We’ve all sort of known the media have been in the tank for the global warming alarmist movement. For evidence, look no further than a March 2008 segment that aired on ABC “World News” attacking leading climate skeptic,
And the same culprit behind that 2008 segment, “World News” weekend anchor Dan Harris, was at it again with a piece that aired on May 23 attempting to link climate change skeptics to white supremacists.
But for balance, Harris included a few brief remarks, all of 10 seconds, from Marc Morano of ClimateDepot.com, a news aggregator website Harris called “aggressive.” But the actual interview Harris conducted with Morano was much more extensive and in depth. Throughout the interview, Harris asked Morano questions, but with premises that weren’t necessarily true.
During the back-and-forth, Harris asked Morano about the “threat” from people who challenged global warming skeptics, the validity that ClimateGate was a real scandal, the charges from Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., that ClimateGate exposed fraud, how someone could be skeptical of global warming with such a broad consensus and what Harris deemed as “interesting,” that climate skeptics were susceptible to threats as well. However, 99 percent of that was left out of the segment. What was left out of the ABC News segment? Transcript as follows:
HARRIS: So we’ll just get your reaction, I know this is a complaint you’ve heard before, but of late, climate scientists say they’re seeing a big spike in threatening e-mails, and the FBI is looking into it and the scientists say that it’s stopping them from doing their work for some are quite scared. What is your – what do you think of this alleged trend?
MORANO: Well, first of all, no one advocates violence. There’s always lunatics on any side of any hotly contested debate that will make threats or do threats of physical harm or death threats. No one is advocating that. But, what I will say is these scientists who for decades have been telling people that the debate was over, the science is settled and that we must act now. We must radically alter our lifestyles. We need to make all these changes in order to confront the crisis of global warming.
That’s all been now exposed, especially the lie of consensus as a con job. The idea that all scientists agree with a con job, the idea, you know, that this was the best science that we can have was a con job. So right now, the public is very appropriately venting their anger to the very scientists who spend decades refusing to debate, suppressing dissenting opinion, trying to redefine what peer-reviewed literature meant and using the U.N. political process, which called -- demonized skeptics as “flat-earthers.” And so, the public is appropriately angry at these scientists. And again, no one’s advocating violence but it is refreshing to see these scientists hear from the public, when you go to a used car salesman and you get conned, you get a lemon, you don’t go back to the used car dealer all happy and pleasant. You have a lot of anger and that’s what these scientists are appropriately feeling and that is why I actually published the e-mails, publicly available e-mails, of these scientists on my Web site, Climate Depot.
HARRIS: Now, on ClimateGate, isn’t it true that several of the subsequent investigations exonerated these guys from cooking the books?
MORANO: Right, you’re referring to Lord Oxburgh and these other reports? U.N. scientists have like laughed. Richard Tol, a lead author at the U.N. is laughing at this Oxburgh report and other scientists. This was essentially a light piece of paper – a couple of pages long. Didn’t interview any of the skeptics. Had a very narrow focus on what they were looking at and these were all warmists. The head of it, Lord Oxburgh, had massive conflict of interests that he never would have gotten away with had it been the other way around and say a skeptic was heading an oil-funded interest. This was a complete laughingstock investigation.
And the bottom line is, we’ve seen the e-mails, we’ve heard the top U.N. scientists now turning on each other. I have a whole report of U.N. scientists turning on the U.N. saying it’s run its course, it’s time to disband it. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chief should resign. So these little committees that get together that are all politically connected, full of global warmist, aren’t going to change the fact there’s a civil war going on within the U.N. over these ClimateGate e-mails. And the American people realize what ClimateGate was all about. You don’t need a committee to read the very words of these scientists.
HARRIS: I recognize you’re no longer in the employ of Sen. [James] Inhofe. Let me ask you about his recent report. Some of the scientists we have spoken to say that of all the pushback they have gotten in recent months – the most disturbing thing to them was this report from Sen. Inhofe that named the 17 scientists and tends to raise the specter of criminal investigation or criminal charges. People are calling that “McCarthyite.” How do you -- what’s your pushback on that?
