Climate

Memo to media, blogosphere: Swift boat smearer Marc Morano has no credibility. He is unquotable and uncitable

“Morano … was also among the first reporters to write about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign…. Morano penned an article questioning the Purple Heart medals of Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.).”

Swift boat smearer Marc Morano, former denier-in-chief (DIC) for Sen. James Inhofe (R-OIL), is emailing around his bio and his new website to whatever members of the media are aching to tarnish their professional reputations.  You can read that full bio in the Wonk Room post “Climate Depot Alert! Global Warming Denier Marc Morano Sets Up Shop! Now With Crazier Formatting!” — I can’t bring myself to inflict it on you.

And yet Swift Boat smearer Morano leaves out of his emailed bio that on May 3, 2004, he wrote the CNS article Kerry ‘Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,’ Say Former Military Colleagues” — a pack of lies ahead of its time! He leaves out his smearing of Murtha.  He never mentions he was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show.”  Isn’t this all first-paragraph-bio stuff for a right-winger?  Well, thank heaven for SourceWatch.

So major media, if you think the research behind the widely repudiated Swift Boat smear was credible, if you think Rush Limbaugh’s rantings are credible, then, by all means, as Morano suggests, keep his name and info in your Rolodex (font, color in original):

For your on-air expert contributor talent files: Credentialed “Counter Guest” to popular global warming ideology

I will be taking a different tack.  Morano is simply not part of the legitimate discussion about climate science and policy.  Marc Morano is unquotable and uncitable.

Besides his penchant for smear, he just makes stuff up and misrepresents scientists’ work, as I (and others) have repeatedly shown (see, for instance, Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Morano, CO2 “” but not the sun “” “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850 and Inhofe and Morano keep making stuff up, this time utterly misquoting Revkin on Hansen).  See also ConWebWatch’s “Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano’s Fantasy.”

For a journalist, quoting or citing him as a source is the Swiftist way to smear your own reputation.  For anyone other than a rightwing anti-scientific blogger, even linking to his new site ClimateDepot to debunk him gives him the attention and credibility he does not deserve.

I will not be linking to his website nor will I allow any links to his website to appear on this blog.  It is conceivable that circumstances might arise where I refer to something Swift boat smearer Marc Morano has written, but I can’t imagine them right now.

Yes, I did debate Swift Boat smearer Morano recently —  but I was filling in at the last minute as a favor.  As readers know, I believe such debates are pointless if not counterproductive, since we have known for 25 centuries that debates are not won on the facts but by who is a better debater, which is to say, who understands the principles of rhetoric (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers” and “Voodoo Economists 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates“).  In particular, it is very hard to win a debate against someone who just repeatedly makes stuff up.

Fortunately, Swift Boat smearer Morano isn’t a terribly good debater and really screwed up in the second half.  While I am seriously out of practice, I’d say I did about as well as one can do.  I am not going to post the links here, since I don’t view watching the debate as a productive use of your time — and ClimateProgress is all about saving you time by separating the wheat from the chaff — but you can find them on the not-so-Accuweather Blog here:

On one side we had Jim (sic) Romm of Climateprogress.org. Romm is also the former acting Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy under the Clinton Administration.

OK, Brett Anderson — or is that Brent or maybe Bratt — you don’t have to read my blog or know who the heck I am — but how about two seconds on Google?  Or how about even listening to the debate you linked to?  I was introduced, and then I think Morano used my name a dozen times.  Still what do you expect from a guy who writes “Marc is well known on this blog and has posted comments here from time to time”?

I’d recommend not debating Swift Boat smearer Morano since he certain to make stuff up and smear you.  If you do agree to debate him, please email me and I’d be happy to

  1. try to discourage you
  2. give you some tips on how to exploit his weaknesses.

After this post and the comments below, this blog will be a Morano-free zone.

Just say no!

111 Responses to Memo to media, blogosphere: Swift boat smearer Marc Morano has no credibility. He is unquotable and uncitable

  1. Alex says:

    DeSmogBlog is a great resource on climate change misinformation campaigns. Marc Morano is included in their “extensive database of individuals involved with in the global warming denial industry.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

    [JR: Yes, meant to include this one. Thanks.]

  2. paulm says:

    Hey Joe, you definitely won the debate.

    The other guy came across as a cowboy clown.

  3. Watch Joe fend off Moron-o’s swift-boating on Roll Call TV:
    Hot Air

  4. Joe, My apologies for mis-typing your name. I also included additional info. on your bio. We try to show both sides to the “global warming argument” on our blog. Brett.

  5. Oh, by the way. The name is Brett. You can check my bio on the page.

    JR: Just counter-tweaking you :)

  6. Aaron says:

    Just watched the debate

    The debate forum really aid the people with disinformation. In the context of the debate, there isn’t enough time to show that 90% of the stuff coming out of Marc Moranos mouth is a blatant lie. Which I imagine is why all the deniers are always calling for a public ‘debate’ on the science. As if they have something new to contribute.

  7. Brett,
    Does Hack-U-Weather also give both sides of the “flat-earth debate”? How about debunking the “theory” of gravity?

  8. paulm says:

    Hey Marc Morano,

    when your family is affected by an AGW extreme climate change event you will be changing your tune.

    And that probably wont be too long from now.

  9. Will Greene says:

    Dr. Romm, I know you don’t want to focus on the debate, but you won. It seems like all these guys do is list the amount of scientists who are on their side, (here’s my list of japanese scientist deniers blah blah) and never bring a serious scientific fact to the table. And then they say, even if global warming is real, cap and trade is command and control ect. They contradict their own debate. Kudos for shaking his hand at the end, I know I never could have done that.

  10. One more to add it to the list:

    Yesterday NBC Newschannel had a report from Tracy Potts on the Wilkins ice shelf breakup. It started as a good report on global warming presenting news and science.

    However she lost all credibility by deciding to interview someone from the CATO institute – who basically said there is nothing to worry about and pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. First, the story did not require an opposing viewpoint… it is an event story.. should a journalist find someone to say the event did not happen? There was no fire or car crash? Then to select a political ideologue to comment on a cryo event is astoundingly short sighted.

    In the face of a real calamity this is another piece of irresponsible journalism. It is beyond a disservice that works to deflect appropriate response to real and looming danger. NBC Newschannel is hard to reach, but their stories go out to local NBC affiliates. I am looking on YouTube for it to show up.

