Originally posted at the Wonk Room.
Marc Morano, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)‘s environmental aide, sits at the center of the right-wing global warming denier propaganda machine—of fifty-two people. Conservative columnist Fred Barnes recently refused to tell TPM Muckraker who’s informed him “the case for global warming” is falling apart, but all signs point to Marc Morano. Morano’s “entire job,” David Roberts explains, “is to aggregate every misleading factoid, every attack on climate science or scientists, every crank skeptical statement from anyone in the world and send it all out periodically in email blasts” to the right-wing echo chamber. The Wonk Room has acquired Morano’s email list, and we can now reveal the pack of climate skeptics, conservative bloggers, and corporate hacks who feed the misinformation machine.
Promoted on the Drudge Report and Fox News, Morano’s moronic misinformation enters mainstream discourse through columns by Barnes, George Will, Robert Samuelson, and others. Many in the Morano gang are funded by right-wing think tanks, though a few are committed activists, conspiracy theorists who believe their home-brew interpretations of climate data. Others are aging scientists with strong conservative beliefs, motivating them to challenge action on global warming not because they disbelieve its existence, but because they are ideologically opposed to regulation of pollution:
| Marc Morano’s Pack Of Climate Denial Jokers | ||
|---|---|---|
| Marc Morano, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), Committee on the Environment and Public Works | ||
| The Scientists | ||
| Name | Website | Affiliations |
| David Deming | University of Oklahoma / National Center for Policy Analysis |
|
| David Douglass | University of Rochester | |
| Don Easterbrook | Western Washington University | |
| Bob Carter | James Cook University, Queensland, Australia | |
| John Christy | University of Alabama at Huntsville | |
| Stanley Goldenberg | NOAA | |
| Vincent Gray | New Zealand Climate Science Coalition / Natural Resources Stewardship Project |
|
| William Gray | Colorado State University (ret.) | |
| Ben Herman | University of Arizona | |
| Craig Idso | co2science.org | Arizona State University / Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change |
| Richard Lindzen | Massachusetts Institute of Technology | |
| Roger Pielke | Colorado State University (ret.) | |
| James A. Peden | Extranuclear Laboratories (ret.) | |
| Hans Schreuder | ilovemycarbondioxide.com | Rocky Mountain Research Station |
| Thomas P. Sheahen | Western Technology, Inc. | |
| Fred Singer | University of Virginia (ret.) / Science and Environmental Policy Project / National Center for Policy Analysis |
|
| George E. Smith | Bell Labs (ret.) | |
| Roy Spencer | drroyspencer.com | University of Alabama at Huntsville / Marshall Institute / Interfaith Stewardship Alliance |
| Philip Stott | University of London (ret.) | |
| Willie Wei-Hock Soon | Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics / Marshall Institute / Fraser Institute / Science and Public Policy Institute |
|
| The Bloggers | ||
| Michael Asher | dailytech.com | |
| Joseph Bast | globalwarmingheartland.org | Heartland Institute |
| Edward John Craig | planetgore.nationalreview.com | National Review |
| Dan Gainor | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Barry Hearn | junkscience.com | |
| Steven Milloy | junkscience.com | Competitive Enterprise Institute |
| Tom Nelson | tomnelson.blogspot.com | |
| Lubos Motl | motls.blogspot.com | Harvard University (ret.) |
| Roger Pielke, Jr. | sciencepolicy.colorado.edu | University of Colorado |
| Jon Jay Ray | jonjayray.blogspot.com | |
| Gabriel Rychert | co2sceptics.com | |
| Marc Sheppard | opinioneditorials.com | Frontiers of Freedom |
| Noel Sheppard | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Matthew Sheffield | newsbusters.org | Media Research Center |
| Phil Valentine | philvalentine.com | The Phil Valentine Show |
| Anthony Watts | wattsupwiththat.com surfacestations.org |
|
| The “Think Tankers” | ||
| Dennis Avery | hudson.org | Hudson Institute |
| Mike Burita | accf.org | American Council for Capital Formation |
| Terry Dunleavy | climatescience.org.nz | New Zealand Climate Science Coalition |
| Robert Ferguson | scienceandpublicpolicy.org | Science and Public Policy Institute |
| Tom Harris | climatescienceinternational.org | International Climate Science Coalition |
| Christopher Monckton | scienceandpublicpolicy.org | Science and Public Policy Institute |
| Craig Rucker | cfact.org | Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow |
| James Taylor | heartland.org | Heartland Institute |
| The Weathermen | ||
| William M. Briggs | wmbriggs.com | statistician |
| Richard S. Courtney | CoalTrans International | |
| Joseph D’Aleo | icecap.us | Weather Channel (ret.) |
| Art Horn | theartofweather.com | weatherman (ret.) |
| Alan Siddons | ||
| James Spann | jamesspann.com | weatherman, ABC 33/40 |
| Herb Stevens | weatherman (ret.) | |
- The Scientists: Ph.D.s, often with strong industry ties, who may or may not have experience in climate science, but are ready to denounce the scientific consensus.
