Morano’s 1-hour interview debunking ‘global warming’ & explaining how the climate scare became a tool for the regulatory state

From TFP Student Action

Celebrities, activists, environmentalist organizations, the UN, government entities and sadly, even the Vatican support the theory that humans cause climate change. However, in this exclusive interview, “global warming” expert and author Marc Morano gives you hard-hitting arguments and facts that dispel the artificial fear propagated by “climate emergency” alarmists.

Marc Morano talks about:

#Climate #change (min 2:58)

Population control (min 14:24)

Global warming (min 17:12)

Medieval warm period (min 19:37)

Best arguments against climate change (min 33:03)

The fake 97% scientific consensus (min 34:17)

The Green New Deal (min 38:23)

Pope Francis and Laudato Si (min 48:11 )

Socialism and environmentalism (min 51:27)

His book, Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (min 57:38)

Download show audio:

63 thoughts on “Morano’s 1-hour interview debunking ‘global warming’ & explaining how the climate scare became a tool for the regulatory state

  1. If we want a good environmental policy in the future, we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.

    – Sir John Houghton, first co-chair of the IPCC and lead editor of its first three Reports.
    From Me and my God column, Sunday Telegraph (UK), September 10th, 1995

    • Mark Pawelek – August 29, 2019 at 2:22 am

      we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident.

      “YUP”, …… even iffen the government has to “stage” a disaster on public transport to get the public to act, ……… like “staging” a high-jacking of an airline by a factiously named person known as ….. D B Cooper.

  2. .. Awesome video….shared on FB and Twit City..etc….Now I’ll sit back and wait for the “hate mail”…lol

  3. “Climate change” as an issue is far more about justifying ways to impose socialism than it is about preserving our precious biosphere.

    • Yet a substantial faction of “skeptics” are offended or obtuse to your observation.

      The US remains in the UN Climate Framework and the President panders and attempts to triangulate Greens routinely.

      Not much introspection in many parts of the skeptic community while collectivist’s are committed to a power grab of unprecedented scale. Why is that?

    • It is about Big Brother controlling every aspect of your life. The name we give it is not important. It is the end of We The People.

      Organizing this is very expensive so follow the yellow brick road.

  4. Morano represents actual dissent to establishment climate change junk science and the associated political culture of global collectivism that is the actual goal.

    The SINO (skeptic in name only) vs. HLS (Hard Line Skeptics) like Dr. Lindzen and Morano is the topic every imagined skeptic has to declare for. Hard Line Warmists (global collectivists) dominate the debate while SINO’s offer a low energy rebuttal to that power grab. The President has only offered transitory relief by exiting the Paris sham but the US remains in the greater evil…..The UN Climate Framework….that produced the Paris plan and manages the brainwashing and critical thinking decline of the entire globe regarding climate. It must be eradicated.

    Morano and similar deserve support. The SINO faction should reform itself. Climate change policy in establishment hands is modern totalitarianism and should be addressed as such.

    • As if thunderstorms are political??

      Certainly “global warming” is politics dressed as “science”. So you’re clueless to his point but more likely willfully clueless as a tactic.

      Again, what is the # for the Alinsky Rule for Radicals regarding diversion?

      • Global warming (heating) has indeed been politicised, by both the left and the right ends of the political spectrum, but it’s still science. Climate change is an emergent property of the same laws of physics that govern the behavior of thunderstorms; i.e., those governing motion, thermodynamics and radiative transfer. These laws, expressed mathematically as a coupled system of partial differential equations, are what comprise the numerical “general circulation” models widely used to generate statistics (i.e., climatologies) of weather variables. Since these are physical models, they can be used to demonstrate cause and effect in the Earth’s observed climate system. This includes changes in the climate system resulting from the disruption of the natural carbon cycle due to greenhouse gas emissions from fossil energy. If these models aren’t science, then I would like to know what is.

