, we ran a piece titled “Sea Level Rise: An Update Shows a Slowdown” in which we showed that the much ballyhooed “faster rate of sea level rise during the satellite era” was actually slowing down.
          http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/07/sea-level-rise-still-slowing-down/

          Then the climate gate emails may just be why the alarmist views are deemed to be highly suspicious, since they are shown to be lying to cover their lies and where does that end?
          ClimateGate–see “outed” emails here

          http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/p/climategate_05.html

        • jdouglashuahin Says:

          In this flawed episode of “The “Temperature Leads Carbon” Crock: Updated” Peter Sinclair attempts to impress folks with his “science” by mentioning Milankovitch factors regarding the earth’s climate; such as Precession that has a 22,000 year cycle and Obliquity; change in angle from 22.1 to 24.5 degrees on a 41,000 year cycle and the 100,000 years Eccentricity cycle to, I guess, attempt to explain how it is possible that the climate events of the past such as ice ages and coming out of ice ages could have occurred with out any anthropogenic factor. He also attempts to claim that the warming of the atmosphere does not precede the rise in CO2.

          No where in this latest fiction series is there any mention of the Roman Warm period, the Medieval Warm Period, that was warmer than the present and lasting to about 1300, followed by the Little Ice Age, a period much colder than the present lasting through the early 1800’s. These are known climatic events that occurred and there is no anthropogenic bases for these events to have occurred; therefore, folks like Michael Mann and Peter Sinclair sure do not want to talk about them and that makes everything else that they maintain a lie based on that approach to the subject of global warming or climate change or what ever else they now want to call it.

          “The majority of climate deniers are unknowing pawns who have been manipulated by fear and ignorance to continually spread a few carefully crafted propaganda means. As I I’ve studied this debate the wonder has been, always and always, the depths of dishonesty and cynicism
          that are common practice among the paid professional denier community. Let’s continue to cut through the ignorance and spread the truth right here at climate denial Crock.” Peter Sinclair

          Who, Peter Sinclair, are is in this “paid professional denier community” and who is paying them? All this guy does is spread ignorance with out ever telling the truth if he doesn’t take into account all of the money that the paid alarmist community receives from the government and then to imagine that some how he erroneously believes that he is on a higher plane when in fact he is nothing but a liar, as is demonstrated by this last video. He could look at this video and get a look at how his dishonest heroes are thought of by Richard Muller.

          Climategate ‘hide the decline’ explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller

          • greenman3610 Says:

            Richard Muller? Hmm. You’ve not been doing your background reading. To participate in this discussion you must stay current.
            start here.

  6. Jack Savage Says:

    Er….I am not going to listen too hard or sympathetically to a video which suggests I am a dishonest , unknowing pawn. Whoever produced that video needs to have a quick fundamental course in how to communicate effectively if they wish to use it as a teaching aid to people with other views than their own.

    It has the tone of propaganda preaching to the already converted.

    However, I am quite prepared to concede that the carbon cycle is far from perfectly understood. The papers you refer to , however, suffer from a fundamental problem, obvious to the layman.
    See here; http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

    “We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2.”

    This is a fundamental logical fallacy.

    If that is your only fundamental disagreement with my observations, I shall graciously concede it. I would struggle to believe that the considerable amount of man-made CO2 was not having some effect of increasing the concentrations in our atmos, but the exact figures are by no means clear.

    Let us hope the present decade-long slow down ( some might even say cessation ) of global warming continues, as, the longer it does, the more likely it is that we have no need to fear our CO2 emissions.

    • greenman3610 Says:

      right. cover your eyes, plug your ears.
      It helps to say “na na na I can’t hear you”, as well.
      rather than respond to the video, and the mainstream scientific understanding, you dodge and change the topic.

      • Jack Savage Says:

        Did you actually read my post past the first line? I do not believe you did. I did watch the video.
        Are you saying, in a week when it has been revealed that there may be as many as 10,000 previously unknown undersea volcanoes, that the figures and the exact process of the carbon cycle are “settled?

        How exactly have I changed the topic?

      • jdouglashuahin Says:

        Since I suffered through 17:52 mins. of the trite trash presented in your video where you spend most of the time trying to redefine the meaning of two well defined by Webster words, trick & hide. It is a truly sad and disgusting display of dishonesty and shows that you only preach to the uneducated members of your idiotic choir. Speaking of education: You seem to make a point of trying to disparage Anthony Watts by mentioning that he is “only a high school graduate”. I know that you are not well enough read to realize that both Bill Gates and Steven Jobs were also “only high school graduates”; but, they some how knew something about computer science and while I do not know your level of education it is easy to see that you know nothing about the earth’s climate.
        Definition of TRICK
        a : a crafty procedure or practice meant to deceive or defraud
        b : a mischievous act : prank
        c : an indiscreet or childish action
        d : a deceptive, dexterous, or ingenious feat; especially : one designed to puzzle or amuse
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trick

        Definition of HIDE
        transitive verb
        a : to put out of sight : secrete b : to conceal for shelter or protection : shield
        b: to keep secret
        c: to screen from or as if from view : obscure
        d: to turn (the eyes or face) away in shame or anger
        http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hide

        • greenman3610 Says:

          right. so instead of answering the video, you flee to the dictionary.