    The Yale forum on Climate and Media offers some great guidelines. It just came out yesterday. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2009/04/covering-autos-climate-and-energyovercoming-challenges-facing-the-media/

    Mainstream news media really needs some help. Climate news stories can get twisted and biased.

  11. John Mashey says:

    As for more reason to *not* do live debates, see Ryan vs Valentine, especially point 4) in post March 22, 2009 2:19 AM on differences between a live debate and a week-long blog debate, where one can cite papers, have time for readers to look them up, look at charts, point out cheery-picking in charts, etc, etc.

    Valentine wanted a live debate…. no.

  12. Got it.. it was the infamous Patrick Michaels of CATO
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30074606#30074606

    Described as a climatologist and researcher. Wikipedia offers some quotes:
    “Michaels’ statements on [the subject of computer models] are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation… Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels’ testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.”

    Peter Gleick, a conservation analyst and president of the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, said: “Pat Michaels is not one of the nation’s leading researchers on climate change. On the contrary, he is one of a very small minority of nay-sayers who continue to dispute the facts and science about climate change in the face of compelling, overwhelming, and growing evidence.”

  13. Gary says:

    “DeSmogBlog is a great resource on climate change misinformation ”

    LOLOLOLOL How true.

    And Joe…. Mark mopped the floor with you.

  14. Jeff Green says:

    To Gary,

    You have followed the denier pattern well. No valid information and pat yourself on the back over nothing.

  15. Ryan v. Valentine also showed blog debates come with sock puppets, however (and administrators who refuse to enforce their own rules).

  16. Kipp Alpert says:

    Joe:You sure can deal out some Junk. I know what I can expect from a loser such as yourself.What are you so angry about.On AccuWeather there is an active debate for both sides. The last time I checked this is a free country. I believe in AGW, but trash talking anyone isn’t right. Brett Anderson is a fair meteorologist. What should we expect form a guy like you, who is constantly in Heat. Who are you to judge a person from one comment. Your not going to win the AGW cause any progress by your bad remarks, angry rhetoric and threats. I don’t know you, and frankly I don’t care to. You represent the worst of us and will only alienate believers and
    the other ones, who I care less about. Why don’t you show your a big boy and apologize to Brett, or aren’t you big enough. Kipp

  17. Kipp Alpert says:

    Dear fellow AGW Advocates:Your anger and hate is beneath our cause, if Humanity is your concern. Your on Morano like a bunch of guard house dogs. Finally we have a President who is on our side. Finally our Science is being universally accepted. Yes CO2 does absorb the IR. Obama knows this and you do as well. Why lower yourselves the way deniers have treated us for years. Sure I want to fight ,and yes I want to win. There are a couple of deniers I know, that I would like to break in two. But I’m not going to let them win, by going down to their level. We fought the good fight, but it is not over. There are many stallers, and liars out there so we have a case to prove.Do you want to be like the Knuckle dragger, or the cogent concerned people that we are. Think about it. Mankind is at stake, so whatever the best psychology is, use that. I know it’s hard and I am guilty too. But God knows I try and it’s not easy. Good luck,Kipp

    [JR: If you can’t call a liar, a liar, then you can’t win a debate — or the debate — with the deniers.]

  18. Aaron says:

    Kipp,
    Your comment will probably get censored and rightfully so.

    You talk about some form of active debate on both sides. I’m getting really tired of this so called debate. You can either side with the vast majority of climate scientists, or you side with those trying to spread disinformation. If there is any debate, its between scientists who publish peer reviewed literature on the subject. The things spouted by Marc Morano are blatant lies. I find it funny how despite the long discredited and debunked Inhofe 650 Scientists…they still bring it up. Sad.

  19. DavidCOG says:

    Kipp Alpert,

    Some people would love to sit and debate about Vikings in Greenland, grapes in Scotland, cosmic rays and the fact there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 500 million years ago.

    Other people think the time for that idiocy is long past – it’s time to talk about solutions and act on them – NOW. And it’s time to stop giving false respect to those who deserve no respect.

  20. caerbannog says:

    “Gary” brings to mind a time-honored analogy regarding debates with creationists:

    Debating a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon. He’ll knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, and then fly back to his flock to claim victory.

    This analogy applies very nicely to global-warming deniers.

  21. Aaron says:

    Sandra,

    Come back when you’ve adequately researched your so called facts about the suns contribution to the climate. Because I know how deniers hat to read, here’s a video instead.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=channel_page

  22. MarkB says:

    Brett Anderson writes:

    “We try to show both sides to the “global warming argument” on our blog.”

    …which is one reason why individual contrarians are so famous. Equal time (arguably not even the case with AccuWeather) is given to the fringe as the rest of the scientific community, which means it’s not much of a balance. Most scientists are ignored in the process.

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/AR4wg1_authors_table.html

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

    Not exactly fair and balanced is it?

    As a result, AccuWeather pages are littered with “AGW is a hoax” types, more so than the average blog although probably less than the strict contrarian ones.

    Aside from that, some of the information posted on AccuWeather is poorly vetted. This media story is erroneously presented as a skeptics argument, for instance. See my responses to it.

    http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/04/north_america_warming_cannot_b.html#comments

    In contrast, I haven’t seen a single instance where Romm either misrepresents a scientific study or posts a link to an article that misrepresents a study. While Romm might have a point of view (largely shared by most climatologists), from my observations, Romm has a high standard for accuracy and reliability, which is probably why he gets ticked off by Morano types. Morano is like a fibbing machine gun – one after the other.

  23. David B. Benson says:

    Joe Romm — Those defending evolution have learned how to combat the Gish Gallop debater. Maybe (in all your ample spare time :-) ) you could learn to do it too…

  24. ecostew says:

    As Joe has stated don’t debate a denier – the moderator is clueless if they hold the debate.

  25. Deep Climate says:

    Kipp,
    I know your heart is in the right place.

    But Brett Anderson’s AccuWeather blog is not a credible source of information.

    I checked out the April 2 entry headlined “North America Warming cannot be Blamed on Humans Alone, says NOAA”. The blog entry is based entirely on a CanWest newspaper story by Tom Spears. The story is abysmal. There are clear discrepancies with the actual NOAA report and the “spin” is palpable.

    Is Anderson not capable of reading the report himself and accurately conveying its contents? Why not excerpt from the report’s executive summary instead of from an obviously biased, inaccurate news report?

    I first saw this story in the National Post, which is a serial purveyor of climate science disinformation in its opinion columns (see here and here). The rest of the CanWest chain usually avoids this, especially in news coverage. So it’s doubly disappointing that this got through.