        • Science is when the scientists stay out of public policy and stick to collecting beetles. What you’re talking about is witch doctoring: which is when the scientists start thinking they have special powers and know better. Then you get the mass hysteria of the dimwitted following because “science”. Your precious science has become just another cult.

          • Science enters as a decision aid for public policy and action all the time. The value that physical models, based on the laws of physics, offer are largely the reason why a few dozen people may die when hurricane Dorian hits the southeast US. This is in contrast to hundreds and thousands during past events, notably the 1938 and Galveston hurricanes. Of course, weather is just one example.

        • ” If these models aren’t science, then I would like to know what is.”

          Well start with your lumping “thermodynamics and radiative transfer” together as if they are equally well understood and modelled. We quite a good mathematical and observational understanding of radiative transfer and this where the “science” of GHE lies. That is the bit there is a 97% consensus on. Thermodynamics is a much more complex situation and that is where nice simple linear behavior goes out of the window and the gross simplifications come in. We have the Navier Stokes equation but can not solve it. The climate is chaotic, non-linear system we are trying to linerise to make it possible to model. Then there is the problem that models are so complex that we cannot run on a fine enough scale to actually model key weather events like storms, so modellers introduce “parameterisation” ( aka guesstimates and frig factors ) to represent what they CANNOT model. We do not have accurate models for evaporation of sea water under the action of wind, waves and sea spray, we do not understand condensation and precipitation in clear mathematical terms. In short we do NOT have “basic physics” models for all the key processes of that water cycle which which is key part of the climate regulatory system.

          So the models are only partially science, the rest is tuned to get a desired result. Even without a political bias with is endemic in the field of climatology that gives the lie to your impression that all this is “physical models” which are beyond reasonable doubt and whose output we should accept unquestioningly because it is “science”.

          Hanson et al 2005 openly states that you can get pretty much any climate sensitivity you want by adjusting model parameters. With what Climategate revealed about the attitude and behaviour of key players in the field of climatology, we should have no illusions that the choice of model parameters is being done in a totally objective and open manner.

          ” but it’s still science.”

          Sadly, no , it is not.

          • Your comments only explain why the accuracy of operational numerical weather prediction model ensemble forecasts are no better than climatology after about two weeks. The way the atmosphere spreads heat around the climate system is chaotic, this includes heat partitioning between states such as evaporation, clouds, etc. So what? Subgrid-scale parameterizations need not be deterministic, but only statistically stable under a particular radiative forcing regime. It’s true that general circulation model ensembles create a large diversity of climate states within even our current forcing regime with fast feed backs. The key point is that changing the radiative forcing systematically shifts the statistical distribution.

          • Greg,

            “Then there is the problem that models are so complex that we cannot run on a fine enough scale to actually model key weather events like storms”

            If this were true, there would be no way to “predict” that some areas are more likely to experience things like extreme rainfall events. I’ve seen a model run in which a hurricane was an emergent property of the model – the model wasn’t tuned to produce the hurricane, it just happened as part of the model. It is understood that GCMs don’t predict the timing of things like hurricanes or droughts; that’s not what they are meant to do.

            It’s true there there are no exact mathematical equations for all the processes involved in climate, but that’s true for much of science. Parameterization sets limits on estimates that can be tested by running models to see how closely they estimate past climate processes, or whether they can model the current climate accurately. No one maintains they are perfect; model development is a process, and comparison among models is a tool to see how well they agree, which in turn is reflected in the likelihood and confidence estimates for future climate projection.

            Even if Climategate were as bad as people want to think, why should that be any indication of the professionalism of climate scientists in general? To me it’s significant that so many people are still clutching onto something that happened in one group many years ago to show that the whole field is riddled with corruption, at the same time ignoring the corruption of those who spread misinformation in an effort to make climate science seem completely untrustworthy in order to lower the risk of their own financial losses (and turn it into a partisan political fight).

