NYT's Revkin Calls Climate Depot's Marc Morano 'Divisive and Toxic'
Debunking Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money making scheme is "divisive and toxic."
So said New York Times writer Andrew Revkin during a talk last week at the University of California, Santa Barbara, as reported by the Santa Barbara Independent Tuesday:
“Professional partisans are having a field day right now,” he said. “People like Marc Morano at ClimateDepot.com put out stuff that says we don’t know anything about global warming, and that gets picked up by talk radio and amplified. It’s divisive and toxic.”
I don't "put out stuff that says we don't know anything about global warming." On the contrary, Climate Depot is chock full of information about what we actually do know about the climate and how the warmists' claims are failing and not passing scientific muster.
'Toxic'? If by 'divisive and toxic' you mean Climate Depot is serving to derail the man-made global warming agenda and its sub-prime science and politics, I happily plead guilty!
Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute had this to say about Revkin's comments via email:
Challenge, disagreement and debate are divisive.
Debate I don't like is toxic.
Challenging me when I don't like it and insisting on debating after I've said we've had enough of that is divisive and toxic.
Real Science's Steve Goddard emailed the following:
Marc is divisive in the same way that Alexander Solzhenitsyn was in the Soviet Union. He is bringing evidence forward which otherwise would have been suppressed by a $100 billion/year climate regime.
recent [sic] climate change and biodiversity agreements both talk of sums in the order of $100bn per year by 2020, and that the Rio+20 agenda is far broader, you can guess at the sums of money that might be requested here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17898323
BTW - the $100 billion dollars going into "climate change" would have been 25% of the Soviet GDP in 1970.
Certified Consultant Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo responded:
The UN expects the US to contribute $250B/year (2.5T/10 years) to its efforts for sustainability (read population control), green agenda (replace fossil fuels with unreliable, extremely expensive to support 'renewables'), one world government (loss of soveriegnty [sic]) and redistribution of wealth - taking from the poor and middle class in wealthier countries and giving it to the rich in poor nations. Ms Clinton and Obama said they support this (that dwarfs the $40B in 10 years the proposed reduction of the subsidy for big oil would deliver).
See Dick Morris's book 'Screwed' covered on O'Reilly last night [sic] how Space and Seas treaty could ban all use of fossil fuel in the United States because CO2 allegedly contributes to warming of the oceans[sic] Even as the oceans stay steady or even cool even in the tropics where models say it should warm most (source NOAA).
Since every breathe we take emits 40,000ppm into air at 395ppm I guess that a ban on breathing would [sic] next.
WeatherBell's Joe Bastardi simply said, "They are turning into full bore Marxists, taking off all pretense of objectivity now."
Christopher Monckton added this:
NYT's Andy Revkin, derisive,
Calls our friend Marc Morano divisive
And toxic as well.
Andy, babe, go to Hell:
You're a Marxist: our Marc is incisive.
For his part, Revkin wrote the following in an email message carbon copied to Morano (written hastily before he got on a plane):
there [sic] are toxic and divisive efforts surrounding this issue. note [sic] what i [sic] wrote about a certain impersonator awhile back.
in [sic] that particular exchange (i [sic] think it was in Q&A) I called one side toxic and divisive. marc [sic] interpreted that phrase as applying to him specifically but when you read the phrase carefully you see i [sic] was talking aobut [sic] the PROCESS.
he's [sic] copied here (i'm [sic] on run in an airport).
I do think marc [sic] could do a lot more to write on energy innovation, resilience to weather extremes (whatever mix of natural and human factors are involved) and efforts to alleviate energy poverty using whichever technology is best for the specific application. (his [sic] sponsor, cfact.org, claims to be all about those frontiers.) for [sic] instance, whether or not you reject science on big greenhouse risk, you'd have to say that slashing budgets for NOAA weather observation efforts are not a good idea. haven't [sic] seen anything there on c-depot.com.
that [sic] would be constructive and non-toxic, no?
So if Morano were to start writing about things Revkin sees important, he "would be constructive and non-toxic."
That's an awfully strange thing for a man now teaching environmental journalism at Pace University.
Or maybe not.
After all, the point of "environmental journalism" is and has been first and foremost to scare the public into believing ecological crises are imminent irrespective of the facts.
Accomplishing this requires "environmental journalists" to whenever possible depict people that don't agree with their view as non-scientists and deniers going against the so-called consensus.
That includes calling them "divisive and toxic."
How nice that a new generation of "environmental journalists" are being tought such a closed-minded and biased way to share their views with the public.
A whole new crop of writers calling anyone that disagrees with them divisive and toxic.
Makes Bastardi look downright prescient.