A very entertaining presentation by Marc Morano.
cfact
“It’s time to confront the wannabe planet savers here in this room and this state and tell them not only NO, but HELL NO!”
CFACT’s Marc Morano gave fiery testimony to the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources & Energy Committee in opposition to joining RGGI (the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) on Tuesday, June 22, 2021.
I took an “alarmist” friend (who, like me, was a physics major) to see Marc’s last movie about climate change (Climate Hustle) in a movie theater. I hoped it would help change his mind.
It was a disaster. He remembers exactly one thing from the whole movie—that the expert panel they chatted with at the end of the movie included Sarah Palin. Marc made some good points, but they were instantly forgotten.
I’ll never understand how Marc could commit such an own-goal.
If someone dismisses evidence, logic, and reasoned science because they irrationally think that someone has the ‘cooties’, I don’t think that is Marc fault.
In communications, the messenger matters as much as if not more than the message. Human nature, dismiss it all you like but humans act and think like humans.
From WE last post:”The nationality, sex, educational level, previous accomplishments, publications, age, credentials, shoe size, or hair color of the person making the claim. They mean nothing—the claim is either true or not, regardless of those meaningless side issues.”
Agreeing with some of the replies to your msg: in theory, you’re right; in practice–well, if Naomi Oreskes happened to make a good point (bear with me, I said “if”), would you find it convincing?
NO, but that is because I have all the baggage from her previous points all proven to be political science rather than physical science hanging in the mix. I would have to overcome my policy of assuming that whatever she says is wrong to check out the details and find she was playing blind squirrel today. (For those not backwoodsie, reference is to the saying that “a blind squirrel occasionally will find a nut.”)
Sarah Palin didn’t say the stupid things comics accused her of. In each case they altered a real and accurate quote to turn it into nonsense because she had an R behind her name. She has a better grasp of producer energy policy and regulation than just about any other politician in the world.
I will leave a cryptic comment. See who gets it.
Hydroxychloroquine
Thanks for playing. For those who are still bewildered by my comment, HCQ worked. But it became the most famous example of TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome). No self-respecting Democrat could tolerate even the suggestion that HCQ might be effective treatment for Covid-19, because to do so would be to allow for the possibility that Trump was right. Trump is also right about the Paris Agreement.
Is there anyone out there who thinks that mentioning Trump’s endorsement of these views would be likely to persuade people who currently disagree, or is it more likely to reinforce their disagreement? Even though he is right.
If your objective is to persuade, know your audience. You may be dead right, but you’re still dead.
Sarah had to go down because she was a prominent female role model that didn’t endorse abortion.
Most of their hatred was just about winning, but her “choosing” to not abort Trig sent some of the “pro choice” crowd into apoplectic fits.
Before or after I turn to stone from accidentally looking at her?
?? You’re displaying exactly the hateful attitude that many of the comments here are criticizing. I can’t imagine agreeing with Naomi, but it has nothing to do with her physical unattractiveness.
My friend would never say anything that nasty about Sarah; she just obviously didn’t belong on that panel.
A slob can be judge. Appearance says a lot about yourself.
Why do you think salemen don’t dress as bums?
Her ugliness has little to do with her appearance.
“Turning to stone” is a reference to Medusa, which has nothing to do with how she thinks or dresses.
They’re all juveniles here, Frederick.
The word “all” in you comment is ridiculous and you know it.
I do wish some people here would be more logical and mature.
That includes you.
No I don’t know it. You are the only one other than me that has denounced such juvenile ad hom attacks based on someone’s looks.
Oh Jeff, really? Is that sarcasm I hope?
I’ve commented on this before. Mother Teresa of Calcutta was probably less conventionally attractive than even Oreskes, yet to many of us, her beauty was sublime. Naomi Oreske’s genuine ugliness is not in her superficial physical unattractiveness. It is in her vicious mean-spiritedness.
Of course it’s a poor understanding of the Medusa myth to interpret her as ugly. She was cursed by Athena because of her beauty so that men would not hit on her as Poseidon did.
re: Medusa
Medusa was actually very beautiful, and desirable, until she was cursed for having sex with Poseidon in the temple of Athena.
ETA: That above was a general comment and not directed at any particular poster. I see Rich also alludes to this part of the lore later in the thread. Bottom Line, Medusa was beautiful (at least pre-curse). To bring this to back Oreske, whatever her physical attributes, she’s long since become cursed with a very ugly case of climate crazy.
Convincing? No, I want to see the proof when someone like her makes a point. Don’t trust, verify.
Naomi Oreskes is incapable of making a good point, because she is either dishonest or, clinically speaking, an idiot. Whereas Sarah Palin at least might make a point.
Slipping in a plant like Sarah Palin was an excellent test to weed out those who understand science and those who pretend to. Clearly your friend never leaned what it is if he was distracted by the presence of Palin. He has a closed mind, just like all other “alarmists”. But, that’s why he is an alarmist. If the content of the film didn’t change his mind, the presence of Palin at the end was only an excuse.
No one is perfectly open minded. My friend was willing to go see the movie. I may yet convince him, but he will now always have the counter-argument that skeptics put Palin on a panel of experts.
Do you really think Marc’s goal was to “weed out” some of the people in the theater who paid to see his movie? That’s why he included Palin? If I had thought that was his goal, I would have never paid to take someone to see the movie. I thought he was going to help me make my case. Instead he hurt it.
Richard Lindsen absolutely destroyed Bill Nye when they debated climate change on Nightline. Why not include him? Or how about Susan Crockford, who constantly destroys the alarmism about Polar Bears? Even leaving Palin off the panel and just talking to David Legates would have been light years better.
I have no problem with Sarah, but climate isn’t her field.
[User permanently banned for impersonation]
Morano has been doing it for over a dozen years, he has easily more qualifications than Al Gore, John Holdren, John Kerry, Bill Nye or John Cook, all considered experts by the US and Australia.
Debunking the fraud that is AGW is absolutely his “field”.
See my reply — Global warming is all about politics, not science. That makes her qualified IMO.
I have no idea what Marc’s intentions were. You’d proably have to ask him. It could be that she was just the politician du jour and maybe wanted to show the skeptical flag. Look at an Al Gore and John Kerry representing the US on the climate issue.
My point was; to the closed mind, if the simple presence of Palin could negate an hour or more of facts your friend was probably attending to convert you away from the dark side. Perhaps he saw himself as an evangelist for AGW.
No. He doesn’t promote his point of view on that subject. He sticks to his area of expertise (currently computers) and thinks that people like Kerry, Gore, Palin, etc. should do likewise.
Palin is an expert on producer energy policy and regulation. That was her forte in Alaska. She may have a southern Alaska accent and mode of speech that some find as too folksie, but she took control of a disfunctional regulatory scheme in Alaska and returned the energy industry to a profitable part of the state. If your friend can’t see that was the reason she was included, your friend has a serious problem.
She was an excellent governor in many ways. She cleaned up corruption and fixed a lot of problems. However, those things had little to do with the Climate Hustle.
But even if they did, being clever includes avoiding anything that’s distracting. You want people to stay focused on your point. Marc is often involved in debates and I never dreamed he could be so unschooled in the basic techniques.
The saddest thing is that up to that point, the movie was excellent. Marc made solid points and backed them up with clear, convincing evidence.
And then he tossed in a first magnitude distraction. My friend started laughing, and I did a face-palm.
Sorry but I see your comments as defending your friend which is admirable but delusionale.
Well, did Sarah seem to have expert knowledge? Just because she is a politician doesn’t mean she hasn’t done research.
Global warming is all about politics, not science. That makes her qualified IMO.
FM, a question; was Palin on a panel that otherwise only included scientists? She is an ‘expert’. In state executive management. Part of that expertise has to do with environmental concerns and issues.
Yes. It had her and a scientist.
People like your “friend”, who bow to media created false gods, need to be ridiculed, not coddled. It seems like you might need to be considered for such treatment, too.
I don’t ridicule my friends.
Another so called rationalist who’s been taken in by the enemy’s propaganda.
He was looking for an excuse to justify not addressing the dissonance he was having to face in his thinking. If it hadn’t been her he would have come up with another excuse. Very typical when people are confronted with their own illogical way of thinking. Did Sarah say anything that wasn’t true? She is much smarter than she is given credit for.
That is the important question, after all, isn’t it? “Did she say something that wasn’t true”? Palin was attacked by the media relentlessly, in exactly the same way they attacked Trump. Of course she looked bad after that, ad hominem and character assassination is their specialty.
I absolutely agree that Sarah is much smarter than the media portrays her—much. I don’t recall what she said. I don’t think she weighed in on anything technical.
Then what possible reason could your friend have had for her presence apart from a closed mind? I’m always suspicious of anyone who uses appeal to authority. According to your friend’s criteria, Morano shouldn’t have been there either. I prefer the scientific method. It’s a great equalizer.
Morano weighed in on a lot. Why do you think he shouldn’t have been there?
I think you first sentence contains a typo. What are you asking?
Then what possible reason could your friend have had for her presence apart from a closed mind?
It’s very clear, but concise. Your friend objected to Palin’s presence enough to close his mind to the content of the film. Since her contribution offered nothing technical, there was nothing he could object to … hence an ad hominem.
“According to your friend’s criteria, Morano shouldn’t have been there either.” is what I said. You said your friend objected to Palin in a “panel of experts”. So why didn’t he object to Morano?
I think you need to get a reading upgrade.
Did you mean to say, “Then what possible reason could your friend have had for OBJECTING TO her presence apart from a closed mind?”
Also note that others here have pointed out that Morano has expertise in climate issues. They’re right.
It is always wise to avoid insults in discussion like this.
No I didn’t mean to say that, although that could also be asked. Why did your friend think she was there?
Marc Morano has a bachelor’s degree in political science and a few years working for politicians and a radio host. His “expertise” in climate appears to be informally related to his activism and running a blog.
There are several others with similar reactions to my own. Your friend is closed minded. How is that an insult? It’s a fact, not ad hominem.
You insulted ME with the words, “I think you need to get a reading upgrade.”
Do you really not understand that?
Considering you failed (willfully?) to understand the plain English of his post, I’d say it was more an observation than an insult. It’s not an insult when it’s true.
And your friend thinks Gore and DiCaprio are OK?
No, he doesn’t.
Never, ever fall into the standard Leftist trap of the ad hominem slur. When a statement of fact causes a Leftist to object, all you need to do is ask, “Is the assertion true or false?”
? Shucks, Sarah Palin, a skilled politician, and a dedicated Alaskan managed to get US and Canadian Federal folks onside, plus negotiated with First Nations folks, Canadian Provincial folks, plus various Oil companies agreed on a Pipeline from the North Slope down to tie into Alberta’s major Natural Gas pipelines.
After digging in the ‘Net, I discovered an unusual Site which presents a good, short description of just how the pipeline would have served Alaska, Canada, and the lower 48.
:
[#*https://www.orwelltoday.com/palindrillbaby.shtml*#]
:
Quote:
Due to the complicity of all our politicians – from the lowest councillor at city hall to the premiers and governors of provinces and states and up to and including various prime ministers and presidents – I had lost all faith in the political system and haven’t voted in any election for years. As a matter of fact, when a politician comes on TV I switch the channel, so repulsed am I by all of them.
But then along came Sarah Palin, a woman who over a fourteen-year period (1992 to 2006) rose through the ranks from city councillor to governor of the biggest and richest state in the Union and when she got there “turned Alaska’s political establishment upside down”.
In just under two years – the length of time Sarah Palin’s been governor – she’s set in motion the vehicle whereby she’ll make North America self-sufficient in energy from now until hell freezes over (as global-warming climate-changers say it will do).
Sarah Palin’s the force behind the building of a pipeline (make that lifeline or umbilical cord) to transport trillions of cubic feet of natural gas from the North Slope of Alaska to the Lower-48 (through north of the 49th).
And what makes it even more wonderful for we in America (that’s NORTH America so includes Canada too) is it’s a Canadian company who’ll be building the pipeline, fulfilling all aspects of Sarah Palin’s pledge of “American energy resources, brought to you by American ingenuity, and produced by American workers”.
Thank you God for Sarah Palin. And drill, baby, drill. ~ Jackie Jura
Unquote.