    What have we got here – another “honest broker”? Sheesh!

  26. ecostew says:

    Roscoe,

    99%+ of the recent peer-reviewed science indicates that AGW is a reality and feed backs are increasing intensity (including consensus statements by science-grounded organizations e.g., AAS, AGU, and NASs. There is no debate on the topic, we must commit to a global path forward that ensures energy security while mitigating AGW while ensuring security of food & water, and protecting the environment. The debate is on securing the future – not AGW. There is no more debate on AGW only a discussion on intensity based on our global behavior and Earth’s feedbacks.

  27. Larry Sheldon says:

    Got slapped pretty hard, did you?

    But if it gets you hit count up higher than the tmeprature, what the hell.

  28. Larry Sheldon says:

    Peer reviewed. Rather than any kind of science.

    Interesting that the facts-based sciences never use the tem “peer reviewed”.

    What does that mean, anyway? You can’t write about a new idea unless you can prove that some approved authority has already said it?

  29. RyanOHIO says:

    oh, why oh why were my previous comments deleted! Can’t take a comment against you Romm. Fact is, you got owned in a debate, and now you’re crying on your website in a memo to the media. Stop making up facts in your debates Romm. Their are more coal miners and wind jobs Romm. Sorry if the truth hurts.

  30. On AccuWeather there is an active debate for both sides.

    A polygon has many sides. It even has an inside and an outside.

  31. kahall says:

    That will show em. Take your ball and go home. If Marc was just making stuff up it should have been EASY to expose.

  32. ecostew says:

    Peer-reviewed science has and will be the pillar that informs US and world policy. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration didn’t care one bit about the ‘seventh generation” and only their corporate profit margins in the near-term.

  33. Monty Miller says:

    Dude, Mark wiped the floor with you. And this post makes you look like even more of a dipshit than the debate does.

  34. Oh, and FWIW, please don’t anyone confuse me with the other “Gary.”

  35. kahall says:

    I just watched the roll call vids. Joe you should be majorly embarrassed as you have got NOTHING but BS.

  36. And this post makes you look like even more of a dipshit than the debate does.

    There is no debate. You either do science, or you don’t.

    Marc Morano and James Inhofe are embarrassments to the nation.

    No go back to debating young Earth creationism with your congregation.

  37. Monty Miller says:

    I don’t have a congregation. I’m not religious, but I do have a great affection for science–and I understand that many of these “climate scientist” can’t tell me if it will rain tomorrow let alone what the climate will be like in 30 years. You know, the climate has changed constantly throughout the entire span of Earth’s existence (Ice ages and all that), but you seem to be utterly convinced by nothing but speculation, faith and, what is, at best, shaky data based on shaky data collection techniques. It is by no means settled. There has never even been a debate on the subject and your method of calling me names for my scientific questions borders on fascist. I think you should try and be a little more openminded. Think for yourself.

  38. RyanOHIO says:

    @ fritz

    There’s no debate in science!? Since when is consensus a tenant of science?

    The FACT is, debate is an important part of science, and there is plenty to debate on the matter of climate change. The fact that you are afraid of those on the other side and seek to dismiss them only reflects on the AGW movement’s insecurity. Add to it that when Romm gets in a debate he cries and you have a movement that looks like more of a religion than a science.

  39. jharp says:

    Wow, what a pussy.

  40. I do have a great affection for science– I understand that many of these “climate scientist” can’t tell me if it will rain tomorrow

    But you still don’t have the slightest clue about the differences between the commonly held definitions of weather and climate. How can that be?

    You know, the climate has changed constantly throughout the entire span of Earth’s existence (Ice ages and all that)

    You understand the Earth was once molten, right? Do you even understand that the Earth has a molten core? Do you understand that the heavier atoms that the Earth is composed of came about by nucleosynthesis?

    Now that’s hot. So first the Earth was vapor, and now it’s solid. Weird.

    I think you should try and be a little more openminded.

    Yes, we should debate BOTH sides, and none of the other sides.

    Young Earth creationists should have their say in our elementary schools.

  41. The fact that you are afraid of those on the other side

    Which side, the inside or the outside?

    What about all the other sides? Do they get a say as well?

    Science is about presenting evidence to back up your claim. Since you aren’t engaged in the scientific process, you have no evidence to present, hence there is no debate. Simple logic. On the other hand, real scientists present their evidence, and let the non scientists debate it until the end of time. It’s all you can do, since you don’t do science.

  42. Ramon V. Martinez says:

    Dr. Romm:

    I just visited your website for the first time on the advise of a friend.

    Lamentably, your comments about a debate appear to be resentful and founded on insecurity of your performance.

    I will check back in a week or so and see if you got over whatever that debate was about. Bad first impression. I hope you live up to the high regard you are held by those who recommended your site.

  43. jharp says:

    Is there a paragraph above where you don’t resort to name-calling? This is really hilarious stuff.

    1 – Kerry never did release his military records, did he? So maybe there was something to the Swift Boat vets’ claims.

    2 – What the hell does John Kerry have to do with this? Either you’re right or you’re wrong.

    3 – From which orifice did you pull the coal industry vs. wind industry statistic?

    4 – Don’t you think bringing the Holocaust into this is a little tacky?

    5 – Ditch the comb-over.

  44. Is there a paragraph above where you don’t resort to name-calling? This is really hilarious stuff.

    Is there a link to a place on the internet where I can peruse your scientific results? I’m here to show Joe how to debate science with American retards, since he apparently doesn’t have much experience with that sort of thing.

    The rest of your post is pathetic. Even more pathetic than Joe’s retard debating skills I must begrudgingly admit.

