Skeptics offer blistering rebuke of climate alarmism at UN summit

By |2016-11-17T08:18:39+00:00November 17th, 2016|Climate|31 Comments

One of America’s most prominent global warming skeptics showed up at the United Nations summit in Morocco with a lengthy report challenging the notion the climate is spiraling out of control.

Marc Morano, the publisher of Climate Depot, has one thing to say to UN delegates: Donald Trump is right, Al Gore is wrong on global warming.

“All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate,” Morano wrote in his new report. “So, even if we actually Daily Caller  New Foundationfaced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!”

Morano points to a slew of “inconvenient” data points in his “2016 State of the Climate Report” to bolster his case against global warming alarmism:

  • Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.

  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.

  • Despite claims of snow being ‘a thing of the past,’ cold season snowfall has been rising.

  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.

  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

  • So-called hottest year claims are based on year-to-year temperature data that differs by only a few HUNDREDTHS of a degree to tenths of a degree Fahrenheit – differences that are within the margin of error in the data. In other words, global temperatures have essentially held very steady with no sign of acceleration.

  • A 2015 NASA study found Antarctica was NOT losing ice mass and ‘not currently contributing to sea level rise.’

  • In 2016, Arctic sea ice was 22% greater than at the recent low point of 2012. The Arctic sea ice is now in a 10-year ‘pause’ with ‘no significant change in the past decade

  • Polar bears are doing fine, with their numbers way up since the 1960s.

Morano and other global warming skeptics travelled to Morocco to observe the UN’s annual climate summit. Morano presented his report to the summit, and again issued a challenge to the scientific consensus that man-made carbon dioxide emissions will cause catastrophic warming.

“CO2 is not the tail that wags the dog,” Morano wrote in his report. “CO2 is a trace essential gas, but without it life on earth would be impossible.”

“Carbon dioxide fertilizes algae, trees, and crops to provide food for humans and animals,” Morano wrote.

UN delegates are meeting in Marrakech to figure out how to implement the so-called Paris agreement that was ratified by enough countries to come into effect this year. President Barack Obama pledged to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025.

Obama wants the Paris deal to be a major part of his legacy, but President-elect Donald Trump vowed to “cancel” the deal. Trump also promised to stop funding UN global warming programs, despite being called a “climate denier” by left-wing activists.

UN delegates in Morocco during the U.S. presidential election were shocked at Trump’s sweeping victory against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in early November. Trump managed to win big in battleground states and beat Clinton in traditionally Democratic Rust Belt states.

Some diplomats have suggested Trump could not pull out of the Paris deal, but they are likely wrong since the deal is an executive agreement and not a Senate-ratified treaty.

Morano said Trump’s “America first” mentality likely means he will pull out of the agreement, despite international pressure to the opposite.

“Even going back to the 1980s, Trump’s political philosophy was a form of ‘America first’ and not very supportive of international trade or similar agreements,” Morano recently told E&E News.

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

This article originally appeared in The Daily Caller


  1. Pericles Xanthippou November 17, 2016 at 12:47 PM

    What virtually all voters did not appreciate was that the green-gas fraud (spearheaded by the U.N.O.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore) was the most important issue before the electorate in the recent general election.

    It is a pity that throughout the campaign Mr. Trump kept referring to climate change as ‘a hoax’. Climate change and environmental change generally are not hoaxes: they have occurred since the formation of the Earth and will continue till the planet be subsumed in to an expanding Sun many millions of years hence. By alluding to it as a hoax, Mr. Trump has made it easy for the destructive forces of the left to brand him a ‘climate(-change) denier’ and to denigrate those struggling to have the honest scientific voice heard.

    He needs urgently to appoint honest scientists — untainted by the money that has poured in to the ‘renewables’ industry and internationalist-sponsored ‘research’ — to positions in the forthcoming administration in which they will able to steer government (and, it is to be hoped) international policy toward the truth.