          • jdouglashuahin Says:

            Is it possible that if you would have at least looked at the dictionary before you made this video, that you would not have made yourself look like such a disingenuous fool?

          • greenman3610 Says:

            You can call me anything you like.
            It’s more interesting if you actually answer the points I make in my videos, preferably with facts and sources.
            If you call names, make obscenities, or threats against other posters here, you will be banned.
            Other than that, post away.

      • jdouglashuahin Says:

        One is left to wonder at why after 1990 the MWP & LIA were accepted facts and then they needed to be done away with when it was noted by the alarmist that if these climatic events took place with out any anthropogenic influence, they were left with out their excuses to control the world’s energy supplies and glean enormous profits for a few at the expense of the masses to achieve their diabolical aims. Of course these few deceptive people claimed that they were trying to save humanity and the earth.
        “The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken

        The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick
        The rise of the so called Hockey Stick graph is pivotal to the story of the rise of the alarm about man made global warming.
        Until the 1990s there were many, many references in scientific and historical literature to a period labelled the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) lasting from about AD 800–1300. It was followed by a much cooler period termed the Little Ice Age. Based on both temperature reconstructions using proxy measures and voluminous historical references it was accepted that the Medieval Warm Period had been a period when global temperatures were a bit hotter than today’s temperatures. Until about the mid-1990s the Medieval Warm Period was for climate researchers an undisputed fact. The existence of the Medieval Warm Period was accepted without question and noted in the first progress report of the IPCC from 1990. On page 202 of that 1990 IPCC report there was the graphic 7c (see below), in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present.
        http://a-sceptical-mind.com/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick>

      • jdouglashuahin Says:

        Bad, Badder, BEST is an other dishonest attempt to make your weak point and at this stage one is at odds to define just what that point is. You do not want to spend much time on Dr. Muller’s “hide the decline” video because he makes it clear that dishonesty was prevalent to “make” these graphs show what they did. If his BEST report shows that the surface temperature increase is 1.2 C since 1900, so be it, and that is not hard to understand since the earth is recovering from the Little Ice Age and warming and that is good because warm is better than cold any day, as any life form will attest to, or haven’t you heard?

        In your pointless, based on fallacies, videos you mention the energy companies and seem to want to paint them as enemies of humanity. To take that ignorant stance paints you into the corner of the hypocrite, where you have lived most of your life, I fear.

        “Figure 2: Net Generation Shares by Energy Source: Total (All Sectors),
        Year-to-Date through March, 2011”
        (The pie chart shows this): “Coal, 44.7%; Natural Gas, 20.6%; Nuclear,20.5%; Hydroelectric Conventional, 8.4%; Other Energy Sources, 5.2% and Petroleum .8%”
        http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html

        This is somewhat dated and now the amount of electricity produced by coal has dropped and the cost of electricity has risen and I assume that is what you want, but notice that most of your electricity comes from carbon based fuels and for transportation almost 100% is from carbon based fuels, even the worthless electric cars, what few there are, need fossil fuels to recharge them. The solar and wind extravaganzas produce not enough power to mention.

        “FAIL. Obama’s Favorite Green Energy Success Story – Spain – Halts All New Renewable Energy Projects”
        Posted by Jim Hoft on Saturday, April 7, 2012, 11:16 AM
        http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/fail-obamas-favorite-green-energy-success-story-spain-halts-all-new-renewable-energy-projects/

        There is one example where green energy has been made to work:
        “Here’s an example of my favorite kind of solar power investment — a project that deploys and utilizes solar not (just) to take advantage of tax credits or to make political hay, but because solar could well be a cheaper solution.

        I’m talking about Chevron’s newly launched field of solar concentrating mirrors installed in an old oil field in Coalinga, Calif.
        This isn’t the first time oil companies have used solar to make steam, but it is the biggest.
        And the best part: no U.S. taxpayer money on the line.”
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/10/04/chevron-uses-solar-power-to-steam-oil-out-of-california-field/

        I know you have never heard of this or so many other things that are actually happening in the real world that goes on while you attempt to prove that this ubiquitous, odorless, colorless, and benign trace gas essential for life on earth, CO2, that makes up .037% of the earths atmosphere and is 1 & 1/2 times heavier than that atmosphere is responsible for what the earth’s climate does, unbelievable.

