CFACT delivers “State of the Climate” report to UN COP 22

By |2016-11-15T11:28:04+00:00November 15th, 2016|Climate|35 Comments

Thousands of international bureaucrats, crony capitalists and Green campaigners have gathered at COP 22, the UN’s annual big climate conference.

This year it’s in Marrakech, Morocco.  Thanks to your support CFACT is there!

They came to cash in on the expectations of wealth and power they built after they finally brought the U.S. into the UN climate regime with last year’s Paris climate agreement.

A funny thing happened on day two of the UN conference.  The U.S. voted Trump.

Eagle Forum’s Cathie Adams is with CFACT in Morocco.  We posted her observations about the “giant shadow” Donald Trump’s victory is casting over the UN conference at  Cathie reports that, “European Union representatives proclaimed that they would not wait for the U.S. to catch up, which begs the question of what we would want to catch up to. Our economy is stronger and our standard of living is higher than most in the EU, so why would Americans prefer the EU’s radical environmental agenda?”

CFACT attended a briefing chaired by HRH Princess Lalla Hasnaa of Morocco.  They made clear that spending your tax dollars on climate reeducation is a key UN goal.  “Indonesia and Uganda” they noted, “have developed national climate change strategies. The Dominican Republic allocated more than $1 million to train teachers on climate change. The Mexican national climate change law includes education as one of its objectives. Non-governmental organizations have been implementing training activities, and youth organizations have raised awareness…

In 2015, the climate change secretariat supported a unique, public consultation on climate change in close to a hundred developed and developing countries. Asked what actions would most likely help combating climate change, More than 77% said education on climate change for the broader public.”

Of course when the UN talks about climate education it means propaganda.  They want massive funding to place the warming campaign’s talking points relentlessly before the public.  That the information they present is riddled with half truths and outright lies doesn’t enter into it.

Yesterday CFACT’s Marc Morano presented a 43 page State of the Climate” report to the conference that debunks the hype and lays out the real facts.  We’re doing our best to keep up with all the media interest. You’ll want to check out this important report for yourself and save it for reference.  Be sure to share it with a friend.

Here at the UN climate conference they know the game has changed.  They are uncertain how much.  CFACT will make sure they find out.

CFACT is working hard in Marrakech, but not alone.  Our work depends on your support and our friends are coming through.  If you’ve not yet had a chance to chip in, please make your gift right now.  This important work depends on you and we will never forget that.  We’re grateful to you all.  Thank you.

2016 State of the Climate Report

By Marc Morano

Presented to COP 22

UN conference on climate change

November 14, 2016


  1. Ian5 November 15, 2016 at 11:27 PM

    “CFACT’s Marc Morano presented a 43 page “State of the Climate” report to the conference that debunks the hype and lays out the real facts.”

    What rubbish. The report and Rucker’s post have been written to intentionally mislead and misinform. Morano has no scientific credentials whatsoever nor has the “report” received any scientific scrutiny. It’s irrelevant and and simply a repeat of tired and long-debunked arguments.

    • djeromehauk November 18, 2016 at 4:47 PM

      Ian5 :Another science-denier. Sad, really.

      • Ian5 November 19, 2016 at 12:30 AM

        Have you read Morano’s report?

        • djeromehauk November 19, 2016 at 2:01 PM


    • Brin Jenkins November 25, 2016 at 12:54 PM

      Have you any credentials Ian?

      • Ian5 November 26, 2016 at 12:27 AM

        Yes, I have 2 science degrees and have worked in the natural resource sector for 25 years. But you’ve avoided my point. The point is that Morano has NO scientific credentials whatsoever. None. Nada. He is a paid lobbyist whose job is to mislead and misinform. Look up “Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for BS-Busting and Critical Thinking”. If you still can’t figure it out I can’t help you.