- The Bloggers: They flood the Web with “news” and opinion, ready to be picked up by Drudge, Fox News, and the rest of the right-wing echo chamber.
- The “Think Tankers”: Ready spokesmen associated with impressive-sounding organizations, often founded by themselves.
- The Weathermen: Meteorologists, statisticians, and corporate scientists not associated with a think tank or university, but happy to give reporters their “expert” opinion.
When it comes to energy, Mark Jacobson thinks big
Comments
View as Flat
christophersj Posted 4:24 am
18 Feb 2009
And look at the vitriol over at the Wonk Room. Its like an ant hill got kicked. Oh my God.
Permalink
sindark Posted 5:01 am
18 Feb 2009
Does anybody know how they got the list?
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Kevin N Posted 7:24 am
18 Feb 2009
Geologists tend to be more skeptical of AGW than other scientists, and it isn't because they are all in the pockets of the oil companies (Exxon doesn't give out research grants to study glaciers and Quaternary geology). Men like Easterbrook recognize that the Quaternary Period in which we live is one of sometimes rapid and dramatic natural climate change.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 8:27 am
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
christophersj Posted 11:43 am
18 Feb 2009
Why?
Permalink
Kevin N Posted 12:18 pm
18 Feb 2009
Easterbrook is an expert on Quaternary geology. He knows natural climate fluctuations -- their timing, measurement, and causes -- backwards and forward. The climate scientists who are from a meteorology background are mostly trained in what is happening now. Without the historical understanding that geologists (especially those who are experts in the ice ages) bring to the table, understanding climate change is hopeless.
Not only is the present the key to the past, but the past is key to the present.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 12:34 pm
18 Feb 2009
I'll ask again.
Why is he subscribed to the mailing list of a hick Senator's secretary whose sole purpose in life is to prevent CO2 regulation from happening?
Why?
Permalink
Kevin N Posted 1:19 pm
18 Feb 2009
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:42 pm
18 Feb 2009
Dr. Easterbrook feeds misleading info DIRECTLY to Morano.
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/03/global-cooling-pred ...
Dr. Easterbrook is denying the greenhouse effect altogether.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 1:49 pm
18 Feb 2009
1.) the moment NASA, NOAA, Scripps, Stanford, and the AGU all say the greenhouse effect is not factor, I'll be on board, buddy. Until then? Take a hike.
2.) All of this is moot when it comes to swaying CO2 regulation policy. Ocean acidification, and the ease with which it is linked to fossil fuel burning, is all that is needed to make a regulation policy.
The madness must stop.
Morano is outed. He's brings us harm on the taxpayer's dime. It will be stopped.
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 2:28 pm
18 Feb 2009
Nobody talkin', eh?
