Marc Morano -vs- Bill Nye on CNN tonight

UPDATE: video added below.

Tonight CFACT’s Marc Morano vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy CNN, Piers Morgan
9 PM EST

Marc Morano, Editor in Chief of Climate Depot, takes on Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Piers Morgan show, CNN 9 PM tonight (Tuesday) check your cable TV and satellite listing for Channel numbers

If you haven’t yet seen Marc in action, don’t miss this chance to see him live. Maybe he will ask about this video fiasco Nye did with Al Gore: 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-fail-files/gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment/

Why did they have to fake the experiment in post production if it was “high school science’ and so easy to replicate? Why hasn’t Nye called for this video to be removed from Gore’s website? (Still there over a year later) at http://climaterealityproject.org/video/ very first one top left.

Transcript at Newsbusters here

About these ads
This entry was posted in Announcements and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Marc Morano -vs- Bill Nye on CNN tonight

  1. Robert M says:

    Good Luck Mark,

    Don’t forget that it will be two against one, and that the other is not at all reluctant to interrupt and shout you down.

  2. Robert M says:

    Whoops, Should have said Marc, not Mark.

  3. Merrick says:

    I actually sent an e-maill to Dr. Nye asking him to publicly comment on the experiment. He never replied. I’m giving him a few more weeks, then adding it to his Wikipedia page. Liberals HATE to be called out.

  4. P. Solar says:

    Oh, I’d like to see that. If someone sticks it on youtube be sure to post a link

  5. Don says:

    Sorry, can’t watch piers. I’ll wait for the Cliff Notes version…

  6. Rosco says:

    Here is some basic flawed science

    SkepticalScience says : “when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).”

    This is of course utter rubbish !

    The moron that wrote this obviously does not understand that the data is presented in the form of a lunar day divided into 24 hours.

    Factor in that a “lunar” hour as shown in the data is ~29.5 Earth hours and you see a completely different picture of a heated surface radiating into a vacuum and at an extraordinarily slow rate may I say !

    For example, from the lunar noon to sunrise is ~ 531 Earth hours and the temperature falls from ~390 K to ~100 K – hardly “plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C”.

    It is actually a very slow rate of cooling – about 0.5 K per hour averaged as climate scientists love to do – especially when compared to convective cooling here on Earth.

    From lunar sunset to lunar sunrise is ~ 354 Earth hours and the temperature falls from ~ 220 K to ~ 100 K – again an incredibly slow rate of cooling at about 0.34 K per hour.

    Even from lunar noon to lunar sunset the temperature drops from ~ 390 K to ~ 220 K in ~170 hours – the fastest observed yet a mere 1 K per hour.

    From lunar sunrise to lunar noon the temperature climbs from ~100 K to ~ 390 K in ~170 hours – almost twice the fastest cooling rate observed.

    No matter how you read the data the Moon radiating its heat to the vacuum of space cools very slowly – in a 12 hour night the Earth is never going to lose much energy at the rates observed on the Moon.

    It is absurd beyond belief to ignore the rate of rotation about the axis of the Earth as the most significant factor in explaining why the surface is warmer than the blackbody figure – the data from the Moon proves this conclusively !

    I can put near boiling water in my freezer and have ice in ~ 8 – 10 hours at only minus 15 C and water has a higher thermal capacity than Moon regolith not to mention latent heat of freezing – proof that conduction/convection cool surfaces much faster than radiation alone – its also why they put the fan in the oven, use fans to cool engine radiators etc etc.

    Why would the Earth lose “heat” to space faster than the Moon ?

    In 12 hours a 1 K per hour rate of cooling doesn’t seem to be any problem at all – bring it on.

    Which brings me to that other fraudulent claim seen everywhere.

    Space is cold. This is claimed to support the atmosphere acts like a blanket keeping us warm analogy.

    Firstly it is absurd to associate physical properties like temperature of hot or cold to something that has no substance at all – a vacuum !

    I am amazed people with PhDs can make such ludicrous claims.

    Space is only as “cold” as the radiation traversing a particular area – true the minimum observed is a few W/sq m but this is not any sort of constant.

    It is absurd beyond belief to claim that near Earth orbit space is “cold” when it is literally “bathed” is solar radiation powerful enough to heat planetary surfaces to ~ 390 K. The only place to avoid it is in the shadow of the Earth or the Moon.

    Lastly there is the observed fact that every planet in our Solar System that has a substantial atmosphere has a temperature at 1 bar that is higher than the temperature calculated by the Stefan-Boltzmann law of blackbody radiation – even an atmosphere of almost completely hydrogen and helium.

    I consider this proof that to not consider the pressuer – temperature relationship of gases as significant is another area where climate science is wrong.

    After all – if their theory is right Jupiter for example should not be “hotter” than 110 K yet at even 0.1 bar atmospheric pressure it is 112 K and 165 K at 1 bar – http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html

    Pretending the Sun shines 24 hours a day at one quarter power, that space is “cold”, the Earth responds like a blackbody and other misuse of science is why I don’t believe in the Greenhouse effect.

  7. Nicole says:

    Marc Morano has no climate science expertise…

  8. Anthony Watts says:

    @nicole neither does bill nye

  9. ATheoK says:

    It is an absurd travesty. Both the interview host and Bill Nye are incapable of understanding science versus personal opinions.

    Interview host just claimed that Sandy was the worst hurricane to ever hit New York…

    Sorry, It’s hard to stomach ignorant belief and rant against science.

    Oh yeah, the host stops Morano when he tries to interrupt Nye; but Nye is allowed to interrupt Morano. Only by Morano raising his voice and overriding Nye in his attempts to interrupt have kept Morano’s point on target.

    Now Nye is describing future disaster.

  10. RobW says:

    Boy did they ever try to shout him down but he still got the main points out even in the face of blatant poor journalism.

  11. Nicole says:

    Rephrase: Marc has NO SCIENCE expertise…

  12. nightwriter says:

    Just watched this – man, that Marc Morano doesn’t do his argument any favors by being such an aggressive, rude jerk. He basically just spazzed out for about ten minutes. He needs to settle down and make his points with logic instead of anger.

  13. D Böehm says:

    Nicole says:

    “Marc has NO SCIENCE expertise…”

    And how would you know that?

    Post your CV and peer reviewed pubs here, Nicole, so we can see if you are fit to judge.

  14. Richard M says:

    Notice the pictures of destruction during the debate (?) … a clear set up with Piers repeating the precautionary principle like a complete idiot. Bill Nye is obviously completely clueless on the facts, all he could do was tick off propaganda nonsense repeatedly.

  15. chris y says:

    Well, I just watched Morano eviscerate Bill Nye on CNN. Piers jumped in at the end with an ‘insightful parry’ by accusing Marc of stating opinions instead of facts. That is, of lying. This helps explain why CNN’s ratings are circling in the bowl.

    Bill Nye has become such an embarrassment that I feel only pity for him. He may be a good choice to replace Rajendra Pachauri as head of the IPCC, although he is way overqualified with his undergrad degree in Mech Eng from Cornell.

  16. Greg Goodknight says:

    Bill Nye… do you deny that CO2 in the atmosphere was as much as five times the modern amounts back when our earliest mammalian ancestors were scurrying about the Triassic park?

    Another glaring bit of BS was Nye’s assertion that the Roman and Medieval Warm Periods were only in western Europe. Hasn’t that been demolished enough for the likes of Nye to have heard? The last time I’d paid attention, confirming signals have been detected on every continent.

  17. kuhnkat says:

    Nicole,

    if what Bill Nye has is Science Experience it easily explains all the Junk Science infesting the periodicals and universities today.

  18. r murphy says:

    Poor Bill Nye, made to look so incompetent by Piers let alone Marc. Sadly this passes as modern scientific discourse. Sound bites. Agenda.

  19. Alvin says:

    Nye is just going to knock all the chess pieces over and crap on the board.

  20. ianrs says:

    Nye is so out of touch with recent data that his efforts were embarrassing.

  21. DGH says:

    The “Science Guy” tells us that it’s the rate of CO2 increase not the absolute concentration that causes concern about global warming. Huh?

  22. Alvin says:

    I would say that Marc has a wider range of experience in science than Nye does. He follows all leads to their natural ends. Nye just pushes all his to one end.

  23. Merrick says:

    “I consider this proof that to not consider the pressuer – temperature relationship of gases as significant is another area where climate science is wrong.

    After all – if their theory is right Jupiter for example should not be “hotter” than 110 K yet at even 0.1 bar atmospheric pressure it is 112 K and 165 K at 1 bar – http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/jupiterfact.html

    The pressure-temperature relationship for gases holds for an ADIABATIC gas. Planetary atmospheres are not adiabatic systems.

  24. OssQss says:

    I applaud Marc for his performance.

    The circumstances were challenging, but the info conveyed by his effort is incontrovertible.

    Fact,,,,,, Nice Job Marc!

  25. DGH says:

    Thanks to Piers for allowing equal time between Bill Nye and Marc Marano.

    That said, it was two against one with Piers advocating the alarmist view. Was he among the 28 or did he just read the transcript?