    We are still in an ICE AGE — the normal global temperature of the Earth is much higher than to-day’s — and emerging from the last GLACIATION (referred to by the almost universally ignorant media as ‘the last ice age’. A rising global temperature is therefore to be expected (although not measurable from one year to the next or even from decade to decade). What we cannot know are —

    (1) the extent to which, should the temperature continue to rise, man, wildlife and the environment will be affected; and

    (2) when, if ever, the process will be reversed and — without ever leaving the current ice age — we shall enter the next glaciation.

    An important point often missed by the massed ranks of the greenhouse-gas fraud is that cold is inimical to life; warmth, on the other
    paw, is conducive to it.

    We need to stop these ridiculous attempts to ‘combat’ climate change and to begin, where necessary, to take steps to mitigate its effect on our life style. A good start would be to get the Indonesians and Brazilians to stop destroying tropical forest! If any activity of man might be thought to contribute to environmental disaster, surely that is it.


    • Immortal600 November 17, 2016 at 2:17 PM

      Well written.

      • Pericles Xanthippou November 18, 2016 at 11:53 AM

        Thank you, O Immortal!

  2. edmh November 17, 2016 at 3:03 PM

    Very simply Carbon Dioxide from whatever source is not pollutant.

    It is in fact the very stuff of life and its increase along with recent minor warming has enhanced plant life worldwide by about 15% in the last 50 years. This is in spite of the undoubted predation and destruction of the biosphere by mankind.

    Green thinking just does not do elementary biology and grasp the meaning of photosynthesis.

    As the last millennium 1000 – 2000AD has been the coldest so far of our current Holocene interglacial. The small degree of warming that occurred at the end of the 20th century has been wholly beneficial. The tipping point to more much more rapid global cooling occurred at about 1000BC

    Warming is not catastrophic and is certainly much better that the descent into a colder period.

    -1 deg C worldwide is equivalent to the loss of about 100 miles of productive agriculture in a band across Canada and Siberia.

    Current solar predictions show that a descent into Little Ice Age conditions for the coming half century is much more likely than environmental damage from some minor warming.

    The addition of man-made CO2 to the atmosphere can only have very minor warming effect. The CO2 warming effect diminishes logarithmically and at 400ppmv is 87 % used up.

    Any efforts to control CO2 will be futile and destructive of man-kind’s progress

    • FreemenRtrue November 17, 2016 at 3:13 PM

      CO2 is beer fizz and since I get loopy drinking beer, I wonder what effect it has on the environment? Do you think Gaia gets gassy from too much CO2 and needs to break wind occasionally?

      • Jim93 November 24, 2016 at 1:47 AM

        one mans junk is another mans treasure… well, uh, in this case, mans junk (co2, at least) is mother natures treasure. …I simply believe we need to tackle and control our population and our pollution. The climate changes, it’s what it does. It’s actually INSANE, if you think about it; we are told to worry about co2… what about all the other chemicals used and dumped every day; industry, farming, cosmetics, mining, etc. It’s crazy! It’s such a farce. It’s like ‘they’ don’t really care. …we’ve known about these issues since the 1960s now, and what has actually been done about it?

        • FreemenRtrue November 24, 2016 at 6:41 AM

          You must be young. The US has cleaned up and regulated effluents massively since the 60s. The worst offenders were actually cities and counties dumping raw sewage into rivers. All the ‘chemicals’ can go back to the earth from whence they came – no harm done.

          • Jim93 November 24, 2016 at 8:52 PM

            Then you must be naive. The US is not the whole world, and the US is far from being squeaky clean, or even ‘clean’. Any efforts made are still getting off the starting block when we’re almost 60 years on from the 1960s the population has doubled and we’re still a wasteful/polluting society.

            You’re lying to yourself if you believe all the chemicals magically go back to the Earth.
            If only it were that simple.

            • FreemenRtrue November 25, 2016 at 6:36 AM

              Not as naive as the young and dumb chicken little’s who think the sky is falling. I see you believe in the CO2 global warming scam, talking about ‘normal’ levels as if you have any idea at all. I challenge you to spend 6 months reviewing articles and comments at WUWT. Guarantee you will be a lot more informed if you do so. Show your guts and do it.

