Morano on dire studies leading up to UN Summit: ‘Its political lobbying disguised as science’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano on One America News Network’s ‘Tipping Point with host Liz Wheeler. – Broadcast October 27, 2015.

Morano:  ‘Global temperatures have been at a standstill. How do you make that sound scary? You make a bunch of scary predictions about a hundred years from now and you say ‘Hey it’s worse than we thought’ – You respond: ‘What’s worse? Global temperatures haven’t gone up’ and the climate activists answer is ‘The predictions of the future are now much worse than they were a few years ago.

Morano excerpts: “United Nations climate scientists have admitted that the models used to make these predictions of 50 to 100 years don’t account for half the variability in nature, in other words the scientists can juice or  tune the models to pretty much say anything they want to. The current climate reality is failing to alarm, it’s not alarming — according to satellite data we’re at 18 and a half years without any change in global temperature.

In others words, global temperatures have been at a standstill. How do you make that sound scary? You make a bunch of scary predictions about a hundred years from now and you say ‘Hey it’s worse than we thought’ – You respond: ‘What’s worse? Global temperatures haven’t gone up’ and the climate activists answer is ‘The predictions of the future are now much worse than they were a few years ago.”

Morano on new modeling study claiming: Climate Change Will Make the Persian Gulf ‘Uninhabitable’

“This is just lobbying by science and press release all leading up to this big UN climate summit coming in December.

That’s all this study is that’s all it’s meant to do is scare people. It actually says in the study that without action to prevent climate change — What is the action? Carbon taxes, regulations, UN treaties, EPA regulations — its political lobbying disguised as science.”

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Brin Jenkins

    Within Science folks need to specialise, no one at any level can be cutting edge on all aspects. In discussion Warmists rely on few folk understanding Science, and the methods. Specialists employed in the nu Global Industry are quoted, neat phrases are bandied about impressively, telling us to visit this or that site for further enlightenment?

    When I hear these arguments I look first within my own understanding and logic, this I can argue on and I ask for their own understanding. Their own explanation of understanding is unlikely as they don’t have one, they then find another area and switch telling you this is it! This is a tactic hoping to throw us into confusion.

    Our Climate has gone on its cycles for millions of years without worry, now we are being told change is needed and we must listen to avoid a predicted near future disaster.

    Well guys if this is true you will need to convince people, and threats to criminalise dissent is counter productive. We are owed an understandable explanation of the mechanism without the dishonest shenanigan we see at present.

    • Dano2
      • Brin Jenkins

        Dana yet again you produce cut and pasted graphs from your stock arguments.

        I These could be from Comic Cuts, they contain no useful or readable data.

        2 thing in your post to convince anyone who is not already on board.

        How exactly are you going to proceed with convincing us? We are owed a proper understandable explanation which you have so far failed to do. A consensus of folk unable to explain just won’t do.

        • Dano2

          You are refuted, thanks! If you want a source for the second one, there is a method for obtaining it. Do you know what that is?

          Best,

          D

          • Brin Jenkins

            No, you still have no credible and simple explanation that CO2 is the mechanism. Only unconvincing theories.

            • Dano2

              Back to this ploy again? You should try something else.

              Best,

              D

        • Ian5

          Try Lewis, S.L. and M. A. Maslin. Defining the Anthropocene. Nature 519, 171–180 (2015).

          You have heard of the science journal Nature haven’t you? It’s no comic book.

          • Brin Jenkins

            Ian in your own words please give an understandable explanation of how it works, how a cause and its effect are reversed. CO2 is released by heat, an observable fact. How can it also be the cause of heating. I want someone to explain without silly smarty arsed comments covering his, or my lack of understanding. Folk are being asked to change the way we live, and we want to understand why!

            Unless CO2 is shown to be the cause, all else hardly matters.

            If it is the cause?, what are the noticeable effects outside of natural variations? The Worst storm ever etc, there was a very bad storm around 1860 and this is not surpassed recently, and one questions if what we did caused it then?

            Computer models are not evidence, and predictions are usually inaccurate. It is not a precise science. I wrote programs in basic and know how to fiddle/adjust algorithms.