  26. Juan Slayton says:

    Nye and Morano fought it out hand to hand. But there was artillery (in the form of graphics) in the theatre, under Morgan’s control, and registered against Morano. Popping up a US map showing a gazillion local temperature records, for example. Uninitiated viewers will remember that map long after they have forgotten any of the dialogue. The only way to counter is to have some artillery of your own. Morano could have demolished the impression of that map, if he had any way to respond with graphics of his own showing long term weather trends.

  27. Nicole says:

    @D Boehm- It doesn’t take my CV or anyone’s to find the credentials of a public figure. FACT: Marc has a degree in political science
    @Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.

    Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Ask a scientist.

  28. Joezee says:

    Nicole, how about using your own brain to think things through.

    Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Novum Organum:

    With regard to authority, it is the greatest weakness to attribute infinite credit to particular authors, and to refuse his own prerogative to time, the author of all authors, and, therefore, of all authority. For, truth is rightly named the daughter of time, not of authority. It is not wonderful, therefore, if the bonds of antiquity, authority, and unanimity, have so enchained the power of man, that he is unable (as if bewitched) to become familiar with things themselves. (aph. 84)

  29. D Böehm says:

    Nicole,

    An airhead would of course use worthless ad hominem attacks just like you have been doing. You cannot post any evidence showing that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, because there is no such empirical evidence. So lacking scientific facts, you do your drive-by ad-hom attacks. It’s all you’ve got. You impress nobody here, you only expose your airhead anti-science.

    And FYI, there are plenty of published, peer reviewed scientists who write articles here and who comment here — and who disagree with your emotional, content-free opinion. So get over your hot flashes, and start posting some verifiable facts for a change. If you can.

  30. Juan Slayton says:

    Nicole: To some degree I agree with your point. But you should be taking your complaint to CNN and Piers Morgan. They’re the ones who chose the participants.

  31. Mark T says:

    The pressure-temperature relationship for gases holds for an ADIABATIC gas.

    Sigh…
    Mark

  32. Fred says:

    …..let me guess Nicole, are these the same ‘scientists’ that work in the ‘settled sciences’….you know, where the scientific method is treated as an inconvenience, nothing more? good luck with your carbon footprint & your global warming….um er…oops i guess it’s not warming…hey everybody…the climate!…it can’t change anymore!…stop the change….quick!…somebody….get the ‘scientists’!

  33. starzmom says:

    Nicole–I DO look to scientists, not politicians or news media. Just reading this site with all the scientists and engineers that frequent this space and post here is an education. And having a degree is NOT the only thing–it’s understanding the issues. At my university, the overwhelming majority of professors spend way too much time spouting off on stuff that is not in their field of expertise. Why should I believe them on climate science?

  34. Don Worley says:

    Nicole says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    “Do you people go to your politicians for a medical?”

    No, but my doctor doesn’t prescribe chemotherapy for a cold either.

    Medical practice uses rigorous testing.

    Climate models fail to diagnose anything, and would be rejected by the AMA as a diagnostic tool.

    Furthermore, climatologists do not have the credentials to engage in politics or economics, and yet they continue to try.

  35. Mark T says:

    @Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.

    So what. My engineering PhD is bigger than Bill Nye’s engineering BS. I guess, by your logic, that makes me more right than him, ergo, Bill is wrong. Wow, amazing how easy that was.

    Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Splain to me how this works again?

    Ask a scientist.

    Why? I’d prefer to look at the data myself. The people that appear on interviews are only reciting sound bites. I can judge for myself which of them is correct. Hint: it ain’t Nye.

    Mark

  36. OssQss says:

    Nicole says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    @D Boehm- It doesn’t take my CV or anyone’s to find the credentials of a public figure. FACT: Marc has a degree in political science
    @Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.

    Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Ask a scientist.

    ——————————————————————

    Fact, I am not a scientist, but I can see the facts as we know them to date and they don’t add up to an alarmist position.

    Plain and simple. If you dig a bit, the deficiencies of our understanding of climate becomes very apparent.

    The role of “clouds” and “cloud creation” is just one small example.

    I don’t think we have any clue as to how the “”Umbrella Principle”” works.on a global scale.

    Food for thought, if you will >>>>>>>>>>>

    Anthony,,,,,,, the next WUWT-TV interview?

  37. John F. Hultquist says:

    Nicole says:

    Then there are these folks:
    John Harrison was a self-educated English clockmaker.
    Albert Einstein worked at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.
    Isaac Newton practiced the art of alchemy.

    There are others, but what is the question?

  38. LazyTeenager says:

    Roscoe says
    Firstly it is absurd to associate physical properties like temperature of hot or cold to something that has no substance at all – a vacuum !

    I am amazed people with PhDs can make such ludicrous claims.
    ———-
    Sorry Rosco but that’s not quite right.

    Temperature can be defined by the average of the random kinetic energy of the particles within the space in question. For a vacuum those particles are the photons left over from the big bang. Temperature around 4K.

    The solar radiation passing through the space is not counted as it is directional- not randomized (aka not thermalised).

    That solar radiation will only be manifest as heat after it is absorbed by something.

  39. trafamadore says:

    Wow. Bill Nye against a shouting jerk. Impressive.

  40. Werner Brozek says:

    You can see about half of the 12 or so minutes here:
    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/05/pmt-science-guy-morano.cnn

    I expect a repeat in about 1.5 hours from now.

  41. D Böehm says:

    trafamadore,

    Sometimes shouting is necessary. For example, when it’s two against one.

  42. LazyTeenager says:

    DGH on December 4, 2012 at 6:27 pm
    The “Science Guy” tells us that it’s the rate of CO2 increase not the absolute concentration that causes concern about global warming. Huh?
    ———–
    Wild guess here but he could mean that the biosphere has time to adapt via evolution if the time scale was longer.

    I would say the bugs are going to be ok cos they can adapt on the 10 to 10k time scale. Big mammals maybe on the 10k to 100k time scale.

    I’d say the current rate of change favours the bugs.

  43. cjames says:

    I cannot believe the attacks on the poster named Nicole for stating a simple undeniable fact that Marc Morano has no science expertise. Also, I have seen him in action several times and I agree with nightwriter that he is “an aggressive, rude jerk”. That doesn’t mean that what he says about AGW is wrong, I just believe he does skeptics no favors with his debating skills. It is too bad the show did not chose a better spokesman for the skeptics side…but then when does the MSM ever chose the best spokesman?

  44. Mark T says:

    Temperature can be defined by the average of the random kinetic energy of the particles within the space in question. For a vacuum those particles are the photons left over from the big bang. Temperature around 4K.

    That’s the effective temperature, which is the average over a unit volume, not the average per unit of the medium, as “temperature” is normally defined (for purposes of determining “cold” and “hot”).

    You’re smart enough to know this, which is probably why you said “can be defined” knowing full well there is a difference.

    Mark

  45. jorgekafkazar says:

    The pressure-temperature relationship for gases holds for an ADIABATIC gas.

    Mark T says: “Sigh…”

    Well, it is called the adiabatic gas law, innit, Mark?

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/lectures/node53.html

  46. LazyTeenager says:

    Rosco says
    I consider this proof that to not consider the pressuer – temperature relationship of gases as significant is another area where climate science is wrong.
    ———
    Rosco while I thought your moon temperature argument interesting, if unverifed, this pressure thing is wrong.

    The vertical temperature –profile– in an atmosphere is determined by convection, but that profile is —scaled—- by the surface temperature.

    If the surface temperature is higher the atmospheric temperature will be higher. For Jupiter there may not be a well defined surface but the core is believed to produce a lot of heat. This could affect the temperature of Jupiter’s atmosphere.

  47. Werner Brozek says:

    One point that Marc Morano made was that there was no warming for 16 years. Bill Nye did not dispute this, but said that the last two decades were the warmest decades. They were, but when you compare 1923 to 1943 with 1993 to the present, the average for each two decade period goes up from -0.16 to + 0.36. This is an increase of 0.52 over 70 years or 0.74/century. I see nothing to get alarmed about.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1900/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1923/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1993/trend

  48. D Böehm says:

    cjames,

    The objection was to Nicole’s purely ad hominem comment. She did nothing to refute anything, she simply fell back on the discredited tactic of attacking the man. Therefore, she deserved what she got.

    Honest, factual scientific arguments are always welcome at WUWT. Ad-hom attacks, not so much.

  49. Mark T says:

    Well, it is called the adiabatic gas law, innit, Mark?

    Um, yeah, but there’s so much more than “it doesn’t hold” (paraphrased) in our atmosphere.

    Mark

  50. E.M.Smith says:

    @Nicole:

    I’ll take a rational explanation of the data from a sound mind over any number of degrees and credentials. When Nye makes a few dozen “stupid rookie” blatant errors of fact and logic per show, it pretty much paints him as “clueless”. So here’s the deal: You listen. You compare their data to the available data. You compare their logical steps to the most logical steps. You note who makes the most obvious errors. And, you look for who makes “argument to authority” logic errors and who makes “argument to the person” logic errors (and all the other things the Warmers do with great regularity). It become pretty clear who thinks clearly (skeptics) and who does not (but parrots talking points well – warmers).

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/11/23/bill-nye-the-science-fruit-loop/

    My ‘rant’ after an earlier Bill Nye on CNN dollop of mindless prattle.

  51. Thanks for letting us know, Anthony.
    I watched the “interview”; Two against one and still Marc was able to hold his place, but just barely (IMHO). It was really a silly inquisition, not an interview.