MORANO: No, I think he’s identified, if I’m not mistaken, 17 scientists that warrant further investigation. This is absolutely appropriate. These are scientists, many of them on the government dole, the United Nations money. These scientists who’ve actively been involved in at least the appearance of or actively involved in rebuking Freedom of Information Act requests – scientists who get public fund s to do research that have a lot of questions to answer. And for them to say, “Oh my gosh, what horror!” No, they’re on the public dime in many cases and they’re advocating public policy changes and radical changes to our lifestyles down to the toilet paper we use, down to the light bulbs we can use. Down to how much we’re going to be paying for gas and home energy, all based on their science which has now –been credible accusations that they have cooked the books. So it’s completely appropriate for the government to start looking at them and naming names.
HARRIS: When you attack the consensus, that’s where I get a little confused because you can say what you want about the U.N., but you can also add in to their -- you know, NASA, NOAA, the American Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Sciences in pretty much every developed nation on the planet.
How can you construct a consensus this broad on a hoax?
MORANO: First of all, it’s not a “broad consensus.” What you just said there were political arguments. You’re insulting the intelligence of ABC News by using that as proof of a consensus. What you’ve done is – all those groups you’ve mentioned – the National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Advancement [of Science], the American Chemical Society – they’ve all had two dozen or so governing board members vote on a statement that is vaguely similar to what the United Nations says about global warming. Science groups don’t take direct votes of their member scientists. Most of the members we find out aren’t even aware these statements are issued at the time they’re issued. But what’s happened since is massive blowback. The American Chemical Society was shocked at the number of dissenting scientists upset at their stand. The National Academy of Sciences is having a big blowback. The American Physical Society is having a big blowback of member scientists. When you get away from that political governing board, the American Meteorological Society, it has been documented, has been staffed by former [Vice President Al] Gore staffers in their bureaucracy.
Dan, you’re bringing up a political argument and masquerading it as science and that’s a disservice to ABC News viewers. Look at the actual scientific conferences. In
I had scientist join the Senate list of 700 dissenting scientists simply because the head of the U.N. compared them to flat-earthers. They say things like we can remain silent no longer. We’re not going to be demonized like this. So, the idea of broad consensus is now laughable. Even the ClimateGate scientists don’t have a consensus when they’re talking about the U.N. and my favorite quote – it was Kevin Trenberth, I believe, who said “We can't do geo-engineering because we don't understand the climate system well enough to know what impact it will have.”
That’s your consensus, Dan? I think you can do better than that.
HARRIS: One last question. You alluded to this, but I want to give you the chance to flesh it out a little bit. Somebody from Sen. Inhofe’s office made this point. I think it’s an interesting one. You made it as well – that scientists and others who have skepticism about climate change have been harassed as well.
MORANO: Yes, I have an entire documented report. Let’s start from the top. On Climate Progress, Joe Romm’s blog, he defended a post saying the future generations will strangle climate skeptics in bed. Talking Points Memo had a piece that said when will climate skeptics be executed, when can we start punishing them now for what they’ve done? Grist magazine, I mentioned the Nuremberg-style trials. I mentioned threats and intimidation. I had two e-mails that were threatening to me that the Sergeant of Arms in the Senate had to investigate. So, I laugh when I hear these scientists say, ‘Oh these are threatening e-mails.’ Skeptics have been getting these for years. Talk to Tim Ball in
HARRIS: Are there other points that I have not given you a chance to make that you feel like I should – that need to be made?
MORANO: Yeah, other than just public opinion – you know Richard Lindzen had a great quote: “The educated are very vulnerable to manmade climate fears, but ordinary people see right through them.” And the bottom line is whether you’re talking
HARRIS: Marc, thank you for doing this. I appreciate it.
MORANO: Thank you, Dan. I appreciate it.
HARRIS: Have a good rest of your weekend.
MORANO: Alright, I’ll expect to do a rebuttal to your piece on Sunday night or Monday morning. So look for it. I don’t expect the -- I think you did the Fred Singer piece last year, which was atrocious reporting. I believe that was you, right? You did the piece on Fred Singer?
HARRIS: I did the piece on Fred Singer.
MORANO: So I’m not expecting much from you, but we’ll have fun.
HARRIS: Well, thank you for having low expectations.
MORANO: I have very low expectations.