              • Jim93 November 25, 2016 at 2:27 PM

                I’m not worried about co2 levels. I worry that there is too much emphasis on co2 and not about the related issues under which co2 is merely a by-product.

                If I was going to worry about a green house gas, I’d worry about water vapour.

                I don’t worry about climate change, human or otherwise. I DO worry that we continue to pollute far too much, that our knowledge gained in mitigating and stopping pollution is not being used to it’s full potential and that we the people (the common guy) are doing all we can (with limited resources, i.e. money), while the big wigs sip cocktails in their lofty empires.

                They could teach a man to fish, but they’d rather sell it to you at twice the price.

                The reason I feel the way I do is that for the past twenty years of my awake life I have watched the world around me grow and grow. And nothing has changed. There’s more people to feed and house and clothe, more drilling for energy, more wars, more ‘kak’ as us South Africans would say. And we just keep perpetuating more of the same, like an idiot bashing his head against the wall and expecting a different result each time.

                Sorry for ranting, FreemenRtrue.
                I’ve been on WUWT previously, I’ll go take a gander round there now again. I am merely an armchair scientist, but I do my research, published and otherwise. I feel my opinion is well placed, but always learning, new info is always welcome.

    • Wondering Why November 17, 2016 at 5:14 PM

      You do not listen well.
      The EPA says CO2 is a pollutant.
      You are going to ruin my Pay for Play game that I have been really good at since my Impeachment, or should I say my narrow escape from.

    • 46patrick46 November 17, 2016 at 6:17 PM

      Well written.

      #MAGA…Make America Great Again

      #AMDG … Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

    • Jim93 November 24, 2016 at 1:58 AM

      Efforts to control population and pollution would have a far greater positive effect on the environment than the hot-air faith-based belief that controlling/limiting co2 will have.

      In fact, any excess man-made co2 will decrease to almost ‘normal’ levels were we to address the true issues of man-made pollution.

      Our society has become like a drug junkie and an intervention is necessary. We need to go to rehab. Everybody turns a blind eye, towards their smart phones, while industry pumps more shit into the veins of the Earth.

      • Wondering Why November 25, 2016 at 11:37 AM

        Your cure for a better environment by “efforts to control population” sounds like an actual doable solution vs all this hot air of the past few decades. How about we start with the 59 mill or so who voted for the same old story line, the carbon footprint saved with the 1%ers and the tagalongs alone from the LA area, would surely offset the Chinese opening an average of one coal fired power plant per week until 2030. Or what group would you target first?

        • Jim93 November 25, 2016 at 3:07 PM

          In general the answer is a socio-politico-bio-sci-agri-etc-logically diverse one.
          Yes, I couldn’t think of more on the spot after ‘agri’ 😛

          The answer’s not simple, but let’s not go all Hitler on the crowd.

          …I dunno, admit that there is a huge population problem, teach people about it, encourage adoption…

          Build policies that enforce stronger regulations on industry worldwide, to minimize environmental and health concerns. Cut back on unnecessary trade. Cut back on unnecessary energy extraction and place more focus on green technologies.

          Teach and encourage a society to be as clean and waste-less as it can…

          I dunno, but in the time between there being a hole in the ozone layer and this whole climate change issue, what has *really* changed?

          I don’t think the sky is falling, but why wait until the eleventh hour?

    • FreemenRtrue November 24, 2016 at 6:43 AM

      great post – put it out there in a nutshell so even the squirrely can find it!

  3. centefire November 17, 2016 at 6:33 PM

    Fossil fuel is dead plants, it burns in Oxygen to give heat and co2, plants convert co2 to oxygen and fix the carbon, whats the problem?