  52. OssQss says:

    trafamadore says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm

    Wow. Bill Nye against a shouting jerk. Impressive.
    _________________________________

    How green does this look?

    Just sayin…………….

    http://corp.geostellar.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/geostellar-obama-solar.jpg

    For that matter,,,,,,this,,,,, times millions and can’t even support 10% of estimated need?

    http://aviewfromtheright.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/wind-turbine-generators-palm-springs-california.jpg

    Bonus from MIT….

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/climate-wind-0312.html

    Gnight>

  53. Fred says:

    cjames…..what would you propose he do exactly when the host sides with the other participant of the ‘debate’ and allows him to interrupt the other side but not vice versa. Nye is an insult and an incompetent enbarassment to the rest of us with an iron ring.

  54. RobW says:

    Perhaps slightly OT but please have a look at this public opinion response to the UN “call to arms” at Doha. The first post says it all. The tide has definitely turned.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/12/04/un-global-warming-ban-ki-moon.html#socialcomments

  55. Reg Nelson says:

    trafamadore says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm
    Wow. Bill Nye against a shouting jerk. Impressive.

    **************

    Fair enough, trafamadore , can you intelligently dispute any of the claims made by Marc. Or are you just another “shouting jerk”?

    Bill Nye couldn’t. Can you?

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/12/05/pmt-science-guy-morano.cnn

    Let’s hear your rebuttal to the points Marc made.

  56. Gunga Din says:

    D Böehm says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:01 pm
    Nicole,

    An airhead would of course use worthless ad hominem attacks just like you have been doing. You cannot post any evidence showing that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming, because there is no such empirical evidence. So lacking scientific facts, you do your drive-by ad-hom attacks. It’s all you’ve got. You impress nobody here, you only expose your airhead anti-science.

    And FYI, there are plenty of published, peer reviewed scientists who write articles here and who comment here — and who disagree with your emotional, content-free opinion. So get over your hot flashes, and start posting some verifiable facts for a change. If you can.
    =======================================================================
    What did Nicole say when Bill Nye blew in her ear?
    “Thanks for the refill!”

  57. E.M.Smith says:

    Well, it finally made it to the West Coast… Piers Morgan was clearly 100% engaged with the Warmers point of view. 2 on 1.

    With that said, Marc could have been a bit less ‘shouty’ and a bit more ‘polite authority’. He won on facts and truth, but lost on ‘sounds believable and authoritative’..

  58. richardK says:

    Hey Marc, way to go buddy, you made the “Science Guy” look good. Maybe if you spoke faster you would get to more people. You lost to Piers Morgan and the science idiot at the same time. I am on your side but for Christ’s sake get some sleep before you turn into a rabid animal who needs to be shot.

  59. trafamadore says:

    Reg Nelson says: “Fair enough, trafamadore , can you intelligently dispute any of the claims made by Marc. Or are you just another “shouting jerk”?”

    Thank you for the “Fair enuf”

    SHOUTING ON THE INTERNET IS LIKE THIS!
    Or using bold or colors. Very tacky, reminds me of my great grandmothers wall paper and cheesy little B/W reprints in metal frames on the wall of the staircases.

    So, no, I do not shout.

    Nye is a soft spoken guy who talks about things and Morano was shouting over him like a jerk. Nye was sitting back, and it was only the moderator who directly challenged Morano. Nye gets his chance to speak often enuf, tonight wasnt it was it? From V for Vendetta: “Words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth.”

    My take on this is like the argument on creationism. Anti science, or selective science, is not for a debating club audience, and both sides are really not equal. The facts, alll of them, need to be out in the open, and evaluated. You can’t do that when someone is shouting selective data to say the earth temperature hasnt risen in 16 years. And debating web site “data” and news articles against peer reviewed science is silly. Conjecture and opinion against reality? Really? Reality wins, no debate necessary. Do you think scientists at meetings have “debates”. No they do not. They present papers and walk away irritated. At least that’s my experience. Okay, we sometimes have testy conversations over beer and wine. But polite…we are very polite. (We might be wrong, you know)

    “intelligently dispute”? Well the stupid “16 years with no warming” is one that is tiresome.
    Because, the “16″ is cherry picked to be exactly on the 98 El Niño. If you use 17 years or 15 years, it doesn’t work. Not only that, but you can only use one data set; most others still show warming. If your answer is that, “Well, that is true for that particular time interval, and you can not argue with it” , then I say you are using a lie to mislead people. Sadly, I think that is the objective for many.

  60. John Game says:

    In my view the stupidest comment by any of the three on Piers Morgan was when Piers himself tried to link the recent rainstorms in California on AGW. This is ridiculous, since there was nothing out of the ordinary about Northern California getting five to ten inches of rain in four days. It used to happen routinely in the 1980s, BEFORE anyone was into AGW and BEFORE the warming of the nineties occurred. The truth is, we get, if anything, less of these storms than we did before the nineties warming, so how could a good old fashioned storm be evidence that warming is increasing? Its just typical Californian winter weather and not all that extreme by our standards – Guerneville did not even go under water :).

  61. Marian says:

    “Nicole says:

    Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Ask a scientist.”

    For that reason. Some of the socalled Iconic Alarmist Climate scientists have far less scientific qualifications in various fields of science and in particular some of them have actually ZERO scientific qualifications in Climate or meteorology for that matter and yet, they get to be Climate Scientists. LOL.

    Meanwhile the Non Alarmist ‘evil’ skeptical scientists can turnout to be even more scientifically qualified than they’re and that includes those who’re Climate scientists. So if science qualifications are to go on. The Skeptical scientists should be more likely the ones we should be taken more notice of then?

  62. theflyingorc says:

    Wait, how is the 1998 El Nino 16 years ago?

  63. Gnomish says:

    2012 – 16 = 1996…

  64. theflyingorc says:

    Trafamadore – I’m looking, right now, at the graph that’s being used for the “16 years” claim, and they clearly COULD use 1998′s El Nino peak to make their point STRONGER, but they avoid it. It really doesn’t look like cherry picking to me, it looks like the optimal place to pick to make the point that one side is making.

    At the very, VERY least, the warming is significantly less than expected, regardless of which dataset you’re using.

  65. Gene Nemetz says:

    Bill Nye the Science Guy…..

    I used to love watching his show. That’s all clouded over now by his political droning.

  66. @ trafamadore says December 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm ” … Conjecture and opinion against reality? … ”

    Your opinion of the NIPCC Reports ( http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/2011/2011report.html ), please. The peer-reviewed science journal-published papers cited within them in support of the assessments made there by scientists is ……….. not real?

  67. Werner Brozek says:

    trafamadore says:
    December 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    If you use 17 years or 15 years, it doesn’t work.

    See the following for three data sets for exactly 180 months or 15 years.
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.8/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.8/trend/plot/rss/from:1997.8/plot/rss/from:1997.8/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.8/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.8/trend

    (P.S. I agree with you about the 17 years. But be patient.)

  68. ScottD says:

    Newsbusters has the whole 11 minute segment and a transcript up for those that missed it on CNN.
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/climate-realist-marc-morano-debates-bill-nye-science-guy-global-warmi

  69. Richard D says:

    Whatever the merits of the avalanche of facts he spewed, Morano missed an opportunity here. Appearances count. He’s clearly a smart,
    capable guy, who came off as a bomb-thrower and completely unpersuasive. He just rambles off a bunch of unconnected facts. No theme. No real argument. Fail. Morgan – inane. Nye, idiot quack.

  70. John Robertson says:

    This seems to be pick on Nicole night…and I’m sorry, but I have one thing to add, and this is not against Nicole at all, rather something for her to consider.

    She used Albert Einstein as an example: “Albert Einstein worked at the Federal Office for Intellectual Property, the patent office, as an assistant examiner.” – perhaps she had never read this quote by Professor Einstein “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
    Real science has falsifiable premises built in that when found negate the assertion that is being attempted to be proven, whereas many Climate Science predictions have failed, yet I never see some of those scientists acknowledging these problems (an early example being the predicted troposphere hot spot that has never occurred).

    Watch a short video of Richard Feynman speaking about falsifiability in science.

    Unless a field of science speaks clearly on its own falsifiability is it truly something to consider as something other than hot air that people are using to try to protect their jobs/careers.

  71. Steve Vandorne says:

    @ Rosco says: “1 K per hour rate of cooling (on the moon)”

    On earth a typical cool down from High and low temperatures is a drop of about 16 Kelvin
    Since 1 K per hour is less then a typical drop on earth what am I missing here?

    Thank you

  72. Nicole says:

    Sorry for my silence. It’s a late night of work for me!
    I assure you that I AM the skeptical scientist.and a response will come as soon as I have time! I did not intend to spark such wide criticism with my few words. However, I’ll counter it!

    Should be noted J.R. that someone used that AGAINST me! I took a life-changing class that included Falsifiability!
    Furthermore, and as a shallow response, Einstein had already begun his scientific development and graduated when he took that Patent office job.

  73. grumpyoldmanuk says:

    Any chance some technological genius can put this on U-Tube so the rest of the World can watch?

  74. P. Solar says:

    Bill Nye, the science guy:

    “hottest period in recorded history” . Lie
    Fraudulent, rigged high school science experiment for Al Gore. Lie.