  45. Kipp Alpert says:

    David COG: I have been over at Accuweather for a year and a half.
    Every damn day I debate the dumbest among us. I am not gentile but I listen. I am involved more directly with Greenpeace.I defend Brett Anderson, because he is fair, and is even handed. Like you I agree with the importance of solving Global Warming, and like Dr. Hansen in his final remarks in Target CO2, we must go back to 350ppm, now. I have been insulted, lied to, misrepresented,libeled, have words put in my mouth, and all the other B.S. that deniers are dysfunctionally about. When I saw the debate with Marano I was surprised that he wasn’t more than just another liar for the carbon club. We must act now, and if you have any better ideas I will leave you my blog which I just started. When I first argued over at Accuweather, there were nothing but Bush mini me’s.I was the only warmer. Now there are more. Global Warming and a majority of the American people, still are about fifty fifty when it comes to the debate, and understanding the intricacies and nuance of radiation Physics, CO2 being in the pipeline, Atmospheric Chemistry, and the many problems in mitigating such a catrastophy, let alone it’s sequestration, and the fact it will take a millennial to resolve itself. As Joe said, after a small time of cooling, which I haven’t evidenced, it will get hot. That CO2 isn’t going anywhere.It’s acidifying the oceans, killing coral, melting our snow, which has the greatest reflectivity, The Poles, displacing real American people, Alaskans, and killing perhaps 40% of our species, which took a million years to produce.
    Now to your point, do you think it is better to insult a denier because he is an A hole, or do you think that it is better to cajole, turn, convince, or create doubt. Sooner or later we are going to have to deal with these Scientifically challenged children, with either a carrot or a stick, whatever you would do with your children. Although I wouldn’t infer that your Children are capitalist pigs. Look what Joe had to do.He went up against a congenital lying ass kissing wannabe named Mark Morano. Joe has a Physics degree, and he has also been in the Political realm. He raised himself up because his better nature said, it’s not about me, it’s about my grandchildren and their grandchildren. That is mankind before ego, that is bravery in action, and isn’t it good to see people like Morano be put in his proper place. What can we do more.Study,debate, or go extreme, and have no effect at all. Now I have been on the front lines for more than a year now, and it is better to fight them out in the open, as Joe showed the world what a congenital racist looks like, then let them hide and snipe at you like mosquitoes. I don’t agree with you about respect. They are ignorant right wing nut jobs, but that doesn’t mean you should treat them that way. Isn’t it always the case that the real power is the mean between excess and defect. Treat them with due respect, and if they don’t get it than jump. Otherwise you are no different then they are. I blog at Open Mind, Real Climate,here, and Chris Colose’s blog Climate Change @ Open Mind to learn. But they seldom effect change no matter how smart these guy’s are. You have to jump into the mix, not just blog to be involved. I live in CT. about fifty minutes from N.Y.C., and have demonstrated. But those marches do nothing. What should we do.If you have any Ideas please share. Thanks,KIPP. MY short answer is that,Yes, I have gotten my feat wet. More than I can say!

    http://kippalpert1.wordpress.com/

  46. Lamentably, your comments about a debate appear to be resentful and founded on insecurity of your performance.

    Of course it was a poor performance, Joe is a physicist, he has little no experience debating American retards, where no debate is necessary.

    He learned a valuable lesson. Everyone has to start somewhere. I’m sure his next retard debating performance will contain much more satire and much less debate, since debating American retards is a fool’s folly to begin with.

  47. kahall says:

    [..]Even more pathetic than Joe’s retard debating skills I must begrudgingly admit.

    It is really not about his debating skills as he has none, it is the fact that he is wrong.

    And what does the fact that Marc Morano used to work for Rush Limbaugh have to do with any of this. If anything at all it should make Marc Morano even more credible as it is a well known fact that Rush is admired by millions and is very credible.

  48. Thomas says:

    Two things:

    1 – the Swift Boat claims were never proven false
    2 – to put it in the current popular lingo – you were pwned in the debate. this is typical of you left-wing whackos: you can’t win debates, so you declare “there is no debate”, and then you quickly try to erase anything that makes you look bad.

  49. Kipp Alpert says:

    Joe Romm:I wanted to apologize for my harsh words,but I have known Brett for a while, and felt he was being dealt a bad hand. I think he is a warmer, but his company makes him stay neutral.Perhaps in a couple of years as he becomes more prominent in his field, he will not have to moderate this AccuWeather blog. Your points about Global Warming were quite articulate and I bet you Can’t wait to do them again. I don’t know how this guy Morano live in is own skin.Growing up in Darien Ct. I know the species quite well, and we need them for America to make money, and that is all they are worth. There is a good piece about Commodity,in a paper called Nature by Ralph Waldo Emerson. I,m sure you have probably read it, but it talks about nature and thanking it for giving us everything that one could need. I guess he didn’t get the part about human greed, Walmart, and our fast food nation. My wife is from France and when I was younger, took her to McDonald’s, turned around to ask her what she anted, and she was gone. I went outside and she was sitting on the car with her arms crossed and asked me,”why do Americans eat like cows”. Ever since then we eat at the dinner table, and I seldom eat meat. We have been married for thirty years and she still isn’t a citizen. Sometimes I don’t blame her at all. Sorry about that blog,Thanks KIPP

  50. Kipp Alpert says:

    Kahall:As a true follower of Rush do you also take Vicodan, but are now on the booze and Cigars. He is admired by millions of undereducated TV Tubes.He is a right wing joke that wil bring down his party,Thank God.

  51. it is the fact that he is wrong.

    Well then give us a link to your personal scientific expositions demonstrating where he is wrong about global warming and climate change. We’re always interested in crackpot theories. They’re entertaining, if anything.

    Rush is admired by millions and is very credible.

    Drug addicted right wing talk show radio hosting is an admirable profession.

  52. 1 – the Swift Boat claims were never proven false

    I assume then they were ‘proven right’ by a peer reviewed application of scientific methods, and communicated to us in a paper published by the ‘Journal of Smear’, am I correct? Can you give us a link? I’d like to have the chance of comparing their scientific results with my scientific results, and then formulating a ‘comment’ in the comments section of the ‘Journal of Smear’.

    I’m sure the editors of the Journal of Smear will be entirely fair in reviewing my comment.

  53. THE FASCIST PARTY fka dems says:

    Thomas Lee Elifritz Says:

    April 7th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
    Lamentably, your comments about a debate appear to be resentful and founded on insecurity of your performance.

    Of course it was a poor performance, Joe is a physicist, he has little no experience debating American retards, where no debate is necessary.

    He learned a valuable lesson. Everyone has to start somewhere. I’m sure his next retard debating performance will contain much more satire and much less debate, since debating American retards is a fool’s folly to begin with.

    Proof of the HUSSEIN FASCIST PARTY. When you are a worthless idiot you call names. I thought you HUSSEIN FASCIST LOVER’S were the intellectual one’s. Peace, compassion, OPEN DEBATE isn’t that your HUSSEIN FASCIST PARTY MOTTO? Only thing you scumbag HUSSEIN MARXIST PARTY LOVER’S are are RACIST, HATE MONGORING, AMERICAN HATING, TROOP HATING, BIN LADEN LICKING MORON’S. Now pull your head of your ass and YOU’LL FIND NO GLOBAL WARMING and FRESH AIR of being something other then a HEAD UP YOUR ASS HUSSEIN MARXIST PARTY LOVING FASCIST and you really will be able to thinm for yourself. YOU FREAKIN LOSER’S!

