The Problem with Morano

He exploits everything–even a noble man’s death— to score cheap points for his side. Was it really necessary to play up Borlaug’s vague statements on climate change in this article, Marc?

Look, I’m already on record about the value of Morano’s site. I also get a ton of traffic every time he links to me; I’m glad when it happens because as I have argued, he has a constituency that I think is important to communicate with. Let me also say I have a soft spot for him. The guy is unfailingly congenial and polite. And he has a sense of humor. If I was stranded on a desert island because of global warming and I had a choice to live out my days with either Morano or Joe Romm, it’s no contest.

If I was stuck with Romm, I’d be miserable watching him putter around with that sour puss, muttering, “I told them so…”  Whereas a happy-go-lucky Morano would shrug his shoulders just once and say, “my bad…”

Seriously, Marc, sometimes you have to know when to exercise a little restraint and good taste.

10 Responses to “The Problem with Morano”

  1. Marc Morano says:

    Thanks Keith. Yes, I did note Borlaug’s skepticism on climate in his obit at Climate Depot, but I also included everything else.
    My editorial judgment told me that if I did not note that one of the greatest scientists of our age had doubts about man-made climate claims, no one else would note it.

    I was very respectful of a giant in science. I met Borlaug briefly once and heard him speak in DC at a CEI event a few years ago.
    I did not in any way “exploit” his death. I merely wanted the historical record to show that Borlaug did not buy into the man-made warming claims. I knew CNN and other outlets would not report on that.
    Here is the link to my article on Borlaug’s death so readers can decide for themselves:
    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2885/Nobel-Prizewinner-Norman-Borlaug-has-died–saved-more-human-lives-than-any-other–was-a-climate-skeptic

    I hope none of us end up on that desert island!
    Thanks,
    Marc

    Climate Depot

  2. Page van der Linden says:

    This post made me smile. I’ll take “congenial” any day, too.

  3. Interglacial John says:

    Marc should have known better than to quote Borlaug’s own words! Funny how simply quoting people can get one in such trouble with the left these days.

  4. Danny Bloom says:

    Keith, good post. But it’s true, Marc did note Borlaug’s skepticism on climate in his obit at Climate Depot, but he also included everything else.
    Marc’s editorial judgment told himthat if he did not note that one of the greatest scientists of our age had doubts about man-made climate claims, no one else would note it.

    He can do that. It was a good editorial POV from his POV. However, Keith, see my post on climate denialists here and see all the comments on my blog too. Marc was a gentleman and linked to the blog, even though he completely disagrees with my POV. We are civil to each other. THIS is important.

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-climate-denialists-like-marc-morano.html

  5. Squidly says:

    I am doubting that Marc is going to be needing to say “My bad..” any time soon.

    – Cheers

    P.S. Great Job Marc! .. keep it up!

  6. David Harrington says:

    Marc’s obit seems perfectly reasonable to me. It is not yet a crime to be skeptical of the prevailing wisdom in regard to AGW and quoting the man’s actual words can hardly be seen as expoitative.

    I would not get your water wings out yet Keith. 🙂

  7. Keith Kloor says:

    Just so everybody’s clear: I disapprove of the cherry-picking from both sides.  My blog is not yet a year old and already I’ve probably written dozens of posts pointing out Joe Romm’s  shameless use of weather disasters and shards of research evidence to beat his doomsday drum. If anything, I’m much, much harder on the people who I am likely closer to on the political spectrum.

    And so it is just that same tendency by Marc–magnifying any expression of AGW doubt by individuals, often out of context–that bothers me.

    That said, the comments posted here (including Marc’s) have softened me to his rationale.

    Danny: I read your Holocaust analogy post and it strikes me as yet another attempt to overly dramatize the climate advocate argument.

  8. Danny Bloom says:

    Keith, thanks for note. I also don’t think Marc committed any kind of faux pas in reporting that great scientist’s thoughts on AGW, pro or con. When Freeman Dyson dies, people will use his obit to say same things. That’s okay. Marc was not being unethical. He was just supporting his POV and showing readers an important sidebar about Borlaug. I saw nothing wrong with that. Glad you have been softened up a bit. But keep hope alive, and keeo your good radar in operation. Your POV is important. Like you, I am in the middle (believe it or not). I respect both sides and I enjoy reading Depot as much as Dot Earth.

    Now….RE: “Danny: I read your Holocaust analogy post and it strikes me as yet another attempt to overly dramatize the climate advocate argument.”

    Well, guilty as charged. It was an attemtp to overly dramatize the climate advocate argument. You are right. We need overtly dramatized posts and cri de coeur now and then, no? We can’t just go on politey saying la di da and ooh la la and oh, he’s a professor and uh, she’s a PHD, and oh, let’s all be polite as we call go to Hell in a denialist’s handbasket. Keith, the very future of the human species is at stake. This isn’t a college test or a quiz. This is either the end of human civilization due to climate chaos in the next 500 years, or it is nothing. If it is nothing, and I really hope Marc is right and AGW is nothing, then we don’t need to worry. But someone’s got to worry, for future generations, and that’s me, Keith. I am a natural born worrier. So let me do my worrying in overtly dramatic ways.  I am not saying I am right. I am saying: think about what I saying. 

    See this UPDATE I added today:

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-climate-denialists-like-marc-morano.html

    UPDATE: I need to make this very clear, not everyone saw this at first. I am not saying Holocaust deniers of today are similar to climate denialsts. I wrote in the post below that just as MANY people AT THAT TIME, during WWWII, 1939- 1945, refused to “SEE” what was happening to the Jews in Europe, despite govt reports and photos and documents, MOST PEOPLE at that time DID NOT BELIEVE any Holocaust was HAPPENING. This is what my post is about. Just in the same way that TODAY, MANY PEOPLE like our friends in the denialist/skeptic camps DO NOT BELIEVE that AGW is real or that climate change is happening, despite govt reports and photos and scientific docs. This is about DENIAL at the time. It is not about Holocaust deniers of today. They are insane crazy people. The climate denialists are sane, good people. But they are in denial. THAT IS MY POINT HERE. READ IT AGAIN. BELOW.

  9. Danny Bloom says:

    http://northwardho.blogspot.com/2009/09/how-climate-denialists-like-marc-morano.html
     
    and read the 30 + comments, some of them very angry and vituperative. Is that a word?

  10. […] with the likes of Morano, it is not clearcut that abusive language is the way to go. Keith Kloor writes: “If I was stranded on a desert island because of global warming and I had a choice to live […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.