          • Kristi Silber replied “No one maintains they are perfect; model development is a process, and comparison among models is a tool to see how well they agree, which in turn is reflected in the likelihood and confidence estimates for future climate projection.”

            Well, I maintain the climate projection computer models used by the IPCC are VASTLY IMPERFECT. The IPCC used an ensemble of 90 different science-based computer models under the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5) that was the basis of their Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). For projecting the rate of global warming, even with “calibrations” for the last 20 or so years, those model projections ranged from 0.11 to 0.34 deg-C/decade, a difference of more than 3:1.

            If the models can’t even agree on the basics of simulating Earth’s energy balance going forward (as reflected by the wide dispersion in projected global temperature increase rates), they certainly have zero credibility in projecting future climate.

            Climate modeling, in its current status, is not science, or even part of the scientific method, since it completely fails the reproducibility test.

          • Kristi Silber

            **Even if Climategate were as bad as people want to think, why should that be any indication of the professionalism of climate scientists in general?**

            You don´t see, if you don´t want to look.

        • Models are jiggery pokery. Have you ever tried to model a complex system? As one who has let me tell you frankly the results are BS. As soon as you get variables, cause and effect and feedbacks you aren’t sure of, your results become meaningless and the distribution of probabilities becomes flatter and flatter.
          You are trying to tell us that the IPCC knows EXACTLY all the causes and effects on the world’s climate. The almost complete predictive failure of the models to date tells us what sort of a grip this lot have on the workings of climate.
          It might also pay you to have a look at the Quantum physics of CO2. It is always presumed that the properties of CO2 are constant at every temperature. They aren’t!!!

      • C’mon, thats the main reason this site exists. There are several guest posters specializing in it. If you you don’t want to be ridiculed don’t write ridiclous headlines.

    • Are you really that stupid or just pretending to be? Obviously, it’s the global warming faux issue that he’s debunking.

    • He’s debunking groupthink and the groupthink leaders. Take a class, look at some data, do some critical thinking outside of the echo chamber, figure it out for yourself.

    • Debunking is about exposing untruths, exaggerations and pseudoscience involved in idea/belief. Only thing your showing yourself up for is a strawman argument. That’s why science can’t move forward with people attacking science that don’t involve what the scientists are actually in disagreement with. This is the liberal lefts policy to rule the people and tell them to do what they say, but not as they do.

      These people claim every scientist is a denier unless you agree with them that the world will end or catastrophic change if we don’t take further action. They won’t take any other view and are greatly ignorant of the topic.

      Carrying on with your standards heat-waves, floods, droughts, thunderstorms, tropical storms and hurricanes have already been debunked because apparently they can’t occur without climate change. (according to media, activists and alarmists)

    • How old are you Loydo, 14? Is that really the best you can do? You impotent sparrowfart!

  5. That’s why all politicians love it. It is the perfect tool to control and control and control in the name of Big Brother.

  6. You can’t get better hysteria than this-

    “Therein lies the paradox: while satellites and sensors monitor the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet, chase icebergs and scan sea ice daily, relatively little is known about what the residents of Greenland think about their changing surroundings.”

    What! Only a 90% consensus of Greenlanders? Seems I’ve been lied to about that 97% consensus and the science isn’t that settled yet.

    Presumably Nada Farhoud heard Trump was offering to buy Greenland so she hitched a lift with Greta to head him off at the pass-

  7. Things are moving very fast now.
    The clear intent of global finance, mouthed by Bank of England chief Carney to replace the Dollar with a Synthetic Hegemonic Currency,SHC, to literally start a tsunami of exclusively green “investment” out of any Government’s hands should be clear it has nothing to do with “socialism”, rather with Empire. The call by ex FED NY Pres Dudley for the FED to decide the election, bypassing President Trump shows the gloves are off.
    Keynes tried something similar with the Bancor in 1944, rejected then by FDR.