  54. MARXIST PARTY LOVING FASCIST

    You need to submit your post to the JOURNAL OF ALL CAPS, I’m sure they will review it favorably.

  55. Kipp Alpert says:

    J.Fritz:Do you have anything about Science that you could add to your ignorant remarks.Noooo.

  56. Brewster says:

    Man, all the nuts seem to have fallen out of the trees at the same time…

  57. kahall says:

    No links will be provided as I have none. I still know BS when I see it though.
    And there is no point arguing with you as proven by the following.

    Drug addicted right wing talk show radio hosting is an admirable profession.

    You already lost the argument. Again, this has nothing to do with any of this even if it were true, which it is not.

  58. Kipp Alpert says:

    Brewster:Don’t let them nuts grow like trees.What would happen to carbon sequestration.Well I guess you mean fruit trees don’t you.

  59. Rick says:

    I understand giving Joe support here but to say he won the debate isn’t quite right. The other guy seemed more comfortable and confident.

    I don’t think it was effective to say he “makes stuff up”. Thats just asking the audience to take your word for it. At the very least it’s a big gamble to call your opponent a liar. It raises the question – Why would you even agree to debate a guy who you regards as a bare faced liar.

    I’m sure Morano took some shots to – but he did it in a way that didn’t feel so harsh and personal.

    [JR: Nice try. The last thing Morano seems is “comfortable and confident” — why else would he constantly be interrupting me. But if he seems that way to you, it just proves that debates are about style and not substance, since almost every single word he uttered was a lie. I explained what Morano makes up stuff about — misrepresenting science, smearing patriots like John Kerry, claiming Inhofe and conservative support clean energy. But as I said, one can’t really debate someone who just make stuff up over and over again, since the best you can do is keep calling that person a liar. And I explained I was a last-minute fill-in — Morano lacks the credential and integrity for anyone to debate him.]

  60. Will Greene says:

    Ramon, you don’t know enough about Marc Morano to make that comment.

  61. Why would you even agree to debate a guy who you regards as a bare faced liar.

    Everything I say is a lie. I’m lying now. I’m a liar. Trust me.

    My name is Marc Morano.

  62. Chris says:

    Yes, someone certainly shook the nut tree a bit too hard. Wasn’t it just last week that O’Reilly was on a rampage about how dangerous the internets with all their blogs stuffed in the tubes are? What say he now that his team is using the same medium?? Clearly 99% of these people were directed here by way of their favorite fear delivery mechanism. Worse, these are the fools that the grown-ups will have to lend a hand to once their unsustainable, self-centered, objectified lifestyle burns out (or to pull them from their house as it is swept out to sea by the rising oceans – stupid socialist Coast Guard, giving everyone equal assistance!).

  63. jorleh says:

    Congratulations, Joe! People have found you, comments are coming.

  64. two_phds says:

    We went back and re-read you original article above. Filling in at the last minute, and admitting to being out-of-practice both deserve some slack. And we’ll cut you slack on these points. But your positions are still quite dubious.

    For the sake of the profession, get back to the science and ditch this lame-ass blog.

  65. J says:

    I thought you were as effective as you could have been Joe. Keep up the good fight!

    As to all the skeptics out there – have any of you at all taken Atmospheric Science 101? The reality of the atmospheric greenhouse effect being directly increased by increasing CO2 levels is painfully obvious and has been known by science for decades. These aren’t my words – go out and buy every single Atmospheric Science 101 textbook you can find and they’ll all say the same thing. That would have to be one seriously epic ‘political conspiracy’ to be so pervasive from so many authors.

    While you’re at it, take a stats course too, as you obviously don’t understand the basic concept of an average (i.e. climate) versus a set of variable values (i.e. weather).

    If you choose to remain willfully ignorant then you have no right in stating a simply incorrect opinion.

    I, for example, am willfully ignorant of American football – I therefore will not start making stuff up about the Patriots just so I can be part of the conversation. I would first need to read extensively about said Patriots, watch them play, and then form an opinion.

    Give Joe the respect he deserves – I challenge you to read his blog from beginning to end, and then look up his sources. Unless you’re intentionally blind, I guarantee you’ll walk away as an “AGW”.

  66. Nick says:

    Well done in the circumstances,Joe. I can understand your pained expression, having to sit so close to a man who has made a career out of ruining information at the public’s expense. Your points about Inhofe’s record were well made, though I could see this wasn’t really how you wanted the discussion to evolve,but were forced into it by Morano’s interruptive and ad hominem tactics.

    Morano’s fear card doesn’t play half as well as he thinks it does,and you got him good on his relentless misrepresentation. But it is always going to be difficult to sell complex change and time frames against instant gratification and the good old days.

  67. JohnZ says:

    Let’s try this again since my 6:39 AM post has already been censored and deleted from the blog.

    J,
    You will be pleased to know that scientists and supporters of the anti-AGW debate do agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it can cause warming. That debate is over and most people should agree it does.

    The debate that is not over is about the degree that CO2 at current levels can affect warming and whether CO2 is a cause or effect. AGW skeptics believe that the effect is minuscule at current levels and will not increase significantly no matter how much CO2 we add. The only effect then that more CO2 will have will be to help feed the world through increased crop growth.

    Despite the current cooling trend, people like Joe must continue the argument that CO2 is leading to disaster because that is what he is being paid to believe. The only thing he is truly qualified to debate then is how much he is being paid. No wonder he and his peers avoid debates and only know how to throw insults at other scientists and skeptics.

    [JR: You are banned from this site. Again, as I have stated many times, the comments section is not for people who post long-debunked anti-scientific disinformation straight from denier talking points, since either I have to waste time debunking that which has been debunked a million times elsewhere, including the scientific literature, or ignore the misstatements and leave new readers with the misimpression that there is a grain of truth in them. You have also managed to violate the second guideline of simply launching multiple unjustified ad hominem attacks.]

    [snip]

    If you value your freedom to make your own choices and have your own views then I would challenge you to do this. Suspend all belief in either side of this argument for 1 or 2 months. Take that time to read without judgment everything you can about AGW, the UN IPCC, and The Club or Rome.

