Programming note Morano vs. Nye (but Nye backs out at last minute)

UPDATE:

Morano emailed me from his phone just before the interview started @925PM :

I was literally only informed of Nye backing out 6 min. before segment to begin by CNN producer.

yet somehow they found a Sierra Club guy Michael Brune, who instead of debating factually, immediately launched a “big oil” smear campaign claiming Marc’s Climate Depot is funded by Chevron. What a lamer.

Video here: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2013/01/24/pmt-climate-change-marc-morano-michael-brune.cnn

==============================================================

Round Two! CFACT’s Marc Morano vs. Bill Nye the Science Guy

tonight on CNN

Last month, CFACT’s Marc Morano debated global warming with Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN. This evening, Piers Morgan has invited them both back for another round.

Piers Morgan show, CNN 9 PM EST tonight (Wednesday)

Global warming alarmists rarely agree to public debates, so I hope you have a chance to tune in, as it promises to be exciting!

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

34 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kanga
January 24, 2013 7:10 am

Slartibartfast says:
January 24, 2013 at 5:57 am
Brune says “he’s not a climate scientist”. Brune has a BS degrees in Economics and Finance, according to Greenpeace. Is Brune disqualifying his own opinion in the matter?
===================
Only when the debate got hard and he was losing.

Jim Clarke
January 24, 2013 10:23 am

Did Brune speak any original words? He was like a robot spewing sound bites and ad hominem attacks! While a thinking person would conclude that Brune is an ignorant propagandist, I regretfully point out that most politicians get elected by doing the exact same thing.

January 24, 2013 2:06 pm

I’ll bet Morano doesn’t get another interview with Nye, a Sierra Club or Greenpeace guy. All Morano has to do is talk about the money that fossil fuels are giving these groups to discredit them, especially as natural gas is the energy competitor for coal and oil.
The recognized hiatus in warming (except for Tamino or Stoat) is a big problem for them. As is the ramped up CO2 that should be accelerating warming. And that fracking, another eco-green bete noir, is responsible for decrease in CO2 output – along with the loss of American jobs: let’s see them encourage either of those!
It’s not just Gore who has to get out. Nye knows he’s losing.
I’ll bet McKibben can’t refuse a debate with Morano, though … his ego won’t let him.
Perhaps Morano can have a debate with an Empty Chair with a rotating group of photos representing the ones who have refused to debate with him.

Lemon
January 25, 2013 12:11 pm

Where is the entire interview? The shill gets the last word on the above link

Brian H
January 25, 2013 8:55 pm

Videos of “entire interviews” are hard to come by. Suggestion to Marc et al: insist on them as a precondition.

Marc Morano
January 25, 2013 10:17 pm

That is the full video. The only thing missing is Piers cutting me off and abruptly ending the segment.

Richard Thal
January 26, 2013 10:21 am

Seems that CNN has been cutting off “skeptics” during interviews either by cutting short the time or mysterious losses of microphones or signals from remote locations. No agenda on their part sarc.

Bob Young
January 26, 2013 11:42 am

Bottom line is the alarmists have two basic talking points 1) the science is proven (when its not), and they never describe the proven science, and 2) the skeptics are either science deniers or funded by big oil.
Morano does a very good job, as does Lord Monckton, of presenting a clear and intuitive case against the AGW hoax. The reason why the alramists hyping the AGW hoax cant explain it clearly is because its based on junk science that defies intuitive reasoning.

Lemon
Reply to  Bob Young
January 26, 2013 11:53 am

Here’s the key thing that should be gleaned from all the alarmist baloney.
If the science is “settled” then no further research is necessary. Therefore, all research funding should be cut off.