    Bill Nye, the science lie:

  75. pkatt says:

    Im unclear why they even invited Nye.. the debate was between the “neutral talking head” and Marc.. Go Marc!!! Bottom line!! thank you!

  76. DirkH says:

    Nicole says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm
    “Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Ask a scientist.”

    Nicole, what will you come up with to slander Dr. Lüning? See, we’re not “Going to ” Marc Morano for the science. He’s a layman speaking in the media.

    Please explain how global climate models are expected to simulate the climate over 100 years when
    a) the climate is chaotic
    b) global climate models are models with a finite resolution and an arbitrary starting state.

    It doesn’t take a scientist to ask this question, Nicole; all it needs is understanding the definition of the word chaos that even you or I can easily look up, for instance on the wikipedia.

  77. DirkH says:

    trafamadore says:
    December 4, 2012 at 9:34 pm
    “My take on this is like the argument on creationism. Anti science, or selective science, is not for a debating club audience, and both sides are really not equal. The facts, alll of them, need to be out in the open, and evaluated. You can’t do that when someone is shouting selective data to say the earth temperature hasnt risen in 16 years.”

    trafamadore, you have just declared the IPCC to be anti-scientific for which I tank you. The mission statement of the IPCC says that they have to find evidence for antropogenic global warming caused by CO2. They don’t accept evidence against it.

    Good that we agree on the purely political nature of the IPCC.

  78. P. Solar says:

    Nicole says: “Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues? ”

    So why should we go to a scientist for our politics ?

    The BIG problem with this whole mess is that some time around the 90s a whole lot of scientists decided that they had the right stuff to decide policy. But despite whatever science capabilities they had, their political skills did not seem to be any more sophisticated than exaggerating what where then legitimate concerns.

    When this didn’t work and the world did not bow to their supposed self importance the exaggeration morphed into down right lies.

    Stephen Schneider’s “dilemma” of whether to be truthful or honest came into play. That some are now openly talking about a “moral imperative” to lie.

    The dishonestly does not stop here. Few of these ex-scientists (ex because they are not longer acting as objective scientists) declare they are now playing kindergarten level politics, they are still waving their authority as scientists whilst trying to wear another hat. Many have to a large degree corrupted their work and the presentation of their results to push a political world view with the full intent that this should influence policy.

    So, Nicole, you do have a point. It makes as much sense to listen to these ex-scientist activists for policy as it would to go to a politician for a medical.

  79. vieras says:

    Marc, you did awfully bad on that interview. Your opponent didn’t have to say much and the impression left to the listener was that he won.

    When you do this kind of interviews or debates, make sure to be as calm as possible and explain everything like you’d be explaining to a nine year old. And really, start from the basics:

    - Yes, we have had very hot weather in US, but that really is weather. Other parts of the world have had a cooler summer.
    - Yes, the storm did a lot of damage, but statistically, we have had a lot less severe storms than during the 20th century.
    - We can’t just point at one summer or one storm and state that it proves how big the problem is. Europe has had several very cold winters and global warming proponents are quick to state how that’s just weather. We have to be very clear between, what is weather and what is climate.
    - The alarmistic theory is that rising temperatures will cause extreme weather and catastrophic sea level rise. As the temperatures should rise more in the north, they should decrease temperature differences. And that actually causes less severe storms, not more.
    - The sea level rise has been very slow for over 100 years without showing any acceleration whatsoever. So even if Greenland would melt faster, the socities would have plenty of time to react.
    - Many people like to say that we should react nevertheless. First of all, we don’t have any evidence that these people have the means to control the climate. So it is very likely that we’d just end up paying a lot of higher taxes to people for nothing.
    - But the worst thing about the current solutions is that they do not work. There’s a lot of talk about renewables, but they are not capable of large scale, reliable energy production. So we are investing a horrible amount of money on technology that won’t solve the problem. That is catastrophic.

  80. Phil Ford says:

    Speaking as a Brit (snow here in Bedfordshire, this morning – brrrr!), I can inform you that the vast majority of the British public consider Piers ‘moron’ Morgan an absolute joke. The very idea that he could, in all seriousness, tell someone with Marc Morano’s intelligence and experience that in his view Morano is ‘wrong’ about CAGW is simply beyond a joke. I guess the irony might be lost on a US audience, but we Brits find the man’s misplaced, puffed-up sense of self-importance absolutelt hilarious. I wasn’t aware that Morgan had quietly become a skilled climate scientist since leaving good old Blighty, lol. I’d just like to take a moment to apologize on behalf of the UK for inflicting Morgan on US TV audiences.

    Kudos to Mr Morano, once again, for enthusiastically going up against the deafened ears of warmist fear-merchants; despite Morano quoting peer-reviewed literature, countless reports and scientific studies, both Morgan and Nye remained, of course, absolutely closed-minded; totally unable to concede that Marc might actually have a point, let alone admit that peer-reviewed competing science brings into serious question, time and again, the entire shoddy edifice of CAGW propaganda.

    Always a joy to watch Marc Morano in action – how on earth he keeps his calm when treated so very rudely and dismissively by so much of the mainstream media is a measure of the seasoned, professional media-savvy man he is.

  81. T.C. says:

    “I cannot believe the attacks on the poster named Nicole for stating a simple undeniable fact that Marc Morano has no science expertise.”

    Piers Morgan disputed the facts cited by Marc Morano. Is Piers Morgan a scientific expert? Why doesn’t Morgan’s lack of “expertise” also become an issue for Nicole?

    By the way, Bill Nye’s credentialed “expertise” consists of a single bachelors degree in Mechnical Engineering (http://www.billnye.com/about-bill-nye/biography/). I suspect that my “expertise” trumps his by a considerable margin – and I agree with Morano.

  82. CodeTech says:

    That was an amazing performance, actually. Well, it’s just theater, right?

    Yes, Marc had to do some shouting, but mostly because they simply tried to TUNE HIM OUT – and have their little gab-fest without him.

    Actually, Nye spewed several of the most INCORRECT fallacies, the things that are “easy targets” for Skeptics.

    His blase claim that the Medieval and Roman warm periods were in Europe only is clearly incorrect, and easy enough to refute. It’s not an oversight, Nye, it’s a LIE. You KNOW better, but you choose to lie about it.

    His claim about “it’s not the amount, it’s the RATE”… there is no scientific basis for that statement. It’s a belief. It makes someone sound intelligent to anyone who has no knowledge of a subject, but grates on anyone who knows better. Not even a lie for that one, Nye, just…. you don’t do so well when winging it.

    HOTTEST TWO DECADES ON RECORD. Of course, the only reasonably accurate record we have is 30 years. So it’s all about the framing of the statement, right? I mean, it’s either the hottest two, or HALF of the record shows no warming. This is a dishonest way to present information, and again I have to count this as a Nye Lie.

    Marc was explaining the FACT that sea level is not rising at an accelerating rate and Nye sadly shakes his head and says “we just don’t agree on facts”… right, because the stuff that Nye seems to believe are facts, ARE NOT FACTS. Then Piers interrupts and says “I respect that you have views, I don’t think they’re facts”… in one of the most condescending performances that I’ve seen on TV for years.

    Overall – Morano did a great job, but it was an ambush, as we all figured it would be.

  83. John Game says:

    Isn’t the person who called Nicole an airhead in the very same message where he ranted against her supposed “ad hominem” attacks being just a tiny bit hypocritical?

  84. P. Solar says:

    Stephen Schneider’s “dilemma” of whether to be truthful or honest came into play.
    Stephen Schneider’s “dilemma” of whether to be honest or effective came into play.

    [Reply: Use angle brackets for html markers. Fixed it. -ModE ]

  85. jb frodsham says:

    See there is it again: The Roman warming and the MWP were local! BS.The fact that they were world wide demolishes CAGW. Anyway what do you expect from these type of people? Sad! Well done Marc, and well said in the limited time you had.

  86. Nye was politely unimpressive whilst Morano was aggressively unimpressive. Morano would be more believable if he engaged in a manner more likely to sway the undecided. He didn’t come over that well. A shame as he obviously knows his stuff.Mind you it was two against one with added alarmist pictrures.

    Piers Morgan lives the high life, I wonder if he would be prepared to lead by example and cut his co2 levels to those of the average joe?

    tonyb

  87. Eric H. says:

    Piers Morgan couldn’t logically think his way out a wet paper bag, his arguments were terrible. Nye obviously is selective in what he reads, and I would be surprised if he gets past the headlines, he was unable to talk in depth about anything. He made Piers look intelligent. The whole thing was a tedious argument. Morano obviously had the better argument but the way he came across is not going to convince the casual watcher. Ring side judges? Unanimous decision, Marc Morano.

  88. Steve says:

    Wow, this was like watching a climate discussion on the BBC – a setup and an ambush where anybody that has a different perspective is shouted down and interrupted so the point can never be made properly.
    All good science…….

  89. Couple of things.
    One, I think the fact that dissenting voices are now appearing in prominent places means we’ve made tremendous progress against Warmism.
    Two, I think it’s great that some Warmists are coming on WUWT, sure they seem snippy and all they do is repeat their appeal to ‘authority’…but at least they’re getting a glimpse of what real science involves (let’s hope they’re checking the excellent sidebars).
    I imagine the rough and tumble of open debate must feel very strange to them after the controlled echo chambers they normally inhabit!
    Who knows we may end up turning a few of them.