    Since I’m retired, it took me only 2 weeks to do this and as a result for me, I have stopped worrying about the affects of CO2 on my grandkids. Instead I now find myself terrified for their freedom and continued existence at the hands of a few elitists.

    [JR: If you spent two weeks looking at everything you can on AGW and came to the conclusion that you did, then you went in with a closed mind and/or no understanding of science.

    You needn’t worry about the world taking away your kid’s “freedoms” or frankly of the world seriously trying to prevent the catastrophe that is to come, even though it would only cost you 1/10 of a penny on the dollar. Why? The real elitists, the ones who run the disinformation machine, and people like you gullible enough to believe that appear to be politically potent enough to stop the necessary action.

    Do tell your grandkids you were one of the people who opposed action on CO2 mitigation. They will want to know who to blame — who to curse — for greedily destroying their livable climate and ruining the health and well-being of billions of humans.]

  68. Nick says:

    JohnZ, judging by the regurgative quality of your ‘ideas’,you’re doing a pretty good job of restricting your own freedom

  69. LOL @ Joe says:

    LMAO…PWNED!!!!

  70. Thomas says:

    Wow. Who would’ve guessed that a left-wing whacko like Romm would call the traitor John Kerry a patriot?

  71. caerbannog says:

    The debate that is not over is about the degree that CO2 at current levels can affect warming and whether CO2 is a cause or effect. AGW skeptics believe that the effect is minuscule at current levels and will not increase significantly no matter how much CO2 we add. The only effect then that more CO2 will have will be to help feed the world through increased crop growth.

    So where are the peer-reviewed journal articles that support this claim being published?

  72. Who would’ve guessed that a left-wing whacko like Romm would call the traitor John Kerry a patriot?

    Hey Thomas, I’m calling YOU a traitor, personally, to your face, using my full real name. What do you think of that? Since we’re discussing traitors, why don’t you tell me what you think of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America as well.

  73. RyanOHIO says:

    Duh fritzy, the first amendment only applies to those who share the liberal demagoguery. Anyone else is too stupid to speak and needs to be silenced and have their rights taken away, since they’re too stupid to deserve them. This has been the liberal modus operandii for decades.

  74. Nancy says:

    Joe,

    There are many reasons I love this site, but the kooks who have recently found you really don’t belong here and are a real distraction. I don’t know where they belong, maybe on the Sean Hannity Fan Club Site, but can you please get rid of them?

    Let’s focus on solutions. There is very little time and there is so much to do.

    Unlike JohnZ, I am very concerned about our children and grandchildren. I want my grandkids to look back and say ‘She tried.’

    Let’s make October 24 the biggest show of support for climate action – just like the civil rights movement, let’s get marching!

    Nancy

    [JR: Doing what I can. Newsbusters gets a lot of denier traffic — and they have set their sights on me.]

  75. Anyone else is too stupid to speak and needs to be silenced and have their rights taken away

    Nobody here is silencing you. In fact quite the opposite, Joe has created this blog so that you can come here and shout out to the entire world exactly where your sentiments lie. My job is to satirize your position into stark relief.

    In this case no satire is necessary, your position is entirely clear.

  76. Gail says:

    Why is that, almost uniformly, the denier/troll comments are littered with misspellings, and punctuation and grammatical mistakes, while those that support Joe and the science of climate change are free of such detritus?

    Why oh Why???? Why do deniers hate the English language?

  77. two_phds says:

    wow, you deleted our original post. joe, you are quite the coward. how do you live with yourself, pathetic worm?

  78. how do you live with yourself, pathetic worm?

    Evolution tells us that your ancestors were worms as well. Whether they were pathetic or not is subject to debate. My how far we have come.

    Worm castings made the soil you grow your crops in, you know that, right?

  79. Will Greene says:

    He can delete whatever he wants he’s the climate scientist. Go spend your time at some denier blog if you don’t like it.

  80. TomG says:

    Gail…
    I’ve noticed this poor spelling for quite some time.
    Many times it always the same words and they are always mis-spelled the same way.
    For an example: the word ‘propaganda’ if used in the rant. Many times mis-spelled the same way but not necessarily the same name posting the comment. Oddly enough more difficult words will be correct, but ‘propaganda’ will not.
    I’ve also noticed ‘styles’ of posts.
    There is the oily ‘I am reasonable but dances around style’.
    And there is the more snarky ‘machine gun link style’ and the links always go back to the same old debunked sources.
    There are others, but again, take note how the names vary, but the mis-spelling and styles remain the same…
    Sock puppets.
    Of course that doesn’t explain the putrid hit and run posts….

  81. Deep Climate says:

    [Resubmitted without links – original stuck in moderation]

    Kipp,
    I know your heart is in the right place.

    But Brett Anderson’s AccuWeather blog is not a credible source of information.

    I checked out the April 2 entry headlined “North America Warming cannot be Blamed on Humans Alone, says NOAA”. The blog post is based entirely on a CanWest chain newspaper story by Tom Spears. The story is abysmal. There are clear discrepancies with the actual NOAA report and the “spin” is palpable.

    Is Anderson not capable of reading the report himself and accurately conveying its contents? Why not excerpt from the report’s executive summary instead of from an obviously biased, inaccurate news report?

    I first saw this story in the National Post, which is a serial purveyor of climate science disinformation in its opinion columns (see posts on Lorne Gunter at my blog DeepClimate.org). The rest of the CanWest chain usually avoids this, especially in news coverage. So it’s doubly disappointing that this got through.

    What have we got here – another “honest broker”? Sheesh!

  82. GW Steve says:

    Hi Joe,

    Can you provide step by step instructions on how you arrived at the conclusion that CO2 is causing the 1 degree increase the Earth has experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age where the Earth experienced a 1 degree drop in temps?

    I keep hearing about science being settled and whatnot, but I’ve only heard through hearsay that AGW is real. I’d like to test it myself.

    Thanks in advance,

    Steve

  83. GW Steve says:

    Deep Climate,

    Perhaps you can provide step by step instructions on how you concluded AGW because of CO2 is fact?

    Anyone?

    Can anyone on this planet show how they arrived at the conclusion that CO2 causes GW?

    I don’t think so. Everyone’s work seems to be dependent on other people’s work that has not been verified.

    Thanks,

    Steve

  84. Can anyone on this planet show how they arrived at the conclusion that CO2 causes GW?

    I don’t think so

    Can you understand that answering your own question without performing any intermediate scientific steps might lead to faulty conclusions?

