Skip to content

Morano Responds To Nuccetelli

August 24, 2018

By Paul Homewood

 

 

Marc Morano responds to the Guardian’s criticism of his climate change video:

image

An environmental scientist who writes a column for The Guardian has claimed that my video on climate change “spreads climate denial misinformation” to millions of viewers on Facebook. Not so.

Here is my point-by-point rebuttal to Dana Nuccitelli’s claims in the British newspaper based on my video, which has attracted more than 8 million views and 139,000 shares on Facebook. The video has so alarmed climate activists that they’re using it to pressure Facebook to ban “climate deniers.”

Claim: “Basically, [Marc Morano’s] critique is that the study sample size was too small to make a conclusive determination about the level of expert consensus. That’s a valid point … ”

Response: So Nuccitelli admits my point about “77 anonymous” scientists making up the alleged 97 percent consensus is “a valid point.” Good. Let’s move on.

Claim: “In fact, the authors of seven separate [climate] consensus studies using a variety of approaches (some with very large sample sizes) teamed up in 2016 to publish a paper concluding that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is between 90 and 100 percent. So, this critique is invalid when considering all the available consensus research.”

Response: Climate Depot, the website I founded, has covered and debunked the claims of these so-called “consensus” studies, which were a rehash of the same claims but packaged together to appear comprehensive. Chapter 3 of my book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” is devoted to debunking the 97 percent claims.

As I have detailed before: These claims “really confirm that it is easier to get papers published if they support the narrative of man-made global warming.”

Responding to these “consensus” surveys, I told the Media Research Center: “These types of ‘consensus’ surveys are meant to provide talking points to politicians and the media in order to crush dissenting voices and ban skeptics from the mainstream media. It frees the climate crisis promoter from having to research any scientific points and instead allows them to say, ‘90 percent of scientists agree. Case closed!’”

Nuccitelli, as seen here and here, has a history of skewing climate science to fit his political narrative.

 

Read the full story from the Daily Signal here.

9 Comments
  1. August 24, 2018 1:51 pm

    Nutticelli seems to have been very well named !

  2. MrGrimNasty permalink
    August 24, 2018 1:57 pm

    Nuccetelli is just about the worst of a bad bunch of activist journalists. It’s hard to believe that he doesn’t write with a permanent knowing smirk as he mangles and manipulates the truth.

  3. August 24, 2018 2:41 pm

    Not sure why it is necessary to have this cat fight about the 97% thing.
    Their claim to 97% consensus is actually a damning admission of cultist groupthink.
    Please let them have it.

    https://tambonthongchai.com/2018/05/06/peer-review-of-climate-alarmist-research-by-climate-alarmists-a-case-study/

    • Chris Lynch permalink
      August 24, 2018 3:04 pm

      I agree the very quest for concensus itself is definitive proof that this is an ideological rather than scientific endeavour.

      • HotScot permalink
        August 24, 2018 3:12 pm

        chaamjamal/Chris Lynch

        In scientific and sceptical circles, the 97% is recognised as fake and misleading.

        The public, however, see it and are instantly convinced by such overpowering agreement between ‘scientists’.

        The problem is, they are the voters, and those who recognise the scam are in the low single digit percentages.

      • August 24, 2018 5:47 pm

        Good point, sir.

  4. Jon Scott permalink
    August 24, 2018 4:57 pm

    I am sure they do exist but can anyone tell me the last time they saw a well written and cogent set of arguments reported anywhere by an AGW supporter?I am not trying to be funny but all I ever see is mud slunging, personal insults and the regurgitation of mindless activist mantras. If I had the time I would perform a comparative study because the display of patience and measured thought by people thinking the problem on one side is balanced by what can be simply be described as childish insults. Strange that, if they are SO right and SO sure of the facts why do they so rarely get a mention? Why if commander in chief Gore is so sure of his fact does he refuse to debate the issue and why is he allowed to get away with what is a clear admission of the complete opposite? In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

  5. August 24, 2018 7:02 pm

    Didn’t somebody say recently that you stood on pthe shoulders of the likes of Einstein to see further and on the shoulders of the likes of Nuccitelli to stop them surfacing?

    I’ve always reckoned that he and Cook were made for each other. For him to cite Cook as evidence of a 97% consensus is virtually a circular argument.

  6. saparonia permalink
    August 30, 2018 1:02 pm

    I’m slightly shocked that you would have a Facebook page considering it’s history. I can’t watch your video as I do not.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: