David Roberts on Marc Morano
From David Roberts writing at Gristmill: Fred Barnes’ source for climate science.
Barnes gets his information on climate change the same place everyone in the right-wing media world gets it: from Marc Morano, the in-house blogger/agitator for Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.).
The echoes bouncing around the echo chamber have to start somewhere, after all. Apparently a lot of them start with Morano.
He’s got a pretty interesting history, according to his SourceWatch bio:
Morano is a former journalist with Cybercast News Service (owned by the conservative Media Research Center). CNS and Morano were the first source in May 2004 of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth claims against John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election [1] and in January 2006 of similar smears against Vietnam war veteran John Murtha.
Morano was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show, as well as a former correspondent and producer for American Investigator, the nationally syndicated TV newsmagazine.” [2]
Lovely.
February 11th, 2009 at 6:47 am
Well there you go, people are getting information from… gasp… a communications director. A communications director that is quoting scientists. Well that does it I guess. The debate is truly over. How can you argue with scientific facts like Marc said it so it can’t be right.
Rosen keeps an archive on his site of the last 2 years or so, I looked and he has had Morano on twice in that time. I bet Rosen has had a minimum of 20 or 30 guests on in that time discussing Global Warming. So all the right wing media gets all its information from Marc Marano, what a joke.
February 11th, 2009 at 10:40 am
Yea shcb, but Marc Morano and Rosen are reptiles in human skins.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
shcb,
You might want to send this to Marc Morano… http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/06/antarctic-warming-climate-change
Strange how both a warming and a cooling Antarctica are consistent with global warming models, as the data comes in the model gets tweaked so it outputs the same result, just like the modelling of WTC collapse initiation by NIST.
February 12th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Now this is interesting and it seems to make sense. Wonder how the peer reviewers will deal with it when it gets published next week? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29086842/
February 13th, 2009 at 5:53 am
Well there you go, I guess the science really isn’t in. and just another example that the atmosphere may be cooling, and a theory for why it is happening with some backup data that is at least on the surface reasonable. The one thing I did pick out was the volcano to power plant ratio, it seemed he was saying you need a very large volcano erupting every few months but he is saying the power plants put out as much as one every 1.7 years. Seems there could be a difference of scale of maybe 10:1 pretty easily. Just an observation.
February 13th, 2009 at 6:09 am
Sorry this is in response to your first post, I read them in reverse order (7:01pm)
Well, they simply aren’t acting as scientists, if you have a good theory, fine, work it, but if the data for your theory doesn’t hold up over time be man enough to say I may have been wrong. That doesn’t mean you are wrong, the data coming in may change back to support your theory, if it does then you have a new quest, to find out what caused the anomaly. If that anomaly never repeats itself you may never know what caused it because you can’t test your new theory, but if it never repeats, does it really matter?