        • Tomahawk December 13, 2016 at 6:48 AM

          Exactly what do you consider Gore to be? If you’ve 2 science degrees, pray tell, what are they? Science has become a broad ranging term, and having done so, has become skewed. The group you consider to be deniers are either in the fields of science, or have studied the works of those who are. Simply stated, your degrees, provided they exist, are no greater in value than anyone else’s. And neither are your opinions. CO2 was politicked into or onto this so called list of pollutants simply because there’s money in attempting to regulate it. And regulating it is a farce, as it’s produced and reduced, in and by nature itself. Without it, there can be no life. To be rid of it, is to be rid of life. And that, my two degreed non-friend, is absurd. If you actually are a science major, how can you deny what I’ve stated here?

          • Ian5 December 17, 2016 at 5:54 PM

            How are Gore’s views relevant? Because he’s not a scientist either? Does that then mean that Morano’s silly report is somehow more believable? Tell us your point instead of deflecting.

            • Tomahawk December 18, 2016 at 3:32 PM

              Gore’s views are relevant in that he has both raked in millions of personal wealth off this scam AND he’s paid for fake facts. “Adjusted” data numbers when the actual numbers weren’t as he desired them to be. I’ll be brief. Science, by definition, is all questioning. Always open to debate. This Global Warming farce is more in alignment with some BS religion. You’ve even tagged ANY who question your validity as “Deniers”, as though it’s a closed case, end of story. True science does NOT take that approach. And it shouldn’t.

              • Ian5 December 19, 2016 at 11:06 PM

                “Science, by definition, is all questioning. Always open to debate”. >> Except that science brings evidence and you haven’t brought any, just the standard talking points promoted by disinformation sites.

                “This global warming farce…”
                >> This comment serves to illustrate that you haven’t asked any questions (see above); your position is based on ideology not science.

                “You’ve even tagged ANY who question your validity as Deniers”
                >> No not all. Morano would be better characterized as a professional disinformer, a propagandist. He doesn’t have any scientific qualifications and his background is in PR and lobbying, not climate science. You’ve been duped/

                I don’t care much for Gore. Why not pay attention to the findings and position of virtually every American and international scientific academy, instead of basing your narrow position on rubbish sites like Heartland, CFACT and Daily Caller.

                • Tomahawk December 20, 2016 at 6:14 AM

                  You want science, I’ll give you science. Coming from an article on Daily Caller in August, Two climatologists at Cato Institute studied the work of another and came to the conclusion that even if we could eliminate CO2 completely, it would result in possibly lowering the temperature .137 degrees Celsius over the next 84 years. Not exactly a stellar accomplishment in light of the hardship being placed on the human race to reach this major underachievement. When combined with the fact that CO2 is what one should consider to be a life sustaining compound, it becomes ludicrous to even attempt.
                  One of the works that they studied was that of Dr. Nicolas Bellouin of Reading. That particular research was focused on aerosol-cloud interactions and how they compare to the current model simulations being published as “science”. His findings indicated that these interactions are weaker than the current models indicate, therefore negating any possible assumption that they were ever valid to begin with. The models are wrong and the fact that every published argument stated by those of us who are labeled as “deniers” can be substantiated as reasonable debate to rebut your “religion” of climate science.
                  In simple English, the research currently being put forth, whether by NASA or any other government funded entity, CAN be debated by scientists who aren’t funded by Obama or Gore. Be advised that Gore has already been checked for buying data manipulation, and he failed miserably. But being the self proclaimed expert that you believe yourself to be, you are already aware of that. You just selectively fail to mention it. Ever.
                  My focus is in the area of ever changing facts, and the open exchange of them. I also choose to remain objective on this matter, and suggest you do likewise.
                  Have a rainy day.

                  • Ian5 December 21, 2016 at 1:19 AM

                    A Daily Caller article about the Cato Institute’s biased interpretation of the University of Reading’s Nicolas Bellouin’s research is not science. It’s intentionally sensational and misleading reporting of the results of a single study and you fell for it. Bellouin’s own comments don’t “devastate claims…” of human-caused climate change in any way whatsoever. Read Bellouin`s findings for yourself:

                    And if you are truly interested in what Bellouin and his University of Reading research colleagues are doing about the serious issue of human-induced climate change, you can read about it here:

                    and at the affiliated Walker Institute for Climate Systems Research:

                    And best to stop relying on the lazy and biased reporting of the Daily Caller and ideological Cato Institute as a source of climate science. Neither are credible sources as I have just demonstrated.

