CFACT’s Morano named a “top climate denier”

As part of the push for Leonardo DiCaprio’s new climate documentary, created in cooperation with National Geographic, producers released a top ten list of “climate deniers.”

To our delight, CFACT’s Marc Morano made the list at #2 – right behind his old boss U.S. Senator James Inhofe.

Of course, calling people “deniers” who seek to correct the record on climate change is meant to be highly offensive – or at least it would be if the term “denier” had not become such a hackneyed climate propaganda term that it’s now a joke.

As Morano and CFACT soon head to the UN climate marrakech-express-bannerconference in Marrakech, Morocco, to inject tough questions and facts, we wear our inclusion on the list proudly.

Despite all their inherent funding, media, and government advantages, we continue to beat the warming-Left with hard scientific facts.

Of course, one of the principal ways we’ve done this is through our wildly popular Climate Depot news and information service. I suspect our new film, Climate Hustle, is another big reason why Marc is now #2 on their villain list.

CFACT’s Climate Hustle is loaded with hard, verifiable facts and has been received with great enthusiasm.  DiCaprio’s Before The Flood is filled with tired old climate campaign talking points that have long been debunked.  Despite all its obvious advantages it is struggling to find an audience.

Climate computer models running warmer than reality?  Weather (extreme or otherwise) scientifically normal?  No wonder they would rather talk propaganda than science.

When warming campaigners shut their eyes and minds to the facts and opt instead to hide their biases, they reveal who is really in denial.

We consider it an honor to be #2 on their list.

 

Order Climate Hustle on disc today!

Categories

About the Author: Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is the executive director and co-founder of CFACT.

  • Dale

    I neither accept or appreciate the name “denier” as it’s meant to be a derogatory term and is meaningless. A denier of what? Surely not climate. Surely not science. What?

    • Li D

      Oh yes. Of science.

      • Brin Jenkins

        Then please give an explanation of how exactly the C02 molecule is responsible for warming. We all wish to see a viable mechanism not glib beliefs that it just does. I for one am fed up with the one way un challenged message that Climate Change is man made so there. Tv sends out opinion as fact without an alternative view and this is evil.

        • Jakaleca

          Hello. It is a privilege to post here, I am a long time supporter of Marc’s, and happy to be able to comment on this. FYI- I have a technical degree, and years of industrial experience in telecommunications, so I am a scientist of sorts; just not a “climate” one!

          Here goes-

          That CO2 is responsible for any atmospheric warming is sort of a canard; it is true, but it is a half truth. Like every other molecule which makes up the atmospheres of our planet and all the others we can presently observe, they have measurable atomic weights and therefore energy storage and transfer properties; also these elements and molecular combinations are very easily measurable and interact predictably in the lab.

          There are two phenomena which get overlooked when we talk about CO2 in the atmosphere (versus CO2’s behavior in laboratory experiments; pressurized containers; greenhouse simulators; etc- even in computer models), the first being CO2’s thermal properties and the second are its bonding properties.

          IIRC, (and this is from memory, forgive me) CO2 has no ions; it is either CO2 or it is not where it is present, because of its double covalent bond- which is fairly stable, chemically. Keen readers will also note that Carbon and Oxygen are both light gasses; Carbon is actually Not a Metal, though we always tend to think of concentrated carbon and carbon compounds as being very “solid” and/or stiff, they are in fact all very lightweight and stable (carbon steel resists oxidation, carbon graphite is very stiff and light, etc).

          So, CO2 which is suspended the atmosphere is part of the well described carbon cycle, AND it is important to note that the three bands of electromagnetic wavelengths in the infrared which “store radiation” only store so much; it is not enough energy to break a CO2 molecule apart, and the amount which is stored is very small; this means that adding more radiation will not cause CO2 to “be hotter” by itself, and the amount of heat which the aggregate amount of CO2 in the atmosphere stores is fairly linear.

          “Add more CO2, add more heat”… to a point.

          Meaning this- that a “doubling of CO2 in parts per million” follows a fairly predictable curve until you reach a saturation point, or CO2 concentration “ceiling” – on Earth, that has probably always been below 8000 ppm, and there seems to be a practical ceiling of 4000 ppm historically (which is, face, at least 20% less than sailors anywhere experience inside long submerged submarines).

