Love him or hate him, he’s making an impact. I thought it worthwhile to make his testimony available to read.
Submitted Written Testimony of Climate Depot’s Marc Morano at Congressional Hearing on Climate Change: ‘The Origins and Response to Climate Change’
Morano to the U.S. Congress: ‘The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts.’
Read it here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/31/submitted-written-testimony-of-climate-depots-marc-morano-at-congressional-hearing-on-climate-change-the-origins-and-response-to-climate-change/
The Breitbart of climate, though Monckton is closing in.
He is very hard hitting, and not diplomatic. But I guess it is coming to that. It will be interesting to see the lies it generates from Trenberth and the team.
LOL:
Banks, investors desert key carbon market event
BARCELONA, June 1 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Governments and voluntary offset sellers took centre stage at a major carbon market conference in Barcelona this week after banks and investors – previously amongst the biggest exhibitors at the annual event – skipped it, in part due to rock-bottom CO2 prices…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2397531
I understand many sceptics concerns about Marc Morano, in particular his apparent lack of scientific acumen. However Mr. Morano does provide some valuable contributions to the AGW debate.
The first of course is the entertainment value. Marc Morano appears to be able to talk underwater. Some might suggest that he has been genetically re-engineered with hidden gills, allowing him to breath without interrupting a verbal barrage. If Marc allows an opponent to get a word in edgeways, that is simply so they can give him more ammunition. Marc is devastating against those who would seek to debate using politics, spin and lies. Who can forget James “Chicken of the Sea” Cameron fleeing from debate in a cloud of yellow feathers and panicked squawking? The Internet doesn’t, and this is my second point.
Sceptics may prefer to debate the science, but Marc Morano is a political animal. He understands that the “issue” is never the issue in politics. His political antennae have detected that AGW was not about science, but rather pseudo science seized on by a huge number of fellow travellers for profit and to advance political agendas. He has used the Internet, lame stream media and his political connections to ensure that at no point in the future can any of the promoters or profiteers claim “they weren’t told”. Further to this he keeps a record of all those involved in the hoax and lets them know he is keeping the record.
The SS Global Warming has hit the iceberg of truth and is sinking below the waves. Squealing in panic, the rats are trying to escape. More scientifically inclined sceptics have destroyed all the life boats. Marc Morano is ensuring that all the hatches remain firmly welded shut. This may seem somewhat cruel. However, sceptics who object to Morano should ask themselves the question – do you really want any of these rats escaping? Do you really want them washing up in the Bay of “Biocrisis” or on the shores of “sustainability”, clinging to their rafts of soggy grey literature? I, for one do not. I applaud Marc Morano for his efforts.
hey Luther
hope you are ok
Piers Corbyn predicted the tornado swarm and made his forecast available free
http://www.weatheraction.com/resource/data/wact1/docs/USA%201305MAY%20SLAT8CS%20KeyWeather%20Maps+Extremes%20prod30Apr.pdf
Anthony,
You seem to damn Morano with your faint praise.
Morano says that “Temperature drives CO2” for three different scientific reasons. Here is a link to one of his reasons. Even Jeff Severinghaus (one of the EPICA researchers) admits that temperature drove CO2 over the last eight glaciation cycles:
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/the-dog-that-did-not-bark/
Marc Morano, thank you. The sinking ship CAGW has been hit broadside with yet another volley in the global warming scam. It is sinking and now the rats will have no place to go.
As I have said before, there’s an “army of ones” marching for the truth and now it seems to be becoming a full blown rout.
Carry on. The strongest force is often the one in the background. You are not alone.
He is the mallet to the forehead compliment to Lord M’s rapier dissection. We need both types.
gallopingcamel says:
May 31, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Morano says that “Temperature drives CO2″ for three different scientific reasons. Here is a link to one of his reasons. Even Jeff Severinghaus (one of the EPICA researchers) admits that temperature drove CO2 over the last eight glaciation cycles:
The increase/decrease of CO2 followed the temperature curve over the past 800 kyears with a quite fixed ratio of about 8 ppmv/°C and a lag of +/- 800 years during deglaciations and several thousands of years at the onset of glaciations.
But that doesn’t fit the past 160 years, where CO2 levels increased some 100 ppmv, while the temperature since the LIA only increased at maximum 1°C, thus increasing the atmosphere with not more than 8 ppmv extra at equilibrium.
Here what the ice cores show for the past 1000 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/antarctic_cores_001kyr.jpg
Some of the ice cores have a resolution of less than a decade…
Thus Morano is right about that temperature did drive CO2 over the past 800 kyr, but that doesn’t apply for the past 160 years.
That doesn’t prove that the temperature increase 1976-2000 is (mainly) caused by the increase of CO2, that is an entirely different discussion.
BTW, Henry’s Law gives an increase of about 16 ppmv/°C for seawater, but on the other side, increased temperatures and CO2 increase enhance plant uptake and rock weathering. That makes that the real increase over very long periods is about 8 ppmv/°C at a quite constant ratio over the full 800 kyears. On shorter term (seasonal, year by year to multiyear), the change is 4-5 ppmv/°C.
Morano’s document contains about four duplicate paragraphs that should be removed.
Marc Marano appears to apply this dictum to each sentence ;(
” As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.
With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.””
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/when_peer_review_becomes_mates_rates/
steveta_uk says:
June 1, 2013 at 3:48 am
“Tell the audience what you’re going to say, say it; then tell them what you’ve said.” Dale Carnegie (1888 – 1955)”
That is the gold standard of training people. I did it for 7 years. Software engineering, Computer technology and computer interface design.
Good luck Luther.
Stay safe.
Doug Proctor says:
May 31, 2013 at 3:40 pm
Perhaps, but his message is dead center.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 1, 2013 at 12:35 am
How do you know? There are a number of things that correlate better with temperature rise than the increase in CO2. So how do you know temperature DIDN’T drive CO2 over the past 160 years?
Didn’t we have a temperature increase as the earth was pulling out of the LIA, THEN CO2 increased?
Looks like it to me.
If you have diagrams showing CO2 increased first followed by the temperature rise from the LIA, please produce them.
The problem with Morano is he has no scientific credentials.
That makes him the worst possible type of person to personify the skeptical movement.
Dave says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:15 am
Yes, but the most heard voices in the climate debate are those of the media people. They’ve got McKibben, we’ve got Delingpole, etc. etc.
Dave,
When you cannot refute the science, attack the man, eh? That’s weak tea, my friend. And what are your credentials? Post your CV here, so we can determine whether you have the authority to post your opinion.
Marc Morano is simply re-stating this fact, in his own words. If he is mis-stating facts, show us where.
Sorry Dave, but nobody who buys into CGWA (even if the resist calling it that) cares a hoot about science. They just dress up in it.
Hamp says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:44 am
True, and that’s why I call them the “CAGW”–Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas.
That’s the proper interpretation of the acronym.
Luther,
Please report in. Hope you & all yours are OK.
Thanks.
Not only are the malaria predictions failing but Malaria has fallen and continues down.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/full/nature09098.html
I totally disagree. Here’s why. How many sceptical scientists talk like him? He is a political attack dog, this is what he does best. He knows the layman’s language and puts it forward simply and confidently. He knows not to go into the nitty gritty, it would bore people. In this great climate war different soldiers bring on different skills. Delingpole is good at what he does and won the bloggies. Anthony Watts is not a climate scientist and won the bloggies. These three people have done more damage to the good ship global warming than most of the sceptical climate scientists combined.
Oh, I should have added Steve McIntyre to make it “These three people have done more damage to the good ship global warming than most of the sceptical climate scientists combined.”