Fred, the thing is, your friend didn’t want to hear the message so he was looking for a messenger to shoot. He simply would have found some other “flaw” to focus on if Palin wasn’t there.
I just had a day dream after watching Marc’s presentation ” this would be great if Marc was invited to repeat his presentation in front of the house of commons) then I woke up.
Anyone with even mild awareness of reality, who doesn’t have an agenda or ulterior motive already knows the “climate change” goat rodeo is an elaborate fraud with an entirely different purpose. No one with half a brain believes that humans are causing the planet to become uninhabitable … or even slightly uncomfortable.
The lost word, HISTORY!!! It’s all happened before, ignorance is the new intelligence just look at your politicians.
History is intentionally being “lost” and not by accident. It’s a specific political stratagem intended to alter society. Marxism is finally getting a powerful foothold internationally and now they’re upping their game.
I think it’s just pure arrogance, the little climastologist twerps have absolutely no idea how miniscule and infinitesimally insignificant we are, compared to the majestic size of our planet, and the frighteningly powerful forces that regulates her biosphere.
Humans may alter some things, but pretending at destroying Earth is the claptrap of the religious fanatic who needs us all the shrivel at the power of his god.
I think it was Prof John Brignall who defined Humanity as, “a minor infestation on the surface of a minor planet, orbiting a minor star in a minor solar system, in a minor galaxy!”
Yes, hubris explains so much of what’s going on. But at its most basic level I see it as one more brick in a political plan to remove our freedoms in order to allow the growth of a globalist take over.
Please buy the cow fart stopper, because if it can save one polar bear it will be worth it. (works with humans, too!)
I bet this testimony will not be mentioned in any PA media!
The RGGI plague pretty much surrounds PA. Sadly, even so-called “Republican” governors like NH’s Chris Sununu are onboard the Climate Cuckoo train to financial ruin. Our regional energy supplier, EverSource is totally onboard with all things Climate. And electricity rates have climbed accordingly, but it has been a gradual thing so people are less apt to notice. But helpfully, Eversource has lots of advice for people on ways to lower their electricity useage. See, if you would just do all these things, like pushing up your AC temp setting then your electric bill wouldn’t be so high. Wow, why didn’t I think of that! Remember Carter’s advice of “wear a sweater”? This is where we are now, and it’s an Orwellian world. The Climate Cuckoos have taken over, and run the asylum.
Three times I’ve sent emails to the Massachusetts Republican Party (yes there is one, though it’s microscopic)- asking what is their climate policy. They never got back to me.
The energy companies can go along with the climate fraud because they are regulated monopolies which means they are guaranteed a profit no matter how much government policies drive up cost.
They also know that residential customers can’t reduce their use much and will be powerless to change things when their overpriced electricity gets cut off by the inevitable renewable energy caused black outs.
The regulated monopolies get to engage in virtue signally, rise price & profit, while providing a lower quality (unreliable) product.
sounds like the teacher unions
Meanwhile, from our Ivy League superiors at Yale:
“Big oil faces a gusher of public opposition”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/amid-troubles-for-fossil-fuels-has-the-era-of-peak-oil-arrived
“For years, analysts have predicted that rising world oil consumption would peak and start declining in the coming decades. But with a recent string of setbacks for big oil companies and the rapid advance of electric vehicles, some now say that “peak oil” is already here.”
‘Wannabe planet-savers’ – WPS’s – love it! Can we coin a new acronym?
‘Busybody’ has been in common use throughout history. Their consistent motivation has been to “improve” you in their pet peeve of the moment. If their collective pet peeve becomes big enough (Prohibition was a biggie) they will ram it down your throat to an extent that normal people eventually rebel strongly. CliSciFi seems to be headed that way, with bigger negative consequences for our society. Old Honest Abe said it all: “You can fool some of the people …”
I remember an image from a while back.
DgnpcZHW4AESVeO.jpg (600×910) (twimg.com)
Great quotation, but as we all know when humans become engaged in a religion, cult, mass hysteria, or other “movement” nothing factual or reasonable matters. You see some of the same behavior in lower animals — the source of stampedes after all.