  90. cedarhill says:

    When going on TV or other live media, one should take along a time piece(s) similar to the one used in chess tournaments. Measure each person’s time talking. Make sure it’s visible to the camera. Morano got about 1/3rd the air time as Bill the Science Dud.

    What I love about this clip is the Precautionary Principle. Someone should think about a sound bite that destroys that “logic”. Something like “Planes fly and kill people. We should quit flying per you logic. Be careful going home and watch the sky.”

  91. Merrick says:

    Well, it is called the adiabatic gas law, innit, Mark?

    Um, yeah, but there’s so much more than “it doesn’t hold” (paraphrased) in our atmosphere.

    M

    And there is so much more to it than “it’s hotter where the pressure is greater, therefore T is proportional to P”, that your sigh should have been placed there, if you cared anything about science since the adiabatic gas law does NOT apply at the atmospheric level don’t trot it out to argue the point.
    And, by the way, since Jupiter has an internal heat source in it’s atmosphere, don’t you think it’s a really really bad choice for arguing comparisons to Earth?

  92. Ken C. says:

    I guess my question is simple. What if Bill Nye is wrong vs What if Marc Morano is wrong. Better safe than sorry I would say.

  93. vieras says:

    Ken C. asks: “I guess my question is simple. What if Bill Nye is wrong vs What if Marc Morano is wrong. Better safe than sorry I would say.”

    Indeed. It completely sucks if Bill Nye is wrong and all the investments in renewables and huge increases in electricity, fuel, coal and food prizes has been unnecessary. If Bill Nye is wrong, he will have a lot of economically disastrous decisions on his conciense. And a huge amount of lives too as rising costs hit poor people very bad and cause illness and death.

  94. RACookPE1978 says:

    Ken C. says:
    December 5, 2012 at 4:19 am

    I guess my question is simple. What if Bill Nye is wrong vs What if Marc Morano is wrong. Better safe than sorry I would say.

    Well, Bill Nye’s “opinions” and Bill Nye’s distortions of facts and Bill Nye’s groundless fears will kill people. Millions of people. Millions of people immediately through bad water, bad food storage, no transportation, no fertilizer, illness and starvation and disease. Bill Nye’s fears will kill people through cold, insects, malnutrition, and parasites.

    Bill Nye’s fears WILL sentence billions to a continued life in poverty, fear, and desperation.

    Lower cost energy (and moral politicians worldwide!) will preserve life and improve health. More CO2 means 17% to 27% more plant growth worldwide for food, fuel, fertilizer, fodder, and farming. A better life for eery living thing on earth.

    So, to your “precautionary principle” ….

    A GUARANTEED failure by restricting energy and killing people because of a distorted “fear” of the world’s fertilizer and longer growing seasons? A GUARANTEED death to millions because of fear of a gas that “might” – but hasn’t !! – raise temperatures – IF the (proven wrong!) programs of so-called scientists – “might be” correct?

    Or a 99.95% chance of a better life for all? (Hmmmn. A 100% chance of a better life – if we get rid of the immoral UN and US and UK and NZ and Aussie and third world politicians?)

  95. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    My impression? Nye was poorly prepared yet smug. Piers Morgan kept couching the argument in mutually exclusive terms, excusable, I suppose, because he is a self-professed layman. But saying that CO2 and population are both rising, and in the next sentence saying “it’s warm” or the like, is a statement of disconnected facts, yet he tries to imply a connection of sorts. Morano has a good grasp of the facts from the skeptical sides, no doubt. What is telling is Nye’s look of utter distain when countered, and then when Piers interrupts him to go back to Morano, that look intensifies. Was there a winner? Nope. In typical CNN fashion, the moderator stirs up some sediment and the opposing sides become obscured. Was it a lively debate? Nope. Nye was trying to hide behind his “scienceyness”. Morano had no time to make any counter arguments.

    I eagerly await Nicole’s rebuttal…

  96. vieras says:

    Bill Nye claims that the Medieval warming period was just in Europe. Well, it may be local or global. We don’t know for sure, but Bill thinks that MWP doesn’t count because it was local. However, they do use one year’s heat wave and one storm as evidence for global warming and here we do know that it absolutely was local and it lasted a way shorter time than the MWP.

  97. Chuck Nolan says:

    Phil Ford says:
    December 5, 2012 at 1:08 am
    ……………………..I’d just like to take a moment to apologize on behalf of the UK for inflicting Morgan on US TV audiences.
    —————————————
    Yeah, isn’t it enough we have Chris Mathews, Ted Turner and Joe Biden?
    And to the Aussies, When you dump Julia, please don’t send her here to the US.
    We breed our own idiots locally.
    Thank you, very much.
    cn

  98. Dave says:

    Was this Piers’ big push to get a job with the BBC? His views are obviously a perfect fit.
    I thought Morano did well in the circumstances.

  99. Bill Nye has become such a joke it is silly. Has he turned his brain off, or was he always that devoid of thinking capacity?

  100. Bill says:

    Not only was it 2 against 1, but Nye got to be in the studio in warm surroundings and Morano was a talking head on the screen.

    Nye means well but does not look at as wide a range of materials as he should. The TV guy is a TV guy. I’m sure he means well too.

  101. Compare the economic impact in dollars of the damage caused by Sandy and the economic impact in dollars of the results of the Los Angeles union strikes at the port and tell me that global warming is a concern.

  102. Rick says:

    I love the impartiality of the host. And how when Marc wanted to talk science he got interrupted. I guess the science doesn’t sell like horror stories do.

  103. Jockdownsouth says:

    I still can’t understand why Piers Morgan has never faced charges for allegedly being involved in share price rigging when he was the editor of the Daily Mirror and why he hasn’t yet faced charges for allegedly being involved in phone hacking, also when editor of the Daily Mirror. Might it be something to do with the fact that the Daily Mirror isn’t a Murdoch newspaper?
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2011/jul/27/piersmorgan-phone-hacking
    and
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-media-column-the-piers-morgan-that-you-wont-read-about-in-the-newspapers-6169228.html
    [deleted by request mod]

  104. Jockdownsouth says:

    Mods – in my previous post please remove url link to order-order. Profanities in comments section – apologies!

  105. J. Watson says:

    Whenever there is a debate on this issue on TV or radio, any mainstream media organisation will NEVER put up a climate scientist to rebut the sort of nonsense propagated by Bill Nye. As well as Marc Morano performs, viewers will see him, rightly or wrongly, as a blogging nerd and take a view accordingly. Although I am against the argument from authority principal, it is a necessity when dealing with the media, as they will naturally side with the warmists, and use these arguments to underline how mainstream the warmist view is, and how marginal the opposition. I feel they deliberately populate the anti-CAGW debate with those they can determine as amateurs or non-scientists, irrespective of the fact that Mr. Morano did acquit himself very well, and did offer a sound argument. After all, you need a strong character, and constitution, when dealing with Piers Moron.
    As much as Mr. Morano might be flattered or tempted next time he’s offered air time, he should agree to appear and then present Richard Lindzen or any other of the available heavyweight sceptics, to eat the likes of Nye for breakfast, and put the patronising Moron in his place when he spouts his ignorance on the subject.

  106. Sonja says:

    Bill Nye said very little…except the obvious. Population up, co2 up, temperature up. But he did say that Hurricane Sandy wasn’t really that bad. Hmmmm I’m a little confused about his claims about the medieval warm period not being global. Obviously he’s implying that its not an accurate measure, but wasn’t the temperature data used by Mann only from Northern Hemisphere? I don’t know, I’m just an ordinary gal with no background in science trying to muddle through this all this STUFF. But one thing I can recognize is a Jackass when I see one. Piers , your voice is like nails on a chalkboard to me…..

  107. beng says:

    ***
    Mark T says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:10 pm

    Bill Nye is a mechanical engineer. Splain to me how this works again?
    ***

    Maybe Bill the Shill Guy has a BS in ME, but so do I, and I can tell he never, ever worked in a real engineering job (where working for many yrs, one gets truly educated). He’s a typical anemic, pencil-neck academic w/no real work experience.

  108. Sparks says:

    That was a terrible so-called “debate” it seemed rushed and interrupted, I would have liked to have heard Bill Nye’s and Marc Morano’s view in detail with an unbiased presenter (or one who is fair and has a reserved opinion) , CNN has an authority complex and I like to build my own opinions therefore after watching this I now have a lower opinion of CNN.

    Well done to both Bill Nye and Marc Morano for an honest attempt at open dialogue.

  109. RockyRoad says:

    Nicole says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    @D Boehm- It doesn’t take my CV or anyone’s to find the credentials of a public figure. FACT: Marc has a degree in political science
    @Kuhnkat The concern here is that Marc has no background in science, regardless of Bill Nye’s.

    Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?

    Ask a scientist.

    I’m a scientist.

    Your problem with that is I’m not a recipient of global warming grants or working for a recipient of such funding. As a consequence, I’m a skeptic–an independent mind: I don’t see the case for the policies being perpetrated by the UN and other government bodies who are supported by highly dubious “climate science” designed to tax and control. Mr. Ban of the UN is an excellent example of this.

    I’m also an engineer.