        Carbon dioxide is one and one half times heavier than “air”. This point was sadly proven on Aug, 21, 1986 when Lake Nyor in Cameroon released about 1.6 million tons of CO2 that spilled over the lip of the lake and down into a valley and killed 1,700 people within 16 miles of the lake. “Carbon dioxide, being about 1.5 times as dense as air, caused the cloud to “hug” the ground and descend down the valleys where various villages were located. The mass was about 50 metres (164 ft) thick and it travelled downward at a rate of 20–50 kilometres (12–31 mi) per hour. For roughly 23 kilometres (14 mi) the cloud remained condensed and dangerous, suffocating many of the people sleeping in Nyos,Kam,Cha,andSubum.
        “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L…
        This coincides with the above fact about CO2:
        ppm of CO2 with altitude and mass of CO2 in atmosphere to 8520 metres beyond which there is practically no CO2
        http://greenparty.ca/blogs/169/2009-01-03/ppm-co2-altitude-and-mass-co2-atmosphere-8520-metres-beyond-which-there-practic

  7. Jack Savage Says:

    Phew! Well argued.

  8. jdouglashuahin Says:

    Peter Sinclair continually brings up the energy industries and makes them out to be villains while they improve his life as well as everyone else’s that is able to access their products. You seem to imply that the fossil fuels industries needs to finance the skeptical of anthropogenic global warming scientific entities to protect themselves from what? At present and far into the future, there is nothing that will replace fossil fuels; therefore, why would these industries that spend huge sums of capital on research and development to find and develop new reserves and forms of energy need to spend anything to counteract this hoax known as anthropogenic global warming?
    What has your radical band of “alarmist” done to improve anyone’s lives, other than the ones that are perpetuating this hoax to line their own pockets, done to benefit humanity?

    I doubt that you have ever wondered about Al Gore’s Occidental Petroleum holdings that go way back in his family:
    “Environmentalists and human rights activists are accusing Vice President Al Gore of hypocrisy over his shareholding in Occidental Oil, a company that plans to drill in Colombia’s rainforests over the objections of local indigenous communities .”
    http://www.democracynow.org/2000/1/21/gore_attacked_over_ties_to_occidental

    Or ask why RK Pachauri is still a director of GloriOil:
    GLORI ENERGY INC.
    Dr. R.K. Pachauri,
    Title: Director General — TERI
    http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/120120/Glori-Energy-Inc_S-1.A/h84810a3exv4w3.htm

    Or bring up how Shell and BP founded CRU in 1972.

    You, I’m sure, totally support this position below:
    “The First Global Revolution [1991], published by the Club of Rome, A globalist think tank
    “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….all these dangers a caused by human intervention…The real enemy is humanity itself”

    As for myself, I firmly believe that the energy companies have done far more for the enhancement of my life, as well as those that I care about, than what the Club of Rome has ever done.

  9. jdouglashuahin Says:

    Since this started off about Marc Morano and The Heartland Institute and Peter Sinclair appears to be of the opinion that no one nor anybody should ever question his bogus believe about anthropogenic global warming and if they do they must have something wrong with them to not go with the herds of sheep that seem to be taken in by this nonsense.
    “Skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the unpardonable sin.” Huxley

    Then these same fools say that the debate is over when in actual science the debate is never over and any scientist knows that.
    “The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement” — Karl Popper

    It seems that Peter Sinclair is so worried that the energy companies, or the Koch brothers are putting dollars into The Heartland’s coffers. It appears that now he is even worried that the old Chinese woman with the goat’s horn will be sending over Chinese RMBs (Yuan) or the tooth fairy will empty the sack of quarters at the Heartland’s door step instead of on Greenpeace’s golden threshold.
     Entity
    USD
    Greenpeace
     $300m
     2010 Annual Report
    WWF
     $700m
     ”  ($524m Euro)
    Pew Charitable Trust
     $360m
    2010 Annual Report
    Sierra Club
     $56m
    2010 Annual Report
    NSW climate change fund (just one random govt example)
     $750m
     NSW Gov (A$700m)
    UK university climate fund (just another random govt example)
    $360m
    UK Gov (£234 m)
    Heartland Institute
    $7m
     (actually $6.4m)
    US government funding for climate science and technology
     $7,000m
     “Climate Money” 2009
    US government funding for “climate related appropriations”
    $1,300m
    USAID 2010
    Annual turnover in global carbon markets
    $120,000m
    2010 Point Carbon
    Annual investment in renewable energy
    $243,000m
    2010  BNEF
    US government funding for skeptical scientists
    $ 0


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: