Dear Marc Morano: we say climate change, you say NASA moon walkers! NASA! Moon walkers! NASA, HOAX!

“Man walked on moon: therefore, climate change is a hoax”

For those new to the climate debate – or unfamiliar with day-to-day scandals that seem to consume the attention of climate “sceptic” and “warmist” bloggers – the biggest scandal these past few weeks has been the “Affaire Lewandowsky”

Professor Lewandowsky, and fellow authors Klaus Oberauer and Gilles Gignac, released a paper titled NASA faked the moon landing: therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science.

Their research indicated a strong relationship between climate change scepticism and a conspiratorial worldview.

It caused quite a stir in the climate “sceptic” community, with prominent sceptical bloggers such as Anthony Watts and others stating their objections to being called conspiracy theorists.

They’ve suggested the results were based on a flawed methodology and the product of a conspiracy between Lewandowsky and the founder of Skeptical Science, John Cook.

Meanwhile, on the blog Shaping Tomorrow’s World, Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer have been explaining the research methodology supporting their results and answering questions being raised by sceptics.

With this by way of background, the team who support the blog Watching the Deniers (actually it’s not one person, but a collective of anarcho-syndicalist-socialists committed to putting a wind turbine in every backyard and death camps for pensioners) thought it was in the public’s interest to have the issue resolved.

Thus we contacted Marc Morano, the owner of Climate Depot (one the most visited Climate Sceptic blogs in the world) and a man intimately involved in the climate debate for well over a decade.

Morano is noted for his strong views on climate change, and for posting the email addresses of scientists prominently on his blog so concerned members of the public can contact scientists and ask polite, refrained and penetrating questions.

Morano recently posted an editorial on his blog claiming the paper’s methodology was deeply flawed. He also noted the findings contradicted the views of former NASA astronauts who held sceptical views on climate change.

Marc joined us in a taped Skype discussion to explore this issue more fully.

Unfortunately during the process of backing up the sound file the power to the WtD offices failed – a recurring problem when relying upon the vagaries of solar power.

We are now investigating the possibility of installing a small, purpose-built fast-breeder nuclear reactor in the basement to ensure an uninterrupted supply of power. While the staff of WtD are dedicated to fighting climate change, we are only prepared to take our activism so far.

Fortunately we’ve preserved the transcript of our conversation, which we present below.

WtD interviews Marc Morano

Conversation: Saturday 15 September 2012, recording began 11:28pm EST.

WtD: Thanks for taking time away from running Climate Depot Marc.

Morano: Thanks for you time. Did I mention the part about NASA moon walkers yet?

WtD: You’ve made some strong allegations against Professor Lewandowsky and his colleagues, stating how “desperate” the tactics of the promoters of “man-made global warming” have become. You’ve also accused those researchers of facing “serious academic questions about their research methods”. Would you care to elaborate?

Morano: Sure, Moonwalker Jack Schmitt – he’s an astronaut you know – doubts global warming. Therefore Lewandowsky’s paper is wrong. He’s a moon walker.

WtD: I believe Schmitt did walk on the moon, but…

Morano: And he was once part of NASA. He rode a rocket. To the moon.

WtD: Yes, that’s true…

Morano: Yes, therefore climate change is not true. A NASA moonwalker said so. They’ve been to the moon. They’re astronauts.

WtD: I see…

Morano: Jack was on a rocket once or twice. And the rocket went “10, 9, 8, 7, 6….” Brrrrrrsh! Weeeeeeeee! Lift off!

WtD; Ok, back to the methodology you claim was somehow flawed for the NASA faked the moon landing, therefore (climate) science is a hoax” paper? Could you outline your concerns?

Morano: Jack said it was flawed. He told me: just the other day. He’s an astronaut you know. He’s a geologist. He’s pretty smart. And he’s been to the moon.

WtD: But the paper addresses the psychological aspects of climate change scepticism, so I’m not sure how Schmitt can comment…

Morano: He’s an astronaut. He’s been on the moon. And he worked for NASA once. To be an astronaut you have to work for NASA.

