For Balance: Let's Have Marc Morano's emails

Tue, 2009-11-24 16:55Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

For Balance: Let's Have Marc Morano's emails

The Deniersphere being alive with delight over the emails stolen from the UK Hadley Centre, my colleague Kevin Grandia has wondered aloud (see next post) about what a similar sampling of emails might look like if they were sourced from one of the most aggressive and least (climate) credible think tanks - the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Why stop there?

As a stunning amount of email traffic on this issue currently seems to be coming from uberDenier Marc Morano, why doesn’t the former aide to Okalahoma Senator and Republican Denier-in-Chief James Inhofe volunteer to share his correspondence?

Kevin suggested a six-month supply from CEI. I reckon the last six days from Morano might significantly advance the question of who’s credible on this issue. It might even show who hacked Hadley.

C’mon Markey. Show us what you got.

If yours is a reasonable assault on the scientists named in the CRU hacked emails, you should have no reservations about submitting to as quick second reading. Marc? Marc!!? Get your finger off that delete key!


Previous Comments

Sunlight is the best disinfectant and especially from taxpayer-funded

I myself would lead the charge against any impropriety whatsoever; from either side. Al Gore, Jr. and Dr. James Hansen would of course be expected to participate.

Would anyone disagree that those pushing public policy based on the methods and data now in question have brought this on themselves?

I have yet to hear any AGW advocates owning up to how absolutely ascientific the claim “the science is settled and the debate is over”
really is.

That claim is pure arrogance which, per Albert Einstein, is the only thing more dangerous than ignorance. I wonder what else he’d be saying?

As the political aide and political person he is, I suspect Morano might be pretty careful about what he puts into an email.

Wonder if my FOIA request for his emails will be denied.

i wonder if he will delete all his “data” upon getting that request. it would be such a dishonest thing to do. why would he try to destroy something like that? what could he be hiding?

I have logged on to this site because I am a sceptic. I think this is right until I see some real evidence - not computer models - that man made gases are causing climate change. I therefore need to see both sides of the story. What is of concern is the ad hominem remarks made by both sides - ususually without just cause. The latest ferrago over the Hadley emails is a good example. It now appears that it is probably a whistle-blower and not a hacker - but everyone seems to be accusing everybody. But why whistle-blow ? I am becoming less convinced about the AGW science . Which eminent scientist(s) has proved a link between cO2 and consequential atmospheric warming ? I have seen the sceptics case but need to see the protagonists arguments. Any suggestions ? (I’m involved with aviation)

You could check out real climate or deep climate, they are both AGW science based sights. You won’t find too many scientific experts here, just a few PR guys. For a good sight pointing out many of the flaws of the AGW theory I would suggest a little known sight called check out their 15 global warming myths link.

Although can you really trust anything claimed by an AGW proponent these days? The e-mail leak shows that much of the data used to verify the theory was massaged.

Nicely done Cam! A pure skeptic pointing someone to real climate. Thats a first.

I have been sent this by another sceptic :-

Global anthropogenic production of CO2 is 30bn tons per annum representing 2ppm of the atmosphere. The IPCC says in the next 100 years temps will rise 7 degrees F and CO2 will increase by 468ppm. Taking the IPCC figures CO2 production will be 1 trillion tons per degree of warming. Therefore to save 1 degree F in temperature we have to cut 1 trillions tons of CO2. i.e we have to completely shut down the planet for 33 years just to save one degree. That’s ridiculous.

Still inquiring of you of the names of the individuals whom you assert are the non-scientist authors of the IPCC report.

To learn about climate science, go to and click on “start here” at the top. There are many many links explaining the science. Or you could check out the links here; look down on the right side of this page.

but i think realclimate might be a good place to start to learn about climate science AND HOW IT WORKS as opposed to real science. at realclimate she could learn how, even in this day, scientist collude, manipulate and shut out. a real learning experience.

Read the IPCC Reports.

Start with the Summary for Policy Makers. It is a clearly written, plain English summary of the state of all aspects of climate science. It is fully referenced with references to the relevent parts of the Technical Summary that address the science in greater detail.

Still not convinced? Then read the Technical Summary. It is fully referenced with references to the individual chapters that address specific scientific issues. It’s more technical than the Summary for Policy Makers, but still easily readable.

Still not convinced? Then read the individual IPCC chapters for where you are not convinced. It is fully footnoted with references to peer-reviewed scientific research. There are chapters that address the history of climate change alone – for which there is direct, measurable evidence – and they are distinct from any chapters that address computer models for future climate change scenarios.

Still not convinced? Then read the peer-reviewed scientific research. You will find a full reference to it the chapter.

Still not convinced? Then raise your concerns in a public forum about what specific scientific studies you find fault with. Perhaps some scientist has already raised the issue, and someone can answer the question.

I have read them but on checking I found they were not written by the scientists themselves, which is why I need to see the science.

On checking what? Both reports (summary for policymakers and technical summary) and each chapter beginning with a list the authors. What names on there do you identify as “they were not written by the scientists themselves?” Can you identify the names of people who, in your opinion, are not qualified to author the documents?

A very logical analysis of AGW theory.

