Morano debunks climate report on Fox

Marc Morano: We are in an era of unusually low extreme weather.  So, as CO2 has risen, our weather has gotten less extreme.

Categories

About the Author: Marc Morano

Marc Morano

  • Larry

    Give me pictures with your articles. They go further that way. https://www.facebook.com/newlittleiceage/?ref=bookmarks

  • Ian5

    Says Marc Morano who has no climate science credentials. None whatsoever.

    • mobug55

      And Bill Nye does?

    • LadyDocent

      And Al Gore does?

      • Ian5

        Don’t rely on Al Gore then. Read what actual scientists and scientific agencies are concluding.
        https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

        • Gary Cotton

          You mean the scientist and scientific agencies the distort and manipulate and outright lie about their data to “prove” there is anthropogenic global warming?

          • Ian5

            “…outright lies?”…according to who exactly? Please substantiate and share. You are simply repeating a silly talking point manufactured by disinformation professionals to intentionally mislead and misinform. Why do you accept this rubbish so readily?

        • Barry O’brien

          uh, you mean… Climate Scientologists…Those dolts aren’t scientists.

          • Ian5

            Who the are the scientists then smartipants?

            • Barry O’brien

              Start with William Happer, Freeman Dyson, and Richard Lindzen. Art Robinson is a brilliant guy with a stellar background as well. But there are many notables in the skeptic community right now. Willie Soon, Ryan Maui, Judith Curry, Roy Spencer and John Christy, and others who have recently passed away, like Hal Lewis and Reid Bryson (The father of Climatology)

    • Immortal600

      What are yours?

      • Ian5

        Deflection. I have not been selected by fox news as a commentator. Again, given that Morano has no scientific credentials why would you rely on him as a source of information on climate science?

        • Immortal600

          It isn’t a deflection. He probably knows more about it than you do. Anyway, he isn’t the source for info I use. I have told you about Dr. Ed Berry and all you can do is castigate the man in some fashion. You can’t refute his logic in showing how humans are not the primary factor in CO2 increases. Now come back with the usual garbage about all the science academies believing that humans do cause it. THAT does NOT satisfy the scientific method. If you can’t prove Dr. Berry is in error then you have NOTHING.

          • Ian5

            No, I have not castigated Ed Berry, only pointed out to you and other readers that his views on climate change are extreme…climate change is not his research area and he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits on his website: There is ideology not science all over his website and his climate links are all well-known silly disinformation sites like the Heartland Institute, Cornwall Alliance and No Tricks Zone.

            • Immortal600

              The ideology on his website doesn’t matter. He is an ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST. His expertise in the matter is greater than anyone you can name.

              “Extreme”. That assessment is laughable. Just because he doesn’t align with the PC viewpoint it must be “extreme”. It is funny how you and all others can’t show him how he is wrong. Why is that?

              • Ian5

                Thanks for acknowledging that his website is indeed riddled with ideology not science.

                • Immortal600

                  Thanks for acknowledging that you can’t refute his theory. As I said, all you can do is castigate the man by criticizing his website.

    • Bob Beeman

      You don’t have to be a farmer to know when you have a rotten egg. It is trivially simple to see the huge flaws in catastrophic global warming. See actual NOAA data on extreme weather. https://gonnasayit.com/extreme-weather-not/

      • Ian5

        Wow, amazing how a link to an amateurish blog developed by ‘bob’…can undermine decades of climate research. Very sophisticated analysis.

        • Bob Beeman

          Ian5: Really! Apparently you are like a lot of climate religion’s adherents. You don’t understand the scientific aspects of anything, and all you can do is criticize the messenger. The data on my little web page is actual NOAA data, bought and paid by US taxpayers, and used by scientists everywhere. It shows that extreme weather events are not increasing, but they show NO TREND over the last several decades, or in case of hurricanes, over the last century. If you don’t understand something, and you don’t understand actual scientific data, then you don’t belong in a conversation where the subject deals with scientific subjects.

          • Ian5

            Bob, Your website is a mishmash of cherry-picked graphs interspersed with ideologically-based comments that do not in any way, shape or form summarize the current knowledge and understanding of climate change including the implications for extreme weather. It adds nothing helpful to a conversation about climate change.

            • Bob Beeman

              Mishmash, maybe. Cherry-picked? You wouldn’t know the difference. The data on that page is THE discussion of extreme weather. The data has nothing to do with ideology. The data is THE data. It is the CURRENT knowledge of extreme weather but you don’t have the scientific chops to figure that out. That data is the conversation on extreme weather. Any other position is not scientific. I realize that I cannot change shallow-minded, uninformed people such as you.

              • Ian5

                “data is…data is…data has….that data” etc.

                >> The word data is a plural noun. A common error of non-scientists.

                • Immortal600

                  Ian, is that the best response you can give? You are a poor advocate for AGW.

                • Ian5

                  Just making an observation that the writer’s grammar is consistent with the quality of his website and his unnecessary snub about “[un]scientific,…shallow-minded, uninformed people”.