                    • Tomahawk December 22, 2016 at 7:13 PM

                      You actually believe that NASA has not been convoluted by this administration? And that the EPA and IRS haven’t been reduced to nothing more than tools for Obama and Gore? IF that’s the case, your liberal is shining brightly. Our government is corrupt, which makes anything they pay for, including studies, equally the same. Follow the money. Your remark about Cato is laughable.

                    • Ian5 December 23, 2016 at 1:58 AM

                      As usual, no evidence to support your conspiracy claims. If you did even the most cursory research, you’d know that the position of NASA and NOAA on climate change hasn’t changed since the before the Bush administration. And that position–that human-caused increases in GHGs are changing the planet’s climate system–is consistent with the position of virtually every American and international scientific agency including Environment Canada, U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, etc, etc.

                    • Tomahawk December 23, 2016 at 6:33 AM

                      I knew if I allowed you to run with the ball long enough, you’d wuss out and drop it. In order for NASA and NOAA to make the claim that 2015 was the hottest year on record, they had to ignore satellite data and use only ground based measurements. The fact that these two highly thought of agencies would stoop to that level of number manipulation points straight to Obama. Deny that.
                      David Dilley, former NOAA meteorologist and current research scientist at Global Weather Oscillations has an awful lot to say about Global Warming, and you won’t like a word of it.
                      John Casey, a renowned climate researcher, former NASA consultant, and space shuttle engineer was one of the first to blow the whistle on this farce called Global Warming.
                      No evidence? Keep bloviating. The number of true scientists, not the government bought kind, are coming out daily refuting your religious version of Global Warming. But the media gives them zero time.
                      It doesn’t bother me what you think and claim to know, I deal with people like you on a daily basis. You couldn’t be more full of yourselves. But when you don that Aristocratic, education taunting, I know everything there is to know about this attitude, that’s when I’ll play. Every single time. There’s a word for people who don’t speak truths. It fits you to a tee.

                    • Ian5 December 23, 2016 at 10:05 AM

                      “John Casey, a renowned climate researcher”.

                      >> No, Casey is not a renowned climate researcher. You just made that up. He hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science. Nothing. Neither has David Dilley. Nada. Why should the media give them any time? Do you consider Dilley and Casey to be “true (climate) scientists”? Even thought they haven’t published any peer-reviewed science? What criteria are you using for “renowned”? “Renowned” as in “I like his opinion regardless of what the science says”?

                      You should do a bit more homework….spend some time at the library and read up on critical thinking. Carl Sagan’s “The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark” is a good reference:

                      And I’m still awaiting some evidence to support your ridiculous claim that “The models are wrong and the fact that every published argument stated by those of us who are labeled as “deniers” can be substantiated…”

                    • Tomahawk December 23, 2016 at 5:35 PM

                      If you deny John Casey as being a stalwart while at NASA and after leaving it, you’re a propagandist. Which was my first impression, to begin with.

                    • Ian5 December 24, 2016 at 12:36 AM

                      Casey might have been hardworking while at NASA but at what is the relevant point. He was not a climate scientist and hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science on climate change. Nothing. Nada. Zilch.

                      His global cooling views are way out on the fringe. Here’s his silly press release from 2013: The statements about sea-level rise are completely contrary to the data and science:

                      Still awaiting evidence.

                    • Tomahawk December 25, 2016 at 6:55 PM

                      And I’m still waiting for the sea level to rise. What were you saying about evidence?

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2016 at 12:56 AM

                      Yet the data show that global sea level is indeed rising. Why not educate yourself:

                      The corresponding references are listed beginning on page 1206.