    I see some of the “climate solutions” proposed to counter “global warming” and just shake my head. The vast majority are so poorly designed and based on such questionable data that no engineer would stake his professional reputation on them (there must be a tight cadre of “climate engineers” with the same tawdry reputation as “climate scientists” making these proposals).

    Bottom line: None of the evidence (not hype) from the “climate scientists” is sufficient to implement the proposals currently offered by the “climate engineers”. However, that hasn’t stopped the “climate politicians” from using scare tactics and horrendous propaganda to impose taxes and control on earth’s population, with much more to come.

    Meanwhile, you “climate lackeys” fail to properly inform yourselves and are the real problem: Were enough people to become sufficiently informed, we’d not have stupendously stupid positions like “CO2 is a toxin” and “Sandy was caused by Global Warming”. No, such positions would be laughed at and met with public derision and scorn.

    As a consequence, “climate scientists” would eventually lose most of their funding; “climate engineers” wouldn’t have silly projects to consider, “climate politicians” would have to actually help their constituents, and “climate lackeys” would be informed and thinking logically. Meanwhile, “climate economists” would normally step up with cost/benefit analyses that would shut this whole charade down in a heartbeat; rather, their funding is based on a continuation of the charade.

    Apparently I’m asking too much of all these “climate” groups, but the world can no longer afford them.

  110. Mike says:

    @Nicole:
    “Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues? ”

    You think today’s climate science compares to today’s medical science where millions and billions of patients lives and deaths have been studied? I think climate science (where the patient is the earth) is not yet mature enough to be compared to medieval doctors prescribing leaches to suck out the bad blood.

  111. Mr Lynn says:

    What the dickens is this stuff Nye is spouting about the rate if CO2 increase? Is that a new alarmist attempt at fear-mongering? Has anyone suggested that the rate has anything to do with hypothetical ‘global warming’, or anything else for that matter?

    The idea that you can ‘debate’ the issues concerning ‘climate change’ in 10-12 minutes is absurd. Given the time constraint, clearly Marc decided his best tactic was to spout as many facts as he could. Hard to sound calm and reasonable when you attempt that. Nye sounded calm, if not half-asleep, and what he said made no sense at all (especially when garbled by Morgan), but doubtless the average viewer would find Nye more appealing. TV, remember, is a ‘cool’ medium.

    I got an appeal from Bill Nye to rejoin The Planetary Society, with which he is now associated. I scrawled a few words to the effect of “I will rejoin when you guys stop endorsing the CAGW hoax” and sent it back in their Business Reply envelope.

    /Mr Lynn

  112. We will have much of the answer by decade end, because we have the prolong solar minimum which causes cooling versus co2 increases which suppose to cause warming. Let us see the temperature response ,which I bet will be lower before this decade ends for the globe by at least minus .5c

    If this turns out to be correct those of us who support solar as opposed to greenhouse gases as the main factor in determining the climate of the earth will be correct.

  113. Gail Combs says:

    Nicole says:
    December 4, 2012 at 6:07 pm

    Marc Morano has no climate science expertise…
    ________________________________
    And Bill Nye got his from Al Gore BWAAAAAaa

  114. zootcadillac says:

    @trafamadore

    you say:
    “intelligently dispute”? Well the stupid “16 years with no warming” is one that is tiresome.
    Because, the “16″ is cherry picked to be exactly on the 98 El Niño. If you use 17 years or 15 years, it doesn’t work…..snip

    Let me pick up on that if I may? I’ve heard this cherry picking argument before and it simply does not hold water. You and others fall into the trap of assuming that the 16 years ago is the starting point chosen for the benefit of an argument. That’s blatantly incorrect.
    When you wish to determine for how long warming has stalled then today is your starting point. That’s the only date you can ‘cherry pick’ .
    You work backwards from today and you let the data determined the period at which the warming has stalled. That happens to be some 16 years ago ( which is not the 1998 el nino year as you claim but that’s another matter ). You see, it’s impossible to cherry pick the date at which the rate of warming ceased to be a positive trend because you simply follow the data from today and can’t come to any other conclusion however it suits your argument or otherwise. To pick a period longer or shorter would be simply ‘doing it wrong’ or telling lies.

    It’s 16 years of no statistically significant warming because that’s what the data show and not because it’s convenient to an argument. 16 years ago is the end point of this claim, not the starting point. that is important to understand.

    As for your point about it only being one dataset I’d dispute that but before I do I’d like to see what none-local datasets you believe show a statistically warming trend continuing for this period and a dataset that is considered from currently reliable measurement methods.

  115. Gail Combs says:

    cjames says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    I cannot believe the attacks on the poster named Nicole for stating a simple undeniable fact that Marc Morano has no science expertise. Also, I have seen him in action several times and I agree with nightwriter that he is “an aggressive, rude jerk”. That doesn’t mean that what he says about AGW is wrong, I just believe he does skeptics no favors with his debating skills…..
    _______________________________________
    It was an intentional AMBUSH. Skeptics have made enough noise so the media felt they had to provide a sound bite but they wanted one that made the Skeptics look like nut jobs.

    Marc had the options of refusing to be interviewed, of being polite and silenced, or appearing as “an aggressive, rude jerk”. It was a real lose – lose – lose and it was done deliberately. The fact they chose Marc vs some one like Dr. Tim Ball, any number of other scientists, or even Anthony was also done deliberately.

  116. Gail Combs says:

    cjames says:
    December 4, 2012 at 7:37 pm

    I cannot believe the attacks on the poster named Nicole for stating a simple undeniable fact that Marc Morano has no science expertise….
    _________________________
    So? I am no vet or doctor but I know when they are spouting crap. I have on more that one occasion caught a vet or a doctor telling real whoppers. If you have blind faith in doctors and do not do independent research you are an absolute idiot.

    You do not have to have ANYTHING but the ability to read, do mathematics and reason to debate someone like Bill Nye. There are plenty of people on WUWT who could probable debate the guy into the ground.

  117. PaulH says:

    Unfortunately, I missed the show, but Joe Bastardi live-tweeted. Here is what he said:

    “Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Blasts Bill Nye and Piers Morgan for Their Global Warming Opinions”

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/12/04/meteorologist-joe-bastardi-blasts-bill-nye-and-piers-morgan-their-glo#disqus_thread

  118. Sparks says:

    salvatore del prete says:
    December 5, 2012 at 7:41 am

    “We will have much of the answer by decade end, because we have the prolong solar minimum which causes cooling versus co2 increases which suppose to cause warming. Let us see the temperature response…
    If this turns out to be correct those of us who support solar as opposed to greenhouse gases as the main factor in determining the climate of the earth will be correct.”

    Are you implying that an external energy source is needed to raise the planets temperature and the energy which the sun produces increases and decreases cyclically so therefore regulates our planets temperature? Could it be that perfect? (I say slightly Sarcastic)

    Did You watch Bill Nye and Al Gore’s Incredible experiment where they filled a jar with Carbon Dioxide to millions of times above normal and exposed it to a heat lamp at a constant temperature, When the heat lamp was switched on the temperature went up and stopped.

    Basically what you’re implying is that if they used a higher wattage heat lamp, the temperature too would increase and if they used a lower wattage heat lamp the temperature would decrease and that’s with CO2 at millions of times than earths atmosphere. Nice! :)

  119. kakatoa says:

    Anthony-

    Thanks for the heads up on the show. I didn’t find the debate (?)- how about talking points thrown is as quickly as possible with no discussion at all- all that informative. The focus on the Precautionary Principle from the moderator- to help out Mr Nye- is getting a bit old for me as the painful discussion of the effectiveness our efforts towards mitigation is sorely lacking.

    I wish Piers had followed up with Mr. Nye on his comment about electrical energy and energy storage.

  120. Rob Crawford says:

    Nye’s most impressive roles were on Stargate: Atlantis and in the Epcot “Ellen’s Energy Adventure” attraction. (He managed to be less annoying than Ellen Degeneres).

  121. Rob Crawford says:

    “Do you people go to your politicians for a medical? Why are you going to them for climate change issues?”

    Do you go to lepidopterists for your population predictions?

  122. Downdraft says:

    The real shame is that Bill Nye is corrupting our youth with his unscientific dogma.
    The TV science guy was Mr. Wizard (Don Herbert) when I was young. He seemed to know his stuff and was much more interesting than Nye. I don’t know what he thought of CAGW, but I think it likely he would have been a skeptic.
    I knew Mr. Wizard from watching his TV show, and Bill Nye is no Mr. Wizard.

  123. Doug Proctor says:

    Nye denies global MWP, Roman or Minoan periods. Morano denies acceleration of sea level (untrue last 15 years vs prior 1950s or prior 1900s, but trivial).

    Nye holds the temperature rise and CO2 correlation refllect causation. Morano says the correlation is not causation, certainly not significant causation.

    The dispute between the two lies in Nye believing models forf the future and Morano, believing in the facts of the present without modeled progression. Nye believes that the past does not reflect the future, while Morano believes that the recent past is useful for projecting the future.

    The moderator and Bill Nye consider economic damage in principle non-damaging, and the no-action-at-present to be catastrophic without recourse.

    Nye vs Morano: the Precautionary Principle vs Pragmatism, the science status quo/authorities vs the science in progress and the Missouri State motto: Show Me.