    The reason the gloves are off, covert masks out the window, is the imminent crash, worse than 2008. Zuck’s bucks, the Libra, has just been hijacked, or was just a stalking horse.

    The apparent madness of certain heads of state going green is clear evidence they are aware of the financial tsunami, that another bailout will cause major upheaval, and want to keep it going.

    Better to declare the Empire bankrupt – $15 quadrillion is bankrupt in any language, put Gleas-Steagall back and invest in massive physical economic programs – space (Trump got that right), fusion, infrastructure (China got that right), and the green stuff simply forgotten.

    This is Big Green Finance like never before seen. Only the big 4, USA, Russia,China,India have a chance to deal with it.

  8. All the arguments used by Morano against scientists not dissenting can be turned to right wing journalists like him.

    I would wager huge sums that he has never:
    1. Challenged the contention that the private sector is always good and does not in fact engage in criminality on a weekly basis to win by foul means.
    2. Challenged the contention that Sheldon Adelson earning billions running casinos does not in any way qualify him to set foreign policy on Israel and certainly not before it has been shown beyond doubt thatvAdeoson is not actively alloeing or passively turning s bland eye to money laundering through his casinos by organised criminals (which includes Mossad and the CIA).
    3. Challenged the contention that far right extremism is just as dangerous as far left extremism and making that a binary choice should be resisted at an existential level.
    4. Challenged the genocidal warmongering mentality on Capitol Hill which makes all Americans now regarded by most of the rest of the world with anything from contempt to absolute hatred.
    5. Challenged the absolute failure of the US private sector to provide a value-for-money healthcare system for ALL Americans.
    6. Challenged the US military programme HAARP and potential links to Wall Street, the thesis being that wilful vandalism of global weather to destroy growing seasons will provide profitable trading for amoral wastrels whose life in front of computer schemes is no qualification to have any input regarding how to feed the world.
    7. Challenged the anti-capitalistic US vaccine regulatory environment, demanding that TNCs profiting from vaccines must be liable to face class action suits, should medical evidence dictate that major adverse reactions have been the result of ever more demanding vaccination schedules for US children.
    8. Evaluated the predatory profiteering of privatised utility monopolies in the UK and declared that regime to be detrimental to consumer rights, fundamentally incompatible with free markets and an absolute red flag to accountability in areas as fundamental as water purity, electricity and gas prices, thereby rendering it inappropriate in the free market nirvana that is the USA.
    9. Evaluated the thesis that a majority of adults are neither driven by greed nor narcissism and hence laissez faire capitalism is fundamentally at odds with the actual nature of enormous numbers of human beings.
    10. That speculative boom bust economies are ill suited to long term steady endeavour and hence the Wall Street paradigm should be fundamentally reevaluated as a means to serve the economy, rarher than the economy being slaves to Wall Street wastrels.

    • That tinfoil hat would look better at a slightly more rakish angle.

      Not much of an argument I guess, but I only had to read a couple of your points to realize you weren’t worth it.

    • This is also you, isn’t it Rhys?

      “America believing in a manifest destiny means vassaldom for whole nations overseas.”

      “Americans obviously accept unwanted gun fatalities as Acceptable Collateral Damage.”

      I think maybe you’ve just blundered into the wrong forum. Surely there are abundant and more fitting arenas for a Profoundly Gifted Person like yourself to express their loathing for America? 🙂

      • Indeedy. Found the quotes by him above just by googling his name. They’re from responses he gave in Quora, where he also responded to a question specifically addressed to “profoundly gifted persons.”

        HAARP? Jesus wept; don’t forget chem trails, Rhys.

  9. Terrific stuff. But he, and other sceptics, have a blind spot on population control. Things are bad enough in Africa as things stand, but with the population doubling every 24 years, the continent will be a nightmare by 2050. Ideally all the money spent on the global warming scam should be instead spent on population control. Financial incentives to mothers of say two or three children should be offered to accept sterilisation. Women should be empowered through education so they get control of their bodies and their lives. The same goes for parts of the middle east and south and central America.