    Where do you want us to start, astrophysics, or astrobiology?

    Have you even taken a calculus course yet?

  85. dhogaza says:

    Perhaps you can provide step by step instructions on how you concluded AGW because of CO2 is fact?

    Anyone?

    Physics. Maybe you should learn some.

  86. MarkB says:

    “Since I’m retired, it took me only 2 weeks to do this and as a result for me, I have stopped worrying about the affects of CO2 on my grandkids. Instead I now find myself terrified for their freedom and continued existence at the hands of a few elitists.”

    Classic troll post (claim you once worried about global warming…that is until the enlightened contrarian blogosphere set you straight).

    A “few elitists”…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

    A few more “elitists”…

    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html

    There’s unfortunately a large amount of anti-intellectualism in this country. Ideologues are often trusted more than scientists. I used to think “An Inconvenient Truth” was a bit of a pretentious title to Gore’s documentary, but it’s quite apparent how psychology plays into global warming denial. For example, JohnZ above is terrified that moving towards low carbon sources of energy will threaten the mere existence of his grandchildren. Some might call that alarmism. At any rate, such irrational fear tends to make some seek out reasons to ignore the science.

  87. MarkB says:

    As a sidenote, I noticed that my post from yesterday still says “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. Reason?

  88. GW Steve says:

    Thomas,

    You’re right, I should not have answered.

    Where ever you like. I’m fairly well versed in mathmatics and physics. I’m afraid to ask how astrobiology fits into AGW, but how does it?

    It’s been quite some time since I’ve taken Calculus ~ 17 years, but don’t worry, I’ll manage :)

    If someone were to ask how one might arrive at the conclusion the Theory of Relativity is sound, one might look to the tests that show space time curves by gravitational lensing experiments which can be verified.

    Those methods are available to repeat.

    Now all I am asking for a set of methods that will lead me to arriving at the same conclusion you have reached.

    Thousands of scientists have arrived at the AGW conclusion. How? Is it simply based on credibility or can someone actually show how?

    Perhaps Climate Progess can clear things up.

    Thanks for your attention,

    Steve

  89. MarkB says:

    GW Steve,

    Here’s a good start:

    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

  90. MarkB says:

    Suggestion for JohnZ,

    “Since I’m retired, it took me only 2 weeks to do this and as a result for me”

    If you want to be a less transparent troll on other blogs, up this timespan to 2 years or so. The following comments clearly indicate that your zealous contempt for the scientific community had a longer period of indoctrination from the blogosphere. Such rabid zeal doesn’t happen overnight. It requires a longer period of re-inforcement and dedication to these beliefs.

    “I now find myself terrified for their freedom and continued existence at the hands of a few elitists.”

    “people like Joe must continue the argument that CO2 is leading to disaster because that is what he is being paid to believe. The only thing he is truly qualified to debate then is how much he is being paid. ”

    “No wonder he and his peers avoid debates and only know how to throw insults at other scientists and skeptics.”

  91. As a sidenote, I noticed that my post from yesterday still says “Your comment is awaiting moderation”. Reason?

    Try clearing your cache. That usually works for me.

  92. Those methods are available to repeat.

    All methods are available for repeat. Usually scientists generally progress and evolve into other more subtle and interesting investigations of physical phenomena rather than repeating a lot of long and tedious procedures working the same problem over and over again. I have an outstanding problem on my desk I’m trying like crazy to get rid of so I can move on.

    Get it?

    Thousands of scientists have arrived at the AGW conclusion. How? Is it simply based on credibility or can someone actually show how?

    Science is weird that way. It allows you to solve problems and build things.

    None of the alternatives work that way for me.

  93. Kipp Alpert says:

    GwStee:Youare usually over at Accuweather and have been stumped many times.You know that when the IR is absorbed by Co2 in at least two and probably three different bands, that those bands become saturated.That is just CO2, not methane or Nitrous oxide. The fact is the planet has been warming for 150 years, and Paleoclimatic evidence is the when CO2 goes up than temperatures go up.You know these things are true and yet you still deny. The fourth power of the surface temperature(Stefan Boltzmann law)always approximates a value determined by the incoming solar radiation.Adding Greenhouse gases to an atmosphere who’s temperature decreases with hieght must act to warm the surface by making the downward emmision greater than zero.That is only CO2 and there are 40% more greenhouse gases at work,Nitrous oxide, and methane.Just remember,gas molecules collect radiation by their energy states.They are not strictly bound to the elctromagnetic wavelength as are dipole molecules.Dipole means two atoms.
    Since you know that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation, then you must accept Global Warming.
    the facts. KIPP

  94. David B. Benson says:

    I’m dumb-founded by the clewless chatter.

    No, that’s not a misspelling:
    http://www.answers.com/topic/clewless

  95. Bob Wallace says:

    “Since you know that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation, then you must accept Global Warming.”

    No, Kipp. You don’t understand the rules.

    In denier-land the only rule is that there are no rules that must be followed. One can misstate the data, cherry pick what pleases, and just plain lie if it serves to maintain the community belief.

    If you start trying to get deniers to follow the rules of logic and to back their statements with facts you’ll come away disheartened. These folks operate from a “faith-based” position. The belief is more important than anything else. Any data that does not support the belief can be legitimately tossed.

    If you manage to corner one with the facts, then expect them to behave as a trapped animal and start fighting their way out. You know when a denier has (in their own mind) lost the argument. Out come the name calling and abuse.

    Joe should just prune this stuff from the site. It does no good to try to educate deniers. Let them spin their stuff at their own sites and keep science based sites for logical discussions.

    Deniers are now a small minority of the voting public and dropping in number as the evidence gets stronger and stronger. They have no political power and won’t do much to harm progress toward fixing our climate problems.

    Best, IMHO, to treat deniers like nasty little children.

    Just ignore them….

  96. Will Greene says:

    GW steve, you mentioned the “little ice age”, so definitely check out this video and let me know what you think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lVf8_6ziP8&feature=channel_page

  97. Will Greene says:

    GW Steve, I was in your shoes about 2 years ago, what you’re doing is searching for knowledge, which makes you better than a majority of deniers (and yes many environmentalists). Here’s another piece from climate scientists that greatly enhanced my understanding of climate science.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

  98. My God, this site is psychotic.

    What does ‘god’ and ‘this site’ have to do with infrared absorption by greenhouse gases? Just wondering because that’s a pretty bizarre statement.

  99. GW Steve says:

    Thomas,

    It allows you to solve problems and build things.

