Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change, came under fire by the mainstream media for accurately rejecting the notion that carbon dioxide is “pollution.”
Watch Morano’s full Fox News Channel segment here: https://video.foxnews.com/v/6031412132001/#sp=show-clips
Newsweek rips ‘smiling Morano.” for the CO2 comment. Newsweek wrote April 30, 2019: “First of all, pollution and carbon dioxide, humans, we inhale oxygen and we exhale carbon dioxide, so he’s calling CO2 pollution, which it’s not,” Morano proclaimed Tuesday.”
Newsweek added, “A former Republican aide who rejects the scientific community’s consensus on climate change said carbon dioxide is not pollution, dredging up a decades-old defense of CO2 emissions in order to write off Beto O’Rourke’s newly announced climate plan.”
Morano’s response to Newsweek: “Calling carbon dioxide ‘pollution’ is anti-science. I did not, as Newsweek claims, ‘dredge up a decades-old defense of CO2’, instead I used science to make an accurate statement. And, I will keep on smiling when explaining the science behind the CO2 based climate scare.”
Experts from Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change rejecting the claim that CO2 is “pollution”. [Note: A new 2019 edition of Morano’s book will be available shortly with a bonus chapter on the Green New Deal – Stay tuned!]
Page 47 in Morano’s book: Corrupting the Language – “Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind . . . CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning.” —Princeton professor Dr. William Happer to Congress
Professor Happer and NASA moonwalker and geologist Harrison H. Schmitt: “Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That’s simply not the case.”
MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has mocked claims that carbon dioxide is dangerous. “CO2 , it should be noted, is hardly poisonous. On the contrary, it is essential for life on our planet and levels as high as 5000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station (current atmospheric levels are around 400 ppm, while, due to our breathing, indoor levels can be much higher),” he said in 2017.
“You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” —renowned atmospheric scientist Reid Bryson, founding director of the Institute for Environmental Studies
Page 127: Renowned Princeton University physicist Freeman Dyson, who has been hailed as “Einstein’s successor,” is another scientific dissenter on the political Left. “‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on the climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side,” Dyson explained in 2015. He called the UN climate pact “pointless” and explained, “pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.”
Dyson: “I like carbon dioxide, it’s very good for plants. It’s good for the vegetation, the farms, essentially carbon dioxide is vital for food production, vital for wildlife.” “The effects of CO2 on climate are really very poorly understood…The experts all seem to think they understand it, I don’t think they do…Climate is a very complicated story. And we may or may not understand it better (in the future). The main thing that is lacking at the moment is humility. The climate experts have set themselves up as being the guardians of the truth and they think they have the truth and that is a dangerous situation.”
Page 277: Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore: “We should be teaching them about carbon cycle, not about carbon pollution. We should be teaching them about how carbon dioxide is the most important food for all life on earth,” Moore explained.
UN IPCC Lead Author Dissents over Obama calling CO2 ‘pollution’: ‘Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, not now, not here, not to us’ – Dr. Tol: ‘According to this branch of the US gov’t, CO2 in the human body is not dangerous (but lack of CO2 is)‘ – Tol: ‘CO2 concentrations in the human lung reach 37,000 ppmv’
New Peer-Reviewed study in Science Mag. reveals greening of the Earth by rising CO2 levels – ‘Terrestrial plant biomass is growing in response to increasing atmospheric CO2, climate change, and other anthropogenic influences’
Note: For more on “carbon pollution,” see the bottom of this article.
Full Newsweek attack on Morano – April 30, 3019
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER TELLS FOX & FRIENDS CARBON DIOXIDE ‘NOT A POLLUTION’
BY BENJAMIN FEARNOW
A former Republican aide who rejects the scientific community’s consensus on climate change said carbon dioxide is not pollution, dredging up a decades-old defense of CO2 emissions in order to write off Beto O’Rourke’s newly announced climate plan.
Speaking Tuesday morning with Fox & Friends, the longtime Fox News climate change denier Marc Morano joined host Jedediah Bila in ridiculing the former Texas congressman’s $5 trillion climate change proposal, which seeks to provide a less ambitious alternative to the Democrats’ Green New Deal. Morano, who has previously agreed that CO2 is nothing more than “plant food,” immediately unearthed the longtime carbon claim among conservatives and labeled O’Rourke’s climate plan a “boondoggle.”
“First of all, pollution and carbon dioxide, humans, we inhale oxygen and we exhale carbon dioxide, so he’s calling CO2 pollution, which it’s not,” Morano proclaimed Tuesday. “No, this plan is as pie-in-the-sky as the Green New Deal except it’s a little bit more tepid.”