Permalink
Ted Clayton Posted 3:13 pm
18 Feb 2009
"Aging scientists" are now on Homeland's "no-fly" list or something? C'mon ... working science-types toe the line and genuflect for the grant-machine until the day finally arrives that they have a few years in which they don't have to worry too much if they speak their mind and some supervisor or reviewer disagrees.
"Right-wing think tanks"?! Nooo! [But, um, how could there 'right-wingers', if'n there weren't 'left-wingers'?] "Yes, Virginia, in order to have right-wing thinkers, you have to have left-wing thinkers too. And everyone lived happily ever after!"
Let me see if I can surprise some of you ... there will indeed be "crank skeptics" [emph. added] 'out there' but there can also be other (non-pejorative) kinds of skeptics ... just as there can also be basically weird and occasionally outright hysterical warmers, warmer-sympathizers, and utterly uninformed warmer-wannabes. It's an equal-crankiness world, ya know.
You didn't know? Sure ... give it a thought.
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:52 pm
18 Feb 2009
And it looks like we found patient zero: an ignorant hick Senator from Oklahoma and his little secretary.
Permalink
Russ Posted 8:48 pm
18 Feb 2009
How does Easterbrook or Quaternary geology accomplish the following:
Explain observed climate change effects;
Explain why, even though these effects are occurring as predicted by AGW theory, they are not in fact the result of manmade greenhouse gases, and the concurrence of observation and theory here is just a coincidence;
Without grotesquely violating Occam's Razor?
As for the paleoclimatic record, I've never understood why the fact that there have been abrupt climate changes in the past which were of course not anthropogenically driven, in other words that there has always been the potential for non-linear change, is supposed to be an argument vs. AGW today.
Of course there have been several such climate events, which have had varying causes. And now we're having another such event. And in this case the cause is man's emissions. It's as simple as that.
(Deniers here are in the same position as those who concede that the earth has seen five mass extinction events and is now into the sixth, but who would try to argue that, because man didn't cause the first five, therefore he must not be causing the current one either.)
Permalink
Kevin N Posted 2:10 am
19 Feb 2009
You should take what he has to say seriously rather than dismissing him.
Current climate change cannot be fully understood apart from its context of Quaternary climate change.
The Quaternary Period (the past 1.8 million years) is characterized by rapid and extreme changes in climate, some of which are understood, and some of which are not. These natural changes, and their causes, must be taken into account if we are to have any hope of understanding climate change. Many of the arguments regarding AGW discuss present physical processes without taking into full account climate history throughout the Quaternary.
Permalink
hoaxbuster Posted 2:28 am
19 Feb 2009
http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/Climate.htm
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:43 am
19 Feb 2009
Climate scientists ALWAYS acknowledge other climate forcers besides anthropogenic CO2.
Dr. Easterbrook is SUBTRACTING the greenhouse effect from his.
OF COURSE other factors like long term ice ages and orbits have their effect too.
Permalink
Russ Posted 2:45 am
19 Feb 2009
So if it comes down to it we're supposed to say "I don't understand", ignore the excellent record AGW theory has racked up so far, and ascribe everything to ghosts in the machine. I see.
(It's like theologians who, if you roust them out of their hidey-holes on the question of theodicy, end up falling back on "We can't know, it's a ~Mystery~".)
Permalink
Kevin N Posted 5:01 am
19 Feb 2009
Again, I'm not saying that Easterbrook is wrong or right (as I said, I'm a fence-rider), but that he is not a kook to be dismissed lightly. He doesn't say that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist or that it has no effect on climate change, but that there are other factors that may be more important. Don't treat him like a leper because he questions the AGW status quo.
(And with regards to theodicy (i.e. the problem of evil), at least Christian theologians acknowledge that there is such thing as evil. I can say, "Murder is evil," or "Stealing is evil." In some religions, evil is an illusion or just part of the fabric of the universe. To an atheist or postmodernist, evil is whatever we define it to be. There is no objective standard for saying rape or child abuse or the holocaust is "evil." I'm sorry, but that is scary.)
Permalink