And when the fools are proven to be fools by realities they had no control over whatsoever, they will engage in a propaganda campaign to convince people they were never involved in or supported the foolishness.
In most ways, groups of people are tiresome.
‘I would not belong to a group …’
Dem/Progs pols, etc., use the coercive power of Socialist government to create more government in every area.
The latest fads are global warming and HUMAN infrastructures.
Pelosi says no physical infrastructure, without HUMAN infrastructure
Bernie Sanders is a card-carrying Socialist/Communist, from Brooklyn, NY, who migrated to Burlington, VT, who celebrated his HONEYMOON in the USSR, before the Iron Curtain came down
His aim-high number is $6 TRILLION
Oh, he will “compromise” at 5.7 TRILLION
He says: “the need is so great, a large number is needed”.
Dem/Progs are not business people; their career-path is in running the GOVERNMENT, including fraudulant counting of ballots in elections.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/preperation-of-288-000-mail-in-ballots-in-bethpage-ny-for-use-in
If they have a “business”, it likely is subsidized non-profit (oops a dirty word) connected to a government program.
The more government, the more Dem/Progs thrive, at the expense of all others.
It does not matter what area of “goods and services” (energy, healthcare, education, transportation, infrastructure, etc.) they provide.
They provide none of those things. It is our Capitalist free market system that provides for all good things. The current mass push to dismantle it will lead to centuries of privation. I’m an old guy that has provided for his progeny, so my attitude is ‘fu, you are getting what you wanted.’
Dave,
You are right.
But Dem/Progs pols in government determine the rules and regs for DISTRIBUTING the subsidized bennies to their favored groups.
The latest fad is restitution. If your group were ever wronged for ANYTHING, and no matter how long ago, you should be getting restitution.
BTW, I am an old guy too. I just shake my head!
They seem to have forgotten the “secure the blessings of liberty” part.
A friend and I had a – dare I say – heated discussion about the climate change tale about a week ago. I have a scientific background (molecular biology), but my friend does not. He wouldn’t listen – none of my references to real-world climate data mattered to him, and he wouldn’t even consider looking at any of it. I’ve tried to get him to look into the whole business more deeply over the years, but he won’t.
In exasperation, last week I asked him where he got his information from.
His answer?
The newspapers.
Where exactly did the quote at 3:29 attributed to Professor Philip Stott come from?
References should be given for comments such as this.
Pennsylvania has a lot more to lose from joining RGGI than the other nearby states, because of the development of fracking for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale deposit that extends across most of northern PA and eastern OH. Many farmers in in northern PA, who had been struggling due to some poor harvests (late frosts in spring or early frosts in autumn), have welcomed frackers onto their land, and used the gas royalties to buy more efficient harvesters to improve their crop yields. There’s also a large petrochemical plant being built near Pittsburgh, to use some of the natural-gas by-products (ethane, propane, butanes) to produce olefins as raw materials for manufacturing plastics.
The Marcellus Shale deposit extends northward into southwestern New York State, but land-owners there are forbidden from fracking by the clueless Governor, also responsible for killing thousands of people in nursing homes by forcing them to live with Covid-19 patients. This same Governor was approving permits for more people in Westchester County to switch from heating their homes with oil to natural gas, but refused to approve a pipeline to deliver them the gas from Pennsylvania! The utility companies were happy to sign up new customers, but didn’t have enough gas to sell to them!
It’s too bad the progressives have to drag us normals along for the ride. I usually say “let them (the progressives)hang themselves.” Unfortunately, the deep blue states have many normals that also have to suffer,
Marano is always entertaining, but he omitted the main points: There is no evidence that anthropogenic CO2 produces any measurable increase in Earth’s temperature. CO2 is not a pollutant, but an essential trace gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. CO2 is Plant Food, and is helping to ‘Green the Earth’ and feed humanity. CO2 is good for Plants, good for the Earth, and Good for You.
The whole premise of the ‘green’ agenda is wrong, and the public has to be convinced that it’s wrong.
Could someone Pleeese explain ( preferably on behalf of the greenies) what good ( or is the purpose of) Planet Earth is without Mankind on it. and in their next breath are we consumed with trying to find Life on another Planet?