WtD: I believe that is axiomatic… but that does not refute the findings of the Lewandowsky paper.

Morano: Yes it does. You know who else said the paper was flawed? Joanne Nova, she’s also sceptical of climate change. She’s a blogger. She said the paper was the worst she’s, like, ever seen. I mean, like ever.

WtD: Sorry I don’t know who Joanne Nova is? Is she another astronaut who’s been to the moon?

Morano: Let me get back to you on that one… But did I mention NASA moonwalkers doubt climate change yet? The moon is like, really far away. It’s not like you can drive there, I mean… you have to be an astronaut who doubts man-made global warming to get there and…

WtD: I’m not sure that makes any sense Marc…

Morano: …and there are these, like rockets, that go “BRRRRRRRRSH!!!!!!” with fire and stuff! And did I mention climate change is a hoax?

Conversations ends.

Deniers hit record low on sea ice: Anthony Watts lies; Marc Morano qualifies as the Iraqi Information Minister of climate denial

One swallow does not make a spring.

Nor does one record low for Arctic ice signify the immediate and imminent end of the world.

So then, why has the announcement by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) on the new record low for the Arctic sea ice got many talking, tweeting and blogging?

The death spiral of the Arctic is but one data point. As an isolated phenomenon it is concerning – what is important is that this is part of an emerging pattern that matches scientific predictions made decades ago.

This is why so many are focussed on the issue, and why the denial machine is in state of utter conniption (see below).

To put it bluntly: scientists said this shit would happen.

The shit appears to be happening.

QED: this shit is real.

Indeed, the shit is not merely hitting the fan, its knocking the fan from the ceiling and ploughing right on through into the stratosphere.

Climate change is generating fast-moving-super-powered shit and we’re standing between it and what ever trajectory it’s on.

As the kids like to say: “This shit just got real…“

The record low for Arctic sea ice merely confirms our understanding of the multiple impacts of climate change: how it is now manifesting in extreme weather events; the Greenland ice sheet melt; rising sea and land temperatures; all of which paint a picture.

Its takes a very focussed mind to ignore all of the above, and dismiss this concerning event.

Thus the concern trolls who say “Look, maybe climate change is a problem but in regard to this issue there’s been only 33 years of satellite data” are no better than the outright deniers.

Yes – we understand it is only one data point. And if this was an isolated event we’d be saying “Interesting, perhaps we should look into this phenomenon, eh?”

But focussing on the fact we have a “mere” thirty years of satellite data is no different from saying we have only a century-and-a-half of temperature records from actual instruments.

Step back: look at the big picture.

Falling down: the denial continues, but from a distance its revealing

To those who think “Surely at this point, even the most hard-core “sceptics” have to accept the data?” the answer is a definitive “No, they won’t”.

For an example of this look no further than Anthony Watts (Watts up with that?) and Marc Morano (Climate Depot).

These men have spent a considerable portion of their adult lives – and I might add built public profiles – denying the science and undermining public trust in scientists.

Expecting them to repudiate their life’s work in response to mere facts, scientific data and the overwhelming consensus of experts is a naive hope.

Anthony Watts – after rousing himself from bed after a hard night poring over temperature data downloaded from public sources – gets straight to the task of convincing himself there is nothing to worry about:

No matter what though, its all just quibbling over just a little more than 30 years of satellite data, and it is important to remember that. It is also important to remember that MASIE wasn’t around during the last record low in 2007, and IMS was just barely out of beta test from 2006. As measurement systems improve, we should include them in the discussion

Yes, because high school graduate Watts has picked up something NASA and the NISDC have overlooked: Mr. Watts, the Nobel Committee will be knocking on your door soon.

No really Anthony – I promise, like soon.

You know, I could debunk what is merely a very public example of cognitive dissonance – but why? Tamino does it here – clearly he has a stronger stomach than I do.

