Ever since some of the more rabid webloggers from the consensus side started labelling me an enemy (of the State? The people? Their fears?) because of my lukewarmer status (I believe global warming is real and a problem, but not catastrophic), most of my internet communications have been with either other lukewarmers or outright skeptics.(With the exception of Bart Verheggen and one or two others.) Not a brilliant strategy from the Al Gore side of the fence.
Marc Morano, former communications director for the Republican Senator James Inhofe-led Committee on the Environment and Public Works, currently runs the skeptic weblog Climate Depot. It's an aggregator site that mostly links to other stories on climate change, with an emphasis on stories that support his own skepticism, or at least put the consensus view in a bad light--which recently has been remarkably easy to do.
When Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced his investigation into the University of Virginia for grants used by Michael Mann (inventor of the Hockey Stick chart), almost immediately I saw reports that Marc Morano might have inspired it in a conversation with several Republican Attorneys General.
I emailed Marc and asked him about that. It turned into a request for an interview. I realised that in over a year writing this column I hadn't interviewed one skeptic. It's high time. Morano and I don't agree on climate change, politics or policies, but he's always treated me like a gentleman, and has often linked to my articles, many of which are more critical of the consensus than the rest of what's on his page.
Marc was on his way back from the Canary Islands and just sent his answers over today.
Examiner: There are rumors floating around on the internet that you might have had something to do with Virginia AG Ken Cuccinelli's decision to investigate the University of Virginia regarding the funding of Michael Mann's research 10 years ago. Have you ever even met Ken Cuccinelli? Did you speak with him
about investigating Michael Mann or the U of Va?
MM: I have never had any contact with Cuccinelli at all on any matter.
Examiner: In general, do you think this investigation is warranted? Is it a good idea politically? Is it something other states should consider?
MM: I have no problem with what Cuccinelli is doing. Scientists are not above the law. It is quite refreshing to see a novel legal avenue pursued in going after publicly funded professors. Michael Mann deserves every bit of hassle this investigation will entail. When you accept taxpayer funds, let's not pretend to be shocked when government officials come asking questions.
Examiner: From your experience working with Senator Inhofe, do you have concerns about how climate research is funded at the federal or state level? What are they, if any?
MM:The biggest issue is the bandwagon effect. The U.S. federal government and other governments around the world, foundations, the UN, to name just a few outlets, are lavishly funding speculative climate fear research. If only skeptics had a small fraction of the money climate fear promoters get, the alleged "consensus" would have collapsed decades ago. It has led to group think on a massive scale as warming reseach is hot right now.
Examiner: What is your opinion of the other investigations that have been conducted into climate science? Barton committee, Wegman, NAS, the UK Parliamentary inquiry, Penn State, Oxburgh--all have been critical of procedures and some processes, none have found anything to indicate fraud or even blatant political maneuvering. Do you think the weight of all these investigations should influence us?
MM: You may want to check your characterization of some of these reports. Re: Wegman, they found: Wegman Report: 'We found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Michael Mann...closely connected'
As for Penn State and Oxburgh, we know these were self interested "investigations" that even had massive conflict of interests associated with it. (See: Penn State's announcement of its investigation 'is so complimentary to Mann, it almost reads like the press release of the verdict, published prematurely' & Penn State Committee Report: 'Further investigation is warranted' into Climategate Prof. Michael Mann -- Inquiry 'moves to next phase'
Re: Oxburgh's silly report, see: 'Dracula's in charge of the blood bank' -- Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to disclose environmental directorship .
Warmist Judith Curry: 'Oxburgh [climategate] report is hardly a ringing endorsement of the CRU science' -- 'When I first read the [Oxburgh] report, I thought I was reading the executive summary and proceeded to look for the details; well, there weren't any' http://www.climatedepot.com/a/6327/Warmist-Judith-Curry-Oxburgh-climategate-report-is-hardly-a-ringing-endorsement-of-the-CRU-science
The "weight" we should give these investigations depends on each circumstance. When there is a whiff of corruption, the warmists circle the wagons. My favorite reaction is UN IPCC's Pachauri saying he would not step down because he needs to be there to implement reforms! He is the man perhaps most responsible for the corruption and laughable science, yet he now sees himself as the great reformer who will correct his past wrongs. I am sure all skeptics wish him a lifetime of service at the UN IPCC. The longer he stays, the less credibility the IPCC will have. Please see: UN IPCC Chair Pachauri rules out stepping down even if UN panel finds fault -- 'I would be responsible for implementing the recommendations. How can I walk away from that?'
Examiner: The magazine Science came out earlier with a letter calling for political investigations into climate science to cease and desist. What is your reaction?