    Yeah, it also allows for scientists to write down the methods they used to arrive at a conclusion. AGW, seems to me, is not much more than several mini theories that have not been verified tied together to make it appear like AGW because fo CO2 is indeed verified.

    Why do other theories have actual measurements and can make accurate predictions while AGW is consistently using adjusted data and can only predict the past if made to?

    Let me ask you a direct question since you cannot piece together how you arrived at your own conclusion.

    How much of the GHE is caused by 280 ppm CO2? Now, how much of the GHE is caused by 380 ppm?

    Thanks,

    Steve

  100. Will Greene says:

    Did you see my posts above gw steve?

  101. GW Steve says:

    Will,

    From the RealClimate story.

    Let us assume that medieval temperatures after all had been warmer than the present. Even that would tell us nothing about anthropogenic climate change.

    Perhaps not, but it would tell us something about Natural Climate Change. First it would tell us that temps can rise and fall without CO2 levels rising and falling. Natural forces drove the MWP to be warmer than today and what is considered alarming today is not out of the norm.

    Basically that story says that proving Natural variability occurs does not disprove Anthropogenic GW is happening.

    Okay, but that still does not help the case of AGW. Where are RAW measurements of CO2’s forcing?

    CO2 only absorbs IR in 3 distinct bands of radiation. Only a maximum of 8% of the IR the Earth emits is within these bands. If all that energy was absorbed by CO2 only half can be redirected back to Earth.

    So only a maximum 4% of the energy the Earth emits can be “trapped” by CO2.

    So if 280 ppm trapped X amount, how much does 380 ppm trap?

    See the delima?

    Thanks,

    Steve

    [JR: There is no dilemma. First, there is no convincing evidence that the so-called medieval warm period was global. Second, the issue isn’t whether it was warmer or cooler in the past, the issue is that when it was warmer or cooler in the past, we have very strong scientific evidence that such temperature changes were driven by changes in climate forcings (the sun, volcanoes, GHGs). Now we have overwhelmed the natural forcings with increases in CO2 that exceed 100 times the fastest increase ever found.]

  102. GW Steve says:

    [snip.]

    I am big advocate of the Scientific Method because I don’t have to just take someone else’s word when using it. Instead of admitting that your position CANNOT be verified, many of you demonize the poor stupid unbelievers.

    I didn’t simply accept Christianity when the stakes were my soul, and I will not accept AGW when the stake is some of my freedoms and much of my money.

    [JR: Here you betray your true, anti-scientific views. The scientific literature is out there for anybody to read. Their is no analogy to accepting religion. Find somewhere else to post.]

  103. Will Greene says:

    Watch the video I posted, it explains the percieved mwp. The most up to date, respected analysis of average temperatures of the last 1000 years is the Mann hockey stick graph (validated by National Academy of Sciences, IPCC, other independant studies). There is no mwp in the Mann graph.

  104. GW Steve says:

    Sorry, I should have said simply accept.

    Queer.

  105. Will Greene says:

    Well glad we could advance the discussion…..not. Meanwhile temps warm and the debate is stuck in 1970.

  106. DC Guy says:

    First, despite what others may say and what you may think yourself, you won that debate. Morano was all over the map, going a thousand miles an hour, and making some statements so absurd that you couldn’t take the rest of what he had to say seriously. Tying the Green movement to racism? What a joke.

    On the other hand, I was disappointed that you joined him, at least on one occasion, in the absurd statement department. You threw out the dubious “statistic” that “there are more people now working in the wind energy industry than in coal mining.” That is the type of statement that is so obviously skewed and misleading that IMO it undermines the credibility of whatever else you might say. It’s not as bad as Morano’s racism remark, but still it made me cringe. To elaborate very briefly for those who don’t get it, you’re referring to a very broad definition of “the wind industry” and comparing it only to “miners,” a narrow subset of those in the coal industry. But the impact of the statement is to let a casual listener think the comparison is of the two “industries.” Obviously, the coal industry is an order of magnitude larger than the wind power industry — anyone with half a brain recognizes that. But so what? That should be neither here nor there in a debate on making a cleaner, greener world. Wind power is in its infancy, and that’s sort of the point of spending more money on it.

    In any case, I’d recommend you and others stay away from that misleading statistic because you’ll get called on it and look as bad as those on the other side. The message will get lost or watered down. Embrace the fact that these technologies are still growing and only going to get bigger and better.

    [JR: Not worried about being “called on it” since I’m not comparing the “industries.” Miners are iconic, but a far smaller than people realize. Wind is already much bigger than people realize. That is the point of that comparison. But the real comparison is between coal and alternatives to coal, not just wind. Working on that one.]

  107. TonyS says:

    150 years of CO2 warming! You showed him! How can he ignore that? What a stupid man.

  108. TonyS says:

    And I loved these Republican tactics: Ignore the facts, instead smear the opponent! Worked really great…

    That is so sad.

  109. ehmoran says:

    Debunk the following publication:

    REVISITING MAGNETIC INTENSITY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A STRONG CORRELATION
    Moran, E. H.; Tindall, J. A.
    American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #GP11A-0709

    Relations between Earth’s magnetic intensity and climatic temperatures were suggested and investigated during the 1970’s and early 1980’s. The strong statistical correlation was dismissed owing to no explanation for the process. However, research shows that the intensity of a material’s magnetic field changes as the material’s temperature changes, thus suggesting that the Earth’s core temperature varies. Additional and more complete global-scale datasets and advanced analytical techniques indicate that global and, to a lesser degree, continental average annual temperatures respond significantly to secular variations of core- generated magnetic intensity. Simple polynomial-regression techniques show that globally-averaged secular variations predict and explain 79-percent of the variability in global average-annual temperatures 7-years in the future; thus suggesting another or additional process contributing to climate change.

    Thank You

  110. Bob Ashworth says:

    CO2 causing global warming is the biggest world-wide scam ever attempted to be imposed. There is no evidence to support it. See

    http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=2035

    Why the scam; follow the money! Did you know the Generation Management Investment LLC firm Gore and his buddies founded in 2004 to fund only green technologies in 2008 had $5 billion in investments.

    Doesn’t take a rocket science for this one!

  111. co2isnotevil says:

    Here’s a report that uses James Hansen’s own data to demonstrate that catastrophic climate change caused by CO2 simply can’t happen.

    http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/eb.html

    Comments are always welcome (see the ‘co2 at’ email address in the report).

    George White