  10. Imagine over a century of science dispatched in an hour.. of chatting!
    no data, no analysis, no alternative theory..

    that boy’s and girls is how feynman taught us to do science!

    Now, I’m no scientist, but if marc morano says radiative physics is bunk.. well who am I to disagree

    • Steven Mosher

      Now, I’m no scientist, but if marc morano says radiative physics is bunk.. well who am I to disagree

      I presume from that statement you have had the title ‘scientist’ removed by your employer from their website?

      • Not I. It took me about 20 minutes, stopping here and there to see what his theme was: same old politically (or financially? I don’t know the guy) motivated conspiracy theory bunk that makes absolutely no sense and spewing unsubstantiated assertions about people’s motives.

        Who has more to gain by twisting the climate change narrative: thousands of scientists around the world, or those like Koch Industries, with heavy investments in the fossil fuel industry? One group spends their careers getting mediocre pay in the pursuit of truth and would lose their livelihood and reputation if they were found committing fraud, the other group spends 100s of millions of dollars trying to manipulate public opinion and legislators’ votes.

        Moran would have us believe that it’s the thousands of scientists (from entomologists to agronomists to atmospheric physicists) telling lies for the sake of global governance, destroying the economy, halting progress, etc. And, of course, anyone who has simply observed the changes first hand, from Inuits to Bantus to Floridians – they are either imagining things, or they are in on the hoax. Besides, there’s nothing we can do about it if AGW does exist, so we shouldn’t try.

        That’s the message I came away with, gleefully accepted as fact by most of the people commenting here. Fact? He can cherry-pick a few quotes, add his own beliefs and twist the science, but that doesn’t make it fact.

    • Jim, aaaaw, why did you you have to go to “flat earthers” when the CAGW alarmist, ahem, consensus is to use the term “denier” as much as possible? Didn’t you get the memo, or are you just trying to stand out from the crowd?

      Now, you were saying something about being confused . . .

  11. I see that Loydo continues to post gibberish, which is all he seems to offer.

    How about this startling idea, post an actual counter to the Video?

    But that is too hard for you to do…………

  12. From what iv’e seen population control is a core issue for earth has a fever believers .
    Is that because at it’s core the scary global warming industry is first and foremost about money followed by control over people including mass extinction policies that are enabled by pretending to control the earth’s temperature ?
    Death by fuel poverty and other means are in it’s infancy . Carbon taxes are a licence to kill and eradicate
    the poor and people who would otherwise hope to enjoy the lifestyle provided as a result of access to reasonably affordable fossil fuels .
    There is nothing worse than self righteous virtue signalers who like to hide behind a cause to absolutely massacre people . It happens over and over . The scary global warming industry is a factory for those
    criminals .
    Do the people drinking umbrella cocktails and greedy politicians care if the poorest get wiped out ?
    Not at all, they fully support it by their actions .
    Ever wonder why the hypocrite Hollywood actors and MSM are so keen to pump the tires of the earth has a fever ? Deflection and brand virtue signaling for sure but they are also social racist drinking from the same bath water .

  13. Morano deserves a medal . He has conducted himself with class while defending the truth against
    massive odds . Seriously anyone in Trump world this guy has saved the USA $billions .
    A true American hero !

  14. A key observation for Gen Z and Millennials is that all political supports and troupes regarding the rebranding “climate change” can all be traced back to pre-Earthday, anti-capitalism, anti-American, Utopian socialism. “Global warming”, Iceage fears, Population Bomb, “Sustainability”, “Zero growth movement”. It’s all the same sing along with slightly different lyrics.

    Science is trivial in comparison to the political emotions involved. Morano is clear and efficient on the substance. The magical claims of science authority supporting the politics of collectivism are rubbish.

    • Shadows of National Socialism are coming visible. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. He knew his “how to do” is very well working guide book always.

Comments are closed.