MM: I feel sorry for them. It is a collection of the usual suspects, led by perhaps one of the most discredited scientists of our modern age, Overpopulation guru Paul Ehrlich. The letter was met with a big yawn. The warming movement has been shown to be sub-prime science, sub-prime economics and sub-prime politics. They can keep churning out 'consensus' letters with appeals to authority, but the stench of scientific corruption will overwhelm them everytime.
Examiner: What are your personal opinions about climate change and human contributions to global warming? What are they based on? What do you use for sources of information on climate change? Do you feel you know enough about the science to consider your opinion informed?
MM: I am not a scientist, my background is in political science, which is why I feel I am qualified to discuss man-made global warming fears, it is at its heart merely a political movement, not a scientific one. Bottom line: CO2 is a trace essential gas in the atmoshere that we exhale from our mouth. To pretend it is THE climate driver is no longer scientifcally tenable. Even RealClimate.org has admitted there are hundreds of factors that make up global temps -- Co2 is but one. I think the late Atmospheric Scientist Reid Bryson said it best in 2007: Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added.
Also see: Climate Depot's exclusive report:
Excerpt : "UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008.
Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this point slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.
(Australian geologist and author of a recent book on global warming titled 'Heaven and Earth Ian) Plimer also mocked efforts to "control" the climate. "If our climate catastrophists want to twiddle the dials and stop climate change, they need to play God and change radiation in the galaxy, the Sun, the Earth's orbit, tidal cycles and plate tectonics," Plimer wrote on August 24, 2009. "Once they have mastered volcanoes, then we can let them loose on climate change," Plimer added.
A growing number of scientists challenge the premise of CO2 driving climate change. Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer, wrote on August 24, 2009: "There have been ice ages when the levels of Co2 in Earth's atmosphere have been many times higher than today's." Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth."
Examiner: I will be titling this column 'The Enemy of my Enemy...' Do you feel that a middle ground exists between your position and that of, say, Real Climate or Climate Progress?
MM: Yes, the middle ground of rational scientific discourse. Climate Depot is just that, rational. Climate Progress is hilarious to read. Romm is so clueless, he is entertaining. I would help raise funds to put Romm on national TV every night to preach climate fears. His style of presenting climate science would lead to even more public skepticism. As for Real Climate, they have been exposed as quite simply the "men behind the curtain" trying to manipulate the media into believing their nonsense. For a Climate Depot exclusive report on what scientists think about the propagandists at Real Climate, see here: Climate Depot Exclusive: Real Climate Exposed! A Comprehensive Report on the 'Real' RealClimate.org -
It will be humorous to see these career eco-fear promoters shift to the next eco-scare once warming fears fade away. See: Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already 'Test-Marketing' the Next Eco-Fear! 'Laughing Gas' Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?
Examiner: How did you come to start Climate Depot? What led you to decide on the aggregator model, as opposed to a more conventional blogging style?
MM: I left the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to start Climate Depot. I based Climate Depot on my Senate newsletter and blog. I have much more freedom and focus being out of the U.S. Senate. I loved working for Sen. Inhofe and am convinced he had been scientifically vindicated. I felt a clearinghouse website was needed in the climate media world. Climate Depot has a mix of original reporting, links and entertainment. Entertainment is perhaps what is most needed in this debate. The fact that more Americans believe in haunted houses than man made global warming, is true scientific progress. See: Polling: 'More Americans believe in haunted houses than man-made global warming' - 37% vs. 36%.
Comments
Thanks for the fun interview! I think Morano is right about the need for entertainment, to some degree. Climate alarmists are so serious in their self-importance!
It is so revealing that the president of the European Union once said that “2009 was the year of establishing a global government through the EU and that the climate change treaty would be the next step in one world government.” If warmists by default look to government to solve Anthropological Global Warming, then I cannot help but perceive their motivations as lacking objectivity, and I mistrust anything they present as objective science.
Thanks for letting Marc speak. The voodoo science practiced by the climategate scientists is also a big laugh every time. I also laugh every time one of these climategate scientists denies the fact that Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today.
Voodoo science: ice and snow melt under the sun; therefore, man-induced CO2 drives climate change -- this is like saying 1+1=3, or the earth is flat, or man did not land on the moon.
Morano is looking at climate science from a political wonk's perspective so I guess I can excuse him for always seeing things in a winner vs. loser point of view. However, mother nature is a dictator, perhaps even a benevolent one, and she really doesn't care who "wins" the argument, she'll do what she'll do. Good scientists on the other hand are not interested in winning or losing, they are interested in understanding their subject to the point where good predictions can be made. The best scientific discussions I've seen in a while are over at Roger Pielke Sr's site looking at the oceans as a calorimeter and with Roy Spenser and Kevin Trenbreth debating total radiative heat balance as measured by satellites. I think you've interviewed both Pielke's before but it would be interesting to revisit Dr. Pielke Sr. given the events of the last 6 months.
Understand, Tom, the etymology of the 'thus' in enthusiast.
=====================
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!