    • Ian5 November 18, 2016 at 1:06 AM

      The large scale burning of coal, oil, and natural gas upsets the carbon cycle by accelerating the release of carbon into the atmosphere–carbon that took millions of years to accumulate is being introduced into the atmosphere within only a few centuries:

      • Brin Jenkins November 18, 2016 at 4:27 AM

        This needs to be quantified and checked against observed changes with unadjusted data. Forest clearing on the whole has been done for China’s food production, little to with anything within our control.

        • Ian5 November 18, 2016 at 11:03 PM

          perhaps you could clarify what your point is.

          • Brin Jenkins November 19, 2016 at 6:31 AM

            I was referring to the man made deforestation of the rain forests for agriculture. This was the source of much pollution and smog over much of the Far East. We were paying to stop this clearing of trees, but it happened anyway. The whole needs to be separated from Climate change, to the man made bit which is the point of discussion. I’m fed up with being conned through junk science into a wealth redistribution scam.

      • Marlene Cheladyn November 18, 2016 at 11:12 AM

        And before man there were uncontrolled forest and grass fires that helped by adding co2 to the air and growing new grass and trees. We should stop all fire fighting and let nature take its coarse.

        • Ian5 November 18, 2016 at 10:59 PM

          Why would we stop fighting forest fires, especially when human live and property is at risk?

          Regarding the carbon cycle, yes forest and grass fires certainly play a role. There are lots of things at play here. In many places, we prevent plant carbon from entering the atmosphere by extinguishing wildfires. Not all wildlife fires are “natural” though; many are human caused. And climate change also has an impact on the frequency and severity of wildfire.

      • Brin Jenkins November 21, 2016 at 6:02 AM

        Yes, 400 parts per million and of this a tiny amount is man made. Still no proper explanation of how it causes warming other than other theories not supported by facts or observations

  4. J T November 18, 2016 at 10:17 AM

    Where’s dchbg Dano?

    • wally12 November 20, 2016 at 5:38 PM

      @J T: I think he forgot how to spell his sign-off. We should help him by giving him a new one, “Worst” ? Maybe we shouldn’t encourage him. I like most of the comments posted. His were only repeated troll training.

  5. Christopher Richey November 19, 2016 at 9:28 AM

    Deforestation is the problem. If we poured as much money into reforestation as we did solar panels (Solyndra) and the U.N., we would begin reducing the increased CO2.

    We need trees for building and other products. Ok.

    We just need to replant them as often as we harvest them…like we do every other crop that we need.

    In the U.S. there are programs for this.

    But, as NASA itself reports…it’s not us producing the most CO2.

    It’s mostly China, South America and Africa.


    Imagine that.

  6. Milton D Beattie November 19, 2016 at 11:25 AM

    I wouldn’t call it “fertilize” suggesting a mere nutrient or factor initiating or helping growth.


    THE GREEN GAS OF LIFE!!! (and notably; The Carbon sink of all Carbon sinks).

  7. Peter George Stewart November 20, 2016 at 1:21 AM

    So far as I understand it, following it since the mid 80s, “global warming” started as some climate scientists ginning up publicity to try and garner funding for research using their crappy computer models, and it snowballed from there because it’s a good scare that’s convenient in terms of the Left’s desire to get control over the economy.

  8. wally12 November 20, 2016 at 5:48 PM

    I was pleased to hear Trump denounce climate change as a hoax. Trump uses as few words as possible to state his position. I hope he really means that while the earth has been warming since the ice age with natural cycles of cooling and warming, CO2 is only insignificant in its ability to warm the earth. I hope to see Trump drop out of the Paris agreement as soon as possible after taking office. It should be in his quickly doable achievements. Doing this would send a message to other world governments that the US is “Not for sale” and that being a “Sugar Daddy” is over.

  9. Jim93 November 24, 2016 at 1:35 AM

    Trump, mah boi. That’s fine by me! Screw climate change bullshit. But now, I hope you don’t just let things carry on as ‘normal’. Big business and industry need to be held accountable for pollution to the environment. Invest money in research and development that will improve industrial production and limit the environmental impact. In fact, make big business and industry responsible in initiating and assisting clean up of polluted areas and enhancing and expanding natural environments.

Comments are closed.