But I will note Watts uses “Aspect two” of my Six Aspects of Denial:

Question the motives and integrity of scientists – This is the favourite tactic of the climate change denial movement. They claim the scientists are engaged in fraud, or are being pressured by governments to make up the results…

Such tactics can clearly be seen in Watts post:

“Note that we don’t see media pronouncements from NOAA’s NATICE center like “death spiral” and “the Arctic is screaming” like we get from its activist director, Mark Serreze. So I’d tend to take NSIDC’s number with a grain of salt, particularly since they have not actively embraced the new IMS system when it comes to reporting totals. Clearly NSDIC knows the value of the media attention when they announce new lows, and director Serreze clearly knows how to make hay from it.”

Yes – the NSIDC and its “activist” director are clearly a pack of media whores hungry for fame.

In fact, I’d suggest Serreze is the Lady Ga Ga of the scientific world, engaging in publicity stunts in order foster celebrity status.

Expect Serreze to be adorning a “meat dress” at the next Warmist Convention…

But for the throwing of chum, spinning of facts and sheer chutzpah of denying reality the award surely goes to Marc Morano of Climate Depot

Here is a man who has done more to sway public opinion against the science.

Today he goes into overdrive in an attempt to not merely wave away concern, but shout down doubt:.

Irony free would you believe…

Yes, Climate Depot will explain it all away for you….

Even a cursory glance today’s Climate Depot reveals the sheer desperation of Morano.

His repeated “It’s not happening, it’s not real, it’s not happening, it’s not real!” show cases not merely special pleading, but dissembling on an epic scale.

So clearly at odds with reality is Morano’s public statements he must qualify the climate deniers equivalent of Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf.

Morano is – quite literally – falling down in a very public way.

Cutting funding to science is a victory for science: yes, Orwell is spinning in his grave

1950s BBC production of 1984 (1 hour 47 minutes)

In the US, the Republicans are proposing to slash US contributions to the IPCC.

Climate Depot, the blog run by the odious March Morano declares it a “victory for science“:

Defund IPCC ‘amendment was sponsored by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri), who read aloud on the floor from the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of more than 700 dissenting scientists! (Written by Climate Depot’s Morano)

Note how the report quoted was written by Morano. No connection between industry funded think tanks and climate scepticism at all. Really, just a co-incidence.

When a major political party ignores the world’s scientific community and prefers the words of a spin doctor, you know something is amiss.

The text of the amendment reads thus:

Amendment No. 149—Rep. Luetkemeyer (R-MO):  The amendment would prohibit any funds made available in this Act from being used for contributions to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Of course this news is trumpeted by Perth’s resident denier, Jo Nova:

The US contribution directly to the IPCC is only $2.3 million, and the loss of that would just shorten the two week annual junket by a few hours. But the turnaround in attitude is telling. This wouldn’t have happened two years ago. The Republicans are letting the nation know they are serious.

A majority of the research of the IPCC comes from US institutes and organizations. When this new attitude spreads to the direction of research grants, “PR” units, and to other nations, it could really start to bite. Imagine if the US congress started to fund independent audits, or solar-driven-climate research, or more satellite data collection?

How much money does the IPCC get?

The total budget for the IPCC is $10.5 million USD. The Republicans are seeking to deprive the IPCC of $2.5 million.

Within my organisation I run two departments with a combined budget equivalent to what the US gives the IPCC.

Seriously, I laughed hard when I read that.

This is chicken feed.

The IPCC produces consensus reports. It does no research.

“You can’t stop the signal”

Even if you shut the IPCC down tomorrow you can’t stop science. The results will still be there. The only way to stop the science is to censor scientists.

Is this next?

Future, smuture!

To my mind this is like the RAF in 1939 deciding that “radar thing” was a waste of money”. After all it was mostly unproven, new technology and expensive to implement and maintain.

After all, hadn’t “Peace in our time” just been declared?

The threat of German planes flying over London was just a remote possibility.

The climate has always changed. The climate is not changing.

So in the deniers minds cutting funding to science is a victory for science?

And burning books is a victory for literacy.

And depriving women of the vote is a victory for democracy.

And war is peace.

Yes, George Orwell is spinning very fast in his grave.

“The climate has always changed; therefore the climate is not changing now”.