            Without a simple explanation you will get nowhere, people must be told and understand, not be bamboozled.,

            Others works that you refer me to, I shouldn’t need to chase around studying these, we are owed an explanation if you truly want to convince us.

            Nature of course is a respected Journal, cut and pasted small graphs with no explanation of where they come from, its often difficult to see what line is what, the scale is often a only degree full scale, so I must question how these the data was collected and arranged on these cartoon like images.

            Dana should stay shut up as an ignorant troll, he she or it is counter productive to any understanding.

            • Dano2

              CO2 is released by heat, an observable fact.

              CO2 is also released by fossil fuel burning, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increasing GHGs in the atmosphere warms the planet.

              /science we all learned at age 12

              Best,

              D

              • cluefree

                I recall some other things we learn at age 12.
                We learn that CO2 is the building block of all life.
                We learn that all life either consumes CO2 or produces it.
                The oceans alone give off far more CO2 naturally than humans create.
                These are simple concepts manipulated by bad science to create panic, which translates into grant money to those who initially manipulated to study further.
                Dano2, do you receive any grant money, or do you volunteer your bad science?

                • Dano2

                  OMG. That was derptacular!

                  Best,

                  D

                • Ian5

                  “…simple concepts manipulated by bad science”:

                  Sounds like you think that the science behind AGW is bad science. Then please point us to some “good science”. Please share your sources.

              • Brin Jenkins

                No, you purposefully mis-understand. The greatest store of CO2 is water, and the colder the water the more is held.

                A glass on a window sill in the Sun will release this most soluble gas, look at the bubbles forming whilst a control glass in the fridge stays bubble free. Heat releases CO2.

                It matters little to the mechanism where the CO2 originates, fossil fuel or new wood burnt, CO2 is the same.

                You have reversed this simple observation, and now an explanation of how this can be done is required, without this one needs to take a quantum leap of belief that it can, I want to know HOW?

                • Dano2

                  Let us know when you are going to write your letter to all the text book publishers, asking them to change their basic facts about CO2.

                  Best,

                  D

                • Ian5

                  “I want to know HOW?”:

                  Yesterday you said that “Nature of course is a respected Journal”. Then pick up a copy and start informing yourself instead of posting misleading rubbish.

            • Ian5

              “Nature of course is a respected Journal”. Great, we agree on something. Next step is for you to go to the library and read the article. I gave you the full citation Then come back and offer something useful. One datum, many data.

            • Ian5

              You’ve asked me this before and I’ve responded. You continue to avoid the question.
              https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/cruz_chills_clueless_sierra_club_with_climate_facts/#comment-2313789535

  • Dano2
  • cluefree

    Dano2, I think it’s great that you have these charts cued up and at the ready. You’ve toted them around and had the satisfaction of posting them in reaction to “denier” articles. The truth is, your charts have been manipulated. We know this, because the creators of them have admitted to doing so. I would site my claim, but I think you need to seek out the reality that’s out there.

    • Dano2

      You have no evidence to support your assertion your charts have been manipulated, we know.

      Best,

      D

      • cluefree

        Dano2, you say “we know”. Who, exactly, is “we”. There are far fewer scientists that believe what you’re selling than you may claim. The charts are great, really, but they have no more value than finger paintings by zoo animals. The people are catching on to the lies, and many have admitted to the fraud of it. Enough!

        • Dano2

          No evidence, thanks!

          Best,

          D

          • cluefree

            No evidence, thanks!
            Best,
            C

            • Dano2

              Correct. you have no evidence for your assertion, everyone can tell, thanks!

              Best,

              D

            • Ian5

              You are just being lazy. Read the scientific journal article…I provided the full citation above. Read it and then come back and tell us what you’ve learned.

      • Brin Jenkins

        You have not shown or explained just what you are trying to illustrate. Short hand smart arsed comments are unimpressive.

        • Dano2

          Let me rephrase for you: the commenter can provide no evidence the charts have been manipulated.

          Capice?

          Best,

          D

  • Man does not learn to live one with nature, trouble will come.

    • Brin Jenkins

      True enough, who is arguing with that one? Reuse, conserve, don’t be wasteful. This includes wealth accumulated over the centuries not being frittered away on silly nu fangled undeveloped green energy ideals. Perpetual motion just don’t work!