                    • Tomahawk December 27, 2016 at 6:25 AM

                      Why don’t you stop assuming you are educated. NONE of the data you claim to be accurate is in fact just that. Global warming had to be renamed to climate change due to the fact you couldn’t change your lies fast enough to keep up with what was happening across the globe. Fact being, it wasn’t warming. It was static to slightly cooling. I’ve read some of the articles you post, and they’re all either outdated or were written with the results already paid for. You won’t change my mind. You can’t. I don’t believe in your religion, and that’s exactly what this is to you. We’re done.

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2016 at 10:27 AM

                      “NONE of the data you claim to be accurate is [sic] in fact just that. Fact being, it wasn’t warming. It was static to slightly cooling”

                      >> I’m happy to review your “facts” except you haven’t brought anything. Just unsubstantiated statements.

                      Average global temperature have indeed been increasing over the past century:

                      If you disagree, then show me an alternate data series.

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2016 at 10:32 AM

                      “I’ve read some of the articles you post, and they’re all either outdated or were written with the results already paid for.”

                      >> Which articles specifically? Best to back up outrageous statements with some facts. Please tell us which ones.

                    • Ian5 December 27, 2016 at 10:35 AM

                      “Global warming had to be renamed to climate change due to the fact you couldn’t change your lies fast enough to keep up with what was happening across the globe.”

                    • Ian5 December 28, 2016 at 12:56 AM

                      “You won’t change my mind. You can’t. I don’t believe in your religion, and that’s exactly what this is to you. We’re done.”

                      >> I don’t really care what you think. But I do not appreciate those who deliberately spread misinformation and employ name-calling as a means of deflecting criticism. You need to be held accountable for your many unsubstantiated and misleading statements. And to quote Patrick Stokes…”No, you are not entitled to your opinion”:

                    • Tomahawk December 29, 2016 at 6:55 AM

                      GFY. And don’t appreciate it. I am entitled to my opinion, you prick. It’s that Article 1 thing, remember?

                    • Ian5 December 29, 2016 at 11:02 AM

                      More name-calling…the preferred tactic of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated. And of course still no evidence presented to support your misinformed and misleading “opinions”.

                    • Tomahawk December 29, 2016 at 11:16 AM

                      NIPCC. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. No more of your BS.

                    • Ian5 December 30, 2016 at 1:30 AM

                      No, the NIPCC and its reports are creatures of the Heartland Institute and are designed to intentionally mislead and misinform. Go to your local college or university and talk to any professor of climatology or geography and you will quickly find that as a synthesis of the current state of knowledge on climate change, the NIPCC has no credibility whatsoever.

                    • Tomahawk December 30, 2016 at 11:25 AM

                      I hope I’m there for your next transfusion.

                    • Ian5 December 30, 2016 at 11:31 AM

                      Deep thoughts. Cheers!

                  • Ian5 December 21, 2016 at 1:23 AM

                    “The models are wrong and the fact that every published argument stated by those of us who are labeled as “deniers” can be substantiated as reasonable debate to rebut your “religion” of climate science.“

                    >> you are welcome to express your opinion but if you want to argue debate, you have to bring some facts to the table, not just irrelevant misinformation.

                    • Tomahawk December 22, 2016 at 6:58 PM

                      The exact same thing applies to you. Your “facts” are no better than where the “scientists” who wrote them received their funding. Deny that, and you truly are an educated idiot. Ball’s in your court on that one. You’re not accustomed to dealing with people who actually know something about this, are you?

                    • Ian5 December 22, 2016 at 9:58 PM

                      Obvious deflection. You made an outrageous and sweeping statement…here I’ll play it back for you again: “The models are wrong and the fact that every published argument stated by those of us who are labeled as “deniers” can be substantiated…”.

                      You made a statement but didn’t back it up with any facts or references. It’s YOUR responsibility to substantiate YOUR statements and assertions. Otherwise its fluff

                      And name-calling is a technique typically used by propagandists and the uneducated.

      • Ian5 December 17, 2016 at 5:57 PM

        And what credentials do you have Brin?

Comments are closed.