          Again “meaning” that there is no “eternal doubling” of evil CO2… there are limits past which no heat will be stored due to CO2, and according to my calculations even if we hit TEN TIMES the amount of CO2 which we observe right now (400 ppm), the actual TOTAL rise in atmospheric temperatures would be 4.825° C -IF- “Left Unchecked.”

          There would of course be no actual “unchecked” rise though, really- and plants worldwide would in fact be growing very well and rapidly; and genetically they’d grow very hardily and stably, and thriving, given proper water and sunshine.

          ALSO- this does not mean that there is “no limit” to CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere, but in order for CO2 to increase its atmospheric “market share” the whole atmosphere would then change and weigh more; an impossibility from internal forcings alone– THAT would require a “celestial event” and the introduction of new matter for that to happen!

          So, also, the sponge analogy applies here; that CO2 “is like a sponge” in that it only absorbs so much heat, then the rest is transferred or lost laterally or simply radiated back off into space. A sponge can only hold so much water; it’s saturation point.

          Lastly, no matter what we do with CO2, no matter what happens with it globally, there seems to be a practical limit to what CO2 will contribute to “warming”… that is less than 5°C

          To the crazy alarmists and their propagandists decrying what our planet would look like if temperatures were indeed ever ten or twelve degrees (F) hotter than today, the Earth has made it through much hotter and unstable epochs, and life here has always found a way to adapt; every living creature today are winners; survivors of local and cosmic evolution. When the next great Ice Age occurs, and that is also moot these days, my bet is that Earth’s inhabitants will all survive just fine then, maybe even better than the last one.

          Ice Ages certainly reclaim a lot of CO2; that is the essence behind trying to “freeze” emissions right now in the Energy Industry. Even if we improve reclaiming CO2 efficiently at our power stations, thankfully we’ll still have cars, busses, trains and planes.

          I would not want to be at the mercy of a cooling, settling, stabilizing planet for it’s random periodic CO2 dumps for warmth or plant growth.

          If anyone else knows better, by all means, please correct my statements here; I do not wish to mislead anyone, even accidently!

          The TL;DR version is this: no matter what we do, or don’t do, global temperatures are never getting hotter by more than 5°C on Earth due to CO2.

          Ever.

          Thanks for reading.

          Corrections, comments, always welcome.

          James C.
          Columbus, Ohio, USA

        • Jakaleca

          Hi, Brin- the shortest answer is that CO2 molecules absorb EM radiation from the Sun, and tend to “store” that infrared radiation (heat) in three specific, narrow bands.

          Over time that heat actually fluctuates up and down, between limits of baseline cosmic radiation and saturation.

          At saturation, any given CO2 molecule is at its hottest; like a sponge which can only hold so much water though, CO2 only retains just so much heat before it decays and cools, or is replenished and transfers that energy laterally.

          If I am not mistaken this is referred to generally as “Solar forcing,” and also seems to be the single biggest overlooked fact of any and all “Global Warming” theories.

      • Dale

        Is this simply a form of attempted assassination or drive-by shooting OR do you really have something to offer. From your comment, I assume that you know little or nothing about science and have nothing to offer so I won’t waste my time further.
        If I’m mistaken then all you have to do is simply explain why/how those who have not fallen for the CAGW hoax are somehow mistaken.

  • I am sure like Matt Damon they are both sponsored by the same folks. December 6, 2012 Matt Damon Surprised To Learn His Anti-Fracking Film Was Funded By Foreign Oil Wealth

    Actor Matt Damon was surprised to learn his new anti-natural gas fracking movie was funded in part by Mideast oil nation the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Hydraulic fracking is a technique used to get natural gas out of the ground which could help make domestic natural gas a cheaper competitor to foreign oil.

    http://cnsnews.com/blog/mike-ciandella/matt-damon-surprised-learn-his-anti-fracking-film-was-funded-foreign-oil-wealth

  • Immortal600

    If anyone thinks that reducing CO2 in the atmosphere is going to stop the climate from changing, they are clearly delusional. Tin-foil hat delusional.

  • Nov 11, 2016 Leo’s “Before The Flood” & The Truth Behind Climate Change

    Dan Dicks of Press For Truth sets the record straight in regards to “Before The Flood” before everyone gets to carried away by Al Gore and his minions once again.

    https://youtu.be/KiB4akWGVwE

  • Jakaleca

    Congratulations, Marc! Obviously, a badge of honor from the bath-salt zombie Left.