  124. Paul Westhaver says:

    Bill Bye sounded less like a scientist and more like a Jimmy Swaggart. Sad too. My kids loved his show. What happened to him? He forgot what science is all about. He is all PT. Barnum and Bailey and no substance.

    Bill…. Science isn’t showmanship…. it is …. the application of the scientific method.

    You, in defense of your ego, will do anything to defend your self image…. even tossing science under the bus in the process.

    sad sad sad

  125. polistra says:

    Could have been a good debate, but unfortunately Morano didn’t use graphs. Without graphs the murderers will always win.

    You can’t show a LACK OF CONNECTION without graphs; but one good graph makes the whole point.

    Words are worse than useless.

  126. AndyG55 says:

    1. I really wish people would stop using the word “correlation” for the “coincident” rise of temperature and CO2 during a short period from 1978-1998.

    2. Rosco said “Pretending the Sun shines 24 hours a day at one quarter power,”
    Even this is incorrect. If you really want to use a flat non-moving Earth, at least they should allow for the incidence of sunlight on the surface, which gives an intensity factor of 0.57, not 0.5, so they should be dividing by 3.5 not by 4.

  127. AndyG55 says:

    People who want to comment on the 16 or so year without significant warming need to remember that the CAGW fraud was started after only a couple of year of the coincident rise in CO2 and adjusted urban land temperature.

    (well, probably not coincident, since the plan was always to adjust the data, how else can you lose thousands of remote temperature stations)

  128. Gunga Din says:

    Downdraft says:
    December 5, 2012 at 10:09 am
    The real shame is that Bill Nye is corrupting our youth with his unscientific dogma.
    The TV science guy was Mr. Wizard (Don Herbert) when I was young. He seemed to know his stuff and was much more interesting than Nye. I don’t know what he thought of CAGW, but I think it likely he would have been a skeptic.
    I knew Mr. Wizard from watching his TV show, and Bill Nye is no Mr. Wizard.
    ===================================================================
    I remember Mr. Wizard. And I remember Bill Nye’s show.
    Mr. Wizard would do a demonstration of something and explain what was going to or had just happened. He held kids’ interest because what he said and did was interesting. Bill Nye’s approach seemed to be that kids only have a short attention span so rather than hold their attention with the presentation and demonstration, let’s keep flashing things up that may or may not be related to the subject to try and keep their attention.

    I just watched the video. Some have said that Marc came off as rude or something like that. IMHO, he came off as someone eager to say that he knew wasn’t being heard in the MSM. When he was about to drive the point home of whatever facts he’d just presented, the moderator interrupted and introduced something new.

  129. AndyG55 says:

    “1. If you really wish people would stop using the word “correlation” for the “coincident” rise of temperature and CO2 during a short period from 1978-1998″

    should read

    1. I really wish people would stop using the word “correlation” for the “coincident” rise of temperature and CO2 during a short period from 1978-1998

    allergy eyes, sorry !!!

  130. Jolly farmer says:

    I agree with the comments on Morgan from other Brits. He is a king-sized Cnut.

    (Cnut was the guy who showed that he couldn’t stop the tides)

  131. Bob Johnston says:

    As far as I know Bill Nye’s only worthwhile accomplishment in any arena, let alone climate science, was as Speed Walker on the old Seattle area show – Almost Live. Too bad he’s become such a putz over the years.

  132. TomR,Worc,MA says:

    Ken C. says:
    December 5, 2012 at 4:19 am
    I guess my question is simple. What if Bill Nye is wrong vs What if Marc Morano is wrong. Better safe than sorry I would say.
    =====================================================================

    By that logic, I assume you are in church on your knees praying feverishly every Sunday morning Ken, just in case what the Chistian churches(or whichevever religion) have been preaching for 2000 years or so is true.

    As it would save your immortal soul if they are right and you did go. Better safe than sorry, doncha know.

    Thought not.

  133. TonyG says:

    Following, in hopes that Nicole will return with her rebuttal

  134. Bob Johnston says:

    Don Worley wrote:
    No, but my doctor doesn’t prescribe chemotherapy for a cold either.

    Medical practice uses rigorous testing.

    Climate models fail to diagnose anything, and would be rejected by the AMA as a diagnostic tool.

    Furthermore, climatologists do not have the credentials to engage in politics or economics, and yet they continue to try.

    The field of medicine is filled with just as much baloney as climate science. I trust a doctor to set a broken arm or sew up a gash but the majority of doctors or researchers don’t have a clue when it comes to chronic conditions such diabetes, cancer, arthritis, heart disease and other such diseases. That’s because they tend to fix symptoms with a lifelong regimen of drugs; they’re not interested in looking for an actual cure or god forbid, preventative measures. The money is made by keeping people just well enough to function (and buy drugs and surgeries), there’s no money to be made at all by curing people. Cui bono – “Who benefits” is always something you should ask yourself.

    Climate science and heart disease/obesity research are so similar in nature I’m surprised so few people talk about it.

  135. NW says:

    Rob Crawford: “Do you go to lepidopterists for your population predictions?” Too funny!

  136. RACookPE1978 says:

    NW says:
    December 5, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Rob Crawford: “Do you go to lepidopterists for your population predictions?” Too funny!

    No, but I always go to lepidopterists for my hurricane predictions!

  137. Doug in Seattle says:

    Bill Nye, the [Bachelor of] Science Guy.

    Not quite the same ring to his name when the degree is considered..

  138. AndyG55 says:

    Do you go to a fossil person for your temperature statistics?
    Do you go to a fossil person for tree rings readings?
    Or a failure ex-president for climate predictions?
    Or maybe a failed railway engineer / porn book writer ?

  139. Ian Weiss says:

    Did Morano mean to claim that no hurricanes of Category 3 or greater have hit the US since prior to 1900? Is that correct?

  140. Werner Brozek says:

    Ian Weiss says:
    December 5, 2012 at 3:58 pm
    From the transcript:
    “Bottom line, big tornadoes, F-3 and larger since 1950s have dropped dramatically. Bottom line, we’ve gone the longest period without a major U.S. category 3 or larger hurricane hitting the U.S. since 1900, maybe the civil war.”

    In other words, since 2005, no F-3 has hit. And this 7 year period of no hit has not occurred for a long time.

  141. David Ball says:

    I think the BBC has “disappeared” the “debate” between Marc Morano and Michael Mann. Cannot find it anywhere. Anyone?

  142. Ken C. says:
    December 5, 2012 at 4:19 am
    I guess my question is simple. What if Bill Nye is wrong vs What if Marc Morano is wrong. Better safe than sorry I would say.
    =====================================================================
    TomR,Worc,MA
    By that logic, I assume you are in church on your knees praying feverishly every Sunday morning Ken, just in case what the Chistian churches(or whichevever religion) have been preaching for 2000 years or so is true.

    I sure hope no one confused Ken C. with me…I could not disagree more. To add to Tom R’s comment, I assume Ken C will get on his knees and pray to Mecca five times a day in case the Muslims are right and he has a beard and a black hat in case the Amish are right and he worships stones in case the pagans are right and has twisty hair and a yarmulke in case the Jewish folks are right and sacrifices a few virgins in case the Mayans are right and confesses his sins regularly in case the Catholics are right and worships Zeus in case the Greeks were right and rubs Buddha’s belly in case the Buddhists are right and kisses a snake in case the holy rollers are right and wears a turban in case the Sikh’s are right. Whew. It’s easy to push the precautionary principle to absurdity. For example, by applying the precautionary principle beyond reason, you’d spend all your money buying lottery tickets–after all, you might win. Spending one thin dime on reducing CO2 emissions when there is no (none, zero) evidence CO2 is a hazard is the essence of stupidity…like the lottery tax on those with poor math skills.

  143. john robertson says:

    Morano won that ambush nicely, Bill Nye is so , well Bill Nye, that enough people will check out Climate Depot, to see what Marc was shouting about.
    Piers is a useful idiot and he just got used, two clueless people of the faith, with a stitch-up all preplanned and they got creamed. It was worth having to listen to Piers blather,to see that.
    Rude and scrambling for time, when arguing with righteous fools you have to get as many facts in as you can. Politeness would not have helped only played into the plan.
    The lunacy of attempting to regionalize the medieval warm period, is one of those missteps you could not buy. Like the pronouncements, from on high, by the Mann, the10-10 klutzes and Travesty man. Its desperation time and the team is bleeding from a 1000 self inflicted cuts.

  144. Sam Grove says:

    Bill Nye is no scientist.

  145. Jim Steele says:

    The climate scientists have advocated avoiding face to face debate. If Bill Nye is their best entry they should be worried. The so_called Mann vs Morano debate was not a debate but staged event allowing Mann to say evil skeptics are hurting honest debate and then he turns around and calls Morano liar and viious hored assasin.

    I am curious, how many actual face to face debates have ever had climate scientists present? If the government or taxpayer supported foundations are paying climate scientists like Hansen or Trenberth to advocate CO2 then we should demand that they face the nation in public debate where equal time is guaranteed and character assassination is forbidden.

  146. Goode 'nuff says:

    Marc Morano did a good job from the start in my opinion, that is why Piers Morgan and Bill Nye were teaming hard to knock him off his game. Marc was handed a mission impossible and counters with all he could viably make it look ‘mission possible’ in very short amounts of allotted time. He was succeeding and they knew it, so they hurriedly cut him off, with little of any real substance.

