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/
While one can have mixed feelings about any personality, the key point is that Marc Morano is essentially correct that AGW is driven by political goals not science. Technical skeptics who devote enormous time to the data, graphs, studies etc might be emotionally distraught to accept this truth. Delingpole covers many of the same bases and is also correct.
AGW and the “Green” movement is largely dominated by the social and academic left-wing of the country and the world. Central planning (Agenda-21), wealth redistribution, reduced property rights of individuals (collectivism) are the central features. It was never about science but targeting “carbon interests” AKA “Big oil” etc. for taxation and control.
Technical skeptics themselves are in denial if they think scientific refutation is central to the broader social and political questions of AGW policy motivations. So if skeptics agree to be socially dishonest in the same way core believers (followers) of AGW choose to be is it small wonder the levels of social damages that have occurred? The fault lies more with technical skeptics who fail to directly support the thesis of Marc Morano as much as any delusional Gaianist or leftist operative of the “cause”. The non-political climate debate premise is damaging and erroneous.
I keep wondering how Barack Obama won the last election. Did Republicans need more arbitrage? more silver-tongued compromise? Or more fire-breathing orators who were willing to state the obvious and damn the dissent? Whichever it was, I felt the heart go out of the party.
I recently enjoyed watching “Lincoln” with my daughter, and was reminded that Lincoln, a Republican, was aided in shepherding the Emancipation Proclamation through Congress by a “radical” member of his own party. Thaddeus Stevens. Stevens’ anti-slavery views were well-known by everyone, and woe unto him who disagreed. Lincoln’s manner was sly and folksy, whereas Stevens’ oratory was direct and incisive.
One Stevens biographer noted that Lincoln felt it would take a century to bring slavery to an end, (but) Stevens felt that once encircled and given no hope of expansion, slavery would “sting itself to death”. (Fawn Brodie, “Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South”)
Those who criticize Morano’s directness should consider this. It takes all kinds. And I sure can’t fault his sentiments here:
Now would be a good time to begin to survey congressional records – to see how politicians favor overt global warming legislation. They are on the public payroll, and had better know it. We all hope for a stake through the heart of this blood-sucking vampire, but knowing the blood-lust of our representatives, and their timidity in the face of daylight, Morano’s “death by a thousand cuts” may have to serve.
Bart says:
June 2, 2013 at 11:50 pm
We have been over, and over, and over this. At one point, you seemed to have seen the light. What happened?
There was a possibility that an increased emission from nature (whatever source) together with human emissions theoretically could be the cause of the increase, until I realised that such a “natural” increase was counterbalanced by an even larger increase in sink rate by nature. Thus in fact only increasing the turnover rate, not the increase in the atmosphere…
If you can offer a “real” mass balance, where human and natural emissions are equally absorbed (in speed) and still the natural emissions are larger than the natural sinks, I may revise my opinion…