It’s true that the IPCC is the gold standard source, but I like Elizabeth Kolbert’s Climate of Man series (from the New Yorker) as an easy-reading starter for people who are not steeped in science. You can Google it or, even better, you can buy her book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe. It’s a couple of years old - things have got quite a bit worse since - but she offers a clear, readable and accessible look at the science and some of the implications. If you’re serious - and not just jerking us around like so many of the trolls who come here and complain about OTHER people’s comment policies - I also recommend a hearty dose of skepticism about skepticism. If someone tells you climate change isn’t happening, ask yourself: are they an expert? are they doing research and publishing in real science journals (the Wall Street Journal doesn’t count) and are they being paid by big oil? (which means Dick Lindzen doesn’t count).

“are they doing research and publishing in real science journals (the Wall Street Journal doesn’t count) and are they being paid by big oil? (which means Dick Lindzen doesn’t count).”

so if desmog bloggers are being paid by e boom should they “count”. i know there is a difference but i need someone to tell me what it is….really?

Your point is extremely valid. Big enviro funds activism to the tune of over 100 million+ a year and so called big oil gives 3 million to various community groups. The sceptics have truth on their side but work for free. Do you really think Kevin Grandia and the rest of the desmog smear team do this for free?

no they dont do it for free. just go to the eboom website and look at the contributors….its the whole crew!!!!

If you are going to talk about, use the proper name. eboom looks like adware or something.

vj, why don’t you comment on the point instead of on my grammar, capitilization, punctuation and now evidently abbreviations? and btw, that is a rhetorical question. can i start a sentence with “and”. comment on the fact that this sites main purpose is outing people that supposedly are funded by “big oil” yet they are paid (i assume) by an alternative energy company. ITS THE SAME CONFLICT OF INTEREST issue. I wrote that in caps so you could more easily see the point. so comment on that if you would like and stop acting like my nightmare college physics professor.

The point is that I don’t want unsuspecting people to look up the incorrect link and pick up adware from it.

Your point is meaningless; you have no idea how this website is funded because you have not made any effort to find out. Any accusations you choose to make are worthless, because you have not done the research.

the point is that desmog guys work and i assume get paid by eboom. all they (the desmog guys) do is harp on “big oil” funded articles and how there is a conflict of interest so we shouldn’t listen to what they have to say. i thin k we have to look at who pays them at EBooM AND ASK IF THERE IS THE SAME CONFLICT. i did not say or ask who funds desmog. and i do have an idea of who funds desmog. i believe he is a felon. i dont bring it up b/c i think the charge is bullshit so to me its meaningless. so:
a./ no one ever talked of desmog funding (so why bring it up?)
B./ desmog bloggers have the same conflicts
c./ you lie….” you have no idea how this website is funded because you have not made any effort to find out. Any accusations you choose to make are worthless, because you have not done the research.” total bs.

so let me ask you think that getting paid by an alternative energy company makes their work biased like they think b/c (assumingly)any articles written anti your view are worthless b/c they are paid by “big oil”? »

eboom appears to be an adware site.

A nice, fresh, fat piece of coal will be in Phil Jones’ stocking this year. Let’s change the scenario around. Morano’s email does in fact get hacked and he demands that the Hadley Centre release their emails. You think they’d do it? I thinks not. HO HO HO HO HO COAL IN THE STOCKING!

You do realize that by requesting the emails of “one of the most aggressive and least (climate) credible think tanks” (CEI) in order to have balance, that you are indirectly suggesting the CRU is aggressive and not credible?

After reading some of the emails, I tend to agree with you.

Richard, you can’t be serious. Billions of taxpayer dollars were not used to create Climate Depot or fund the news and opinions that appear there.

Billions of taxpayer dollars were given to UEA CRU, UN IPCC, NOAA, NASA, NCAR, NCDC and other govt. science organizations to conduct what was supposed to be objective, untainted, unbiased science. The fate and future of entire nations, economies, and peoples was to be determined by environmental, energy, and economic policies that had this taxpayer funded research as their foundation. The policies fashioned around this taxpayer funded research - literally - would be the difference between future prosperity and poverty, improvement or decline in the human condition globally, and (ironically enough, given Gore and his ilk’s comments to this effect) the future of our children and grandchildren.

No matter what Morano’s emails may or may not say, to compare the two is either one of the highest forms of stupidity I’ve ever seen, or is a thinly veiled attempt to distract from the reality that Mann, Jones (and a host of others whose names will be coming out shortly, either via FOI requests of NASA, NOAA, NCDC, NCAR, and EVERY other US science organization that ever received a PENNY of my tax dollars…come hell or high water, via lawsuit if necessary) etal lied, cheated, and denigrated the scientific method.

If you really see a moral, ethical equivalent between the two, you are an abject idiot, and you are beyond hope and salvation. What a chump you are. No sale.

In the wake of your idiotic comments above, you are hereby knighted Sir Richard Cranium.

I didn’t realize that it’s okay to steal as long as you’re stealing from people who work in some direct or indirect way, for the government (which would include Morano for much of the past several years, but let’s not complicate things). I also didn’t realize that only government should be held accountable and that corporate courtiers like Morano are to be spared from scrutiny at all costs. Sir RC

so are we 100% sure it wasn’t a leak? some kind of inside job by a quietly dissenting scientist? I guess that might count as stealing too but I hope that’s the story that eventually comes out. One can dream.


The phrase “clean coal” has about as much merit as saying “sanitary sewage,” but that hasn’t stopped the industry and pro-coal talking heads from repeating that phrase ad nauseum to the American public.

The Orwellian industry buzzphrase was so successful that the Obama administration, as part of the 2009 stimulus package, pledged more than $1 billion to create the largest carbon-capturing system known as FutureGen 2.0. The...

read more