    MORGAN: OK. Let me jump in. Let me jump in. How do you explain that the Eastern Seaboard, for example, is getting some of the warmest weather it’s ever had at the same time that California has been plunged into storm after storm in the last week and you see New York last month had the worst hurricane it’s ever endured and so on and so on?

    MORGAN: How do you explain that we’re getting so many of these freakish weather patterns if at the same time you’ve got all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere and all these people now guzzling up power and energy and emitting

    MORGAN: Surely that is evidence, isn’t it?

    I would have told Piers to simply go to Youtube and do a search on hurricanes of the 1930′s, particularly the Great New England Hurricane of 1938, when CO2 was lower. Floods of the 1920′s 1930′s on both coasts and the Mississippi River. Search heat waves and dust storms of that same time period along with drought and forest fires and see if you can come back and repeat what you just said.

  147. hro001 says:

    David Ball says: December 5, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    I think the BBC has “disappeared” the “debate” between Marc Morano and Michael Mann. Cannot find it anywhere. Anyone?

    Andrew Montford, aka Bishop Hill, has a copy:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/storage/MannvsMoranoNewshour.mp3

    Discussion thread is here

    And Alex Cull has provided a transcript

  148. Coke says:

    Ironic that the debate occurred on Piers Morgan’s show, as he is a source of unwanted hot air too!

  149. E.M.Smith says:

    @Goode ’nuff :

    Close… but you don’t want to get mired down in numbers and dates and lists. Most folks in the audience tunes them out and mentally skips over it. Instead, you want a memorable ‘sound bite’ that makes a durable mental image. I would use:

    “It was like this in the old days, the 1930s to 1950s. There is a 60 year long cycle, and that cycle has returned to what it once was. Older folks remember those days. Just like now.”

    Give the image of old folks fondly telling young’uns about ‘the old days’ and reminds the younger ones that they have very short life experience; while triggering all sorts of folks to remember things from then (and some to remember old big storms that are misplaced in their memory too ;-)

    Say it in a tone that venerates Grandma and you have a ‘winner’ image…

    Then, IFF you get some added time, you add the specifics of “The 1938 Hurricane” (or whatever)…

  150. Doug Jones says:

    Rosco, you are mistaken on the lunar surface cooling rate. If you examine this typical chart, http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Moon-theoretical-observed.png

    You will see that the temperature drops from 230K to 100K in about 16 hr, or about 8K/hr. It then continues to get slightly colder over the following days.

  151. David Ball says:

    hro001 says:
    December 5, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    Thank you hro001 but can you find it on the BBC ? Is the full recording and transcript on Bishop Hill? I think it is only part of the entire exchange.

  152. Ken C. says:

    @ vieras and RACooke, you’ve gone to great lengths theorizing the consequenses of Mr Nye being wrong, so…answer the question… and what if Mr Morano is wrong? @ KenCoffman and Tom R, science makes compelling argument against co2 global warming, yet all science is theory and in my opinion so is theology. However precaution is not going to send the human race to extiction as Vieras and RACooke would have you believe.They are extremists in the other direction. My point… Is it ” beyond reason” to be cautious with a science as unpredictable as meteorology? In regard to your dismissal of theology having any basis of credibility, some day you may, as millions and millions of people have, for centuries, experience something that you cannot scientifically explain, no way, no how, yet it happened. I’m a Hospice RN, and have had people,(10 + or – in 6 years) with all of their faculties intact, tell me relatives who have passed away came to visit and tell them “it will be ok, and not to be afraid”. It’s chilling to hear them talk to them, very difficult to explain, but never would I, or any of the other nurses, say the person’s spirit was not in the room with them. That said I do come away scratching my head. I guess I’m saying don’t be so critical of something , just because you can’t explain it with science.
    Ken

  153. R. Craigen says:

    Notice Morgan’s tactic with 30 seconds to go he rattles off a LONG list of “facts” in a “how-do-you-explain this” tone — sea level rising, tornados, ice sheets, etc etc. and leaves a tiny fragment of time at the end for Morano to sum up, without sufficient space to even list one of these things. Then he interjects with a bald assertion that “scientists” would take issue with Morano’s “facts”, followed by an “apology” that they’re out of time.

    Morano’s pretty good. But why doesn’t he just call Morgan on this and say, if you REALLY want a proper debate on something why don’t you call Nye and me in and limit the discussion to nailing down — or deconstructing — a single fact. Something that we can actually discuss and settle in the time your network permits. Simply trading talking points, with YOU controlling who gets the right of reply, and who gets last word, simply does a poor service to your viewers.

  154. RACookPE1978 says:

    Ken C. says:
    December 6, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    @ vieras and RACooke, you’ve gone to great lengths theorizing the consequenses of Mr Nye being wrong, so…answer the question… and what if Mr Morano is wrong?

    @ KenCoffman and Tom R, science makes compelling argument against co2 global warming, yet all science is theory and in my opinion so is theology. However precaution is not going to send the human race to extiction as Vieras and RACooke would have you believe.They are extremists in the other direction.

    My point… Is it ” beyond reason” to be cautious with a science as unpredictable as meteorology? In regard to your dismissal of theology having any basis of credibility, some day you may, as millions and millions of people have, for centuries, experience something that you cannot scientifically explain, no way, no how, yet it happened.

    Regrettably, you did misunderstand my points above. Please, let me continue.

    First, I was (deliberately) using the term “religion” (theist dogma) with all disrespect to the belief system f those who propose their CAWG beliefs unpon the rest of the innocents in the world, DESPITE the scientific evidence AGAINST any foreseeable CAGW catastrophes of any type.
    In the near future (25 to 50 years).
    In the mid-future (50 to 1205 years)
    or in the far future (150 to 900 years.)

    There is no credible future of increasing man-released CO2 nor nature-caused temperature increases that will bring harm to the world’s people, plants, and animals. Only good.

    The CAGW religion REQUIRES a dread mortal fear of supposed postulated future increases that will actually and really kill people and harm innocents.

    THAT future of reduced energy and greater mass starvation and death by hunger, cold, sickness and poverty is what the CAGW community is urging on the world. THAT future is what I fear. THAT future is what they WILL force on all people due to their policies and their belief system.

    and THAT future is 100% assured if their policies are made law – which IS their goal in life. The death of 1/3 to 3/5 of the people now living on earth IS what they – what their leaders WANT, strive for, and most urgently desire.

    Aside: Do I believe in miracles? They are a requirement for sainthood. If there was no evidence for miracles, there would be no modern saints.

  155. hro001 says:

    David Ball says: December 6, 2012 at 6:40 am

    [re Mann vs Morano]

    Thank you hro001 but can you find it on the BBC ? Is the full recording and transcript on Bishop Hill? I think it is only part of the entire exchange.

    As Morano had noted in the discussion thread (and Alex has added to the transcript) the BBC actually chopped Morano’s last words. Nonetheless …

    it took a fair bit of mousing around on the BBC site, but their archived version is available at:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p010z9qy

    Segment begins at approx. 37:03

    Hope this helps :-)
    Hilary Ostrov

  156. Ken C. says:

    Short Morano bio, thought this pertinent to the discussion.Marc Morano

    Susan Etheridge for the New York Times
    Updated: April 10, 2009

    As a spokesman for Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Marc Morano was for years a ceaseless purveyor of the dissenting view on climate change, sending out a blizzard of e-mail to journalists covering the issue. In April 2009, with Congress debating legislation to curb carbon dioxide emissions, Mr. Morano left his job with Mr. Inhofe to start his own Web site, ClimateDepot.com.

    Mr. Morano says he sees the site as a “one-stop shop” for anyone following climate change. He will post research he thinks the public should see, as well as reported video segments and ratings of environmental journalists. Supporters see Mr. Morano as a crucial organizing force who has taken diffuse pieces of scientific research and fused them into a political battering ram.

    Mr. Morano may be best known for compiling a report listing hundreds of scientists whose work he says undermines the consensus on global warming. But environmental advocates and bloggers say many of those listed have no scientific credentials.

    Environmentalists and mainstream climate scientists, however much they disagree with Mr. Morano’s views on global warming, still pay attention to what he does.

    After college, Mr. Morano worked as a reporter for Rush Limbaugh, where he said he learned the satisfactions of poking at the “liberal establishment.” He made a documentary on the Amazon rain forest, he said, because it annoyed him that celebrities like Sting could dictate what people think about the issue. They vastly exaggerated the problem of deforestation, he concluded.

    He joined to Cyber News Service, where he was the first to publish accusations from Vietnam Swift-boat veterans that Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, then the Democratic presidential nominee, had glorified his war record. Many of the accusations later proved unfounded.

    Mr. Morano’s new global warming Web site is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-2007 — the last five years for which documents are available — show that the group received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation and from foundations associated with the billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife, a longtime contributor to conservative causes.

  157. Robert says:

    I don’t necessarily agree with Morano’s politics, but I think he did quite a good job here. His fast delivery provided a lot of facts in a very short time while Bill Nye looked a bit confused…

  158. Dude Arp says:

    I shall now debate a person who believes the earth is flat, on Piers Morgan.

Comments are closed.