In a December 2018 interview with Fox Business Network’s Stuart Varney, Morano agreed with the host that excess CO2 in the atmosphere was not a negative result of human emissions, but rather a positive because it is just “plant food.” In that interview, Morano bragged that several Nobel Prize-winning scientists have informed him “the earth is in a CO2 famine” and he attacked the United Nations position on climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency classifies carbon dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health, although the EPA doesn’t state that CO2 by itself is a pollutant given that humans and plants exhale it, but instead, they note increasing concentrations of the heat-trapping gas are deeply concerning. Carbon dioxide is widely considered to be a pollutant when it’s put in context with the burning of fossil fuels such as gasoline, coal and natural gas.
The EPA previously ruled that modern concentrations of carbon dioxide are the “unambiguous result of human emissions,” although CO2 levels have dramatically fluctuated in Earth’s atmosphere for billions of years. Carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than they have been for more than 800,000 years, according to climate.gov.
O’Rourke’s four-part climate framework announced this week seeks to start cutting pollution, mobilizing $5 trillion over ten years, guaranteeing net-zero emissions by 2050 and defending communities who are preparing for and fighting extreme weather.
Morano, who is author of the book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” dismissed O’Rourke’s plan as a watered down version of the Democratic proposal first put forward by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey.
Morano continued, “What’s happened here is Beto O’Rourke is not satisfying the Democratic base, within minutes of him releasing this plan the Sunrise Movement, which was instrumental in the Green New Deal, is going after Beto O’Rourke for going back on his pledge for 2030 zero emissions to now 2050. They’re saying Beto’s plan could result in 100 million refugees and tens of million dead. So that’s the thanks Beto O’Rourke gets for coming up with a lighter version of the Green New Deal.”
Fox & Friends co-host Bila labeled O’Rourke’s plan “very vague and very nice and very idealistic.” But as she listed bullet points of the plan, she derisively dismissed the idea of starting to cut pollution, saying, “whatever that means.”
She concluded Americans “won’t be so excited” about fighting climate change once they see its effect on their pocketbooks.
Morano, who has appeared on Fox News and other right-leaning international networks for years, frequently refers to climate change or the concept of global warming as “hysteria.”
JEDEDIAH BILA (GUEST CO-HOST): What do you make of this plan? First of all, let’s talk about whether it’s realistic or not. Let’s just look — I want to get your response, the four-part climate framework: Start cutting pollution, whatever that means, mobilize $5 trillion over 10 years, guarantee net zero emissions by 2050, defend communities preparing for and fighting against extreme weather. So some of this sounds very vague and very nice and very idealistic. Is it practical and realistic?
MARC MORANO (CLIMATEDEPOT.COM): No. First of all –carbon dioxide — humans — we inhale oxygen, we exhale carbon dioxide, so he’s calling CO2 pollution, which it’s not.
No, this plan is as pie in the sky as the Green New Deal except it’s a little bit more tepid. What’s happened here is Beto O’Rourke is not satisfying the Democratic base. Within minutes of him releasing this plan, the Sunrise Movement, which was instrumental in the Green New Deal, is going after Beto O’Rourke for going back on his pledge from 2030 zero emissions to now 2050. They are saying that Beto’s plan could result in 100 million climate refugees and tens of million dead. So that’s the thanks that Beto O’Rourke gets for coming up with a lighter version of the Green New Deal and a massive federal boondoggle, just not as big a boondoggle as the Green New Deal’s proposal.
Climate activist group Media Matters also got into Morano bashing: On Fox & Friends, climate change denier Marc Morano claims CO2 is not pollution because “we exhale carbon dioxide”
RUSH FOX AND FRIENDS TRANSCRIPT – Marc Morano April 30, 2019:
>> Fox News Host Jedediah: We are announcing the most ambitious climate plan in the history of the United States. We will ensure that we are at net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. Jedediah: 2020 democratic presidential candidate Beto O’rourke rolling out his own version of the green New Deal with a price tag of a whopping $5 trillion. So what can you expect if Beto gets his way? Here to weigh in is Marc Morano editor of climate depot.com and author of the politically incorrect guide to climate change. Marc, welcome.
> Marc Morano: Thank you. Happy to be here.
Jedediah: What do you make of this plan. First of all talk about whether it’s realistic or not. I want to get your response start cutting pollution, whatever that means. Mobilize $5 trillion over 10 years. Guarantee net zero emissions by 2050. Defend communities preparing for and fighting against extreme weather. So some of this sounds very Vegas and very nice and very idealistic. Is it practical and realistic?
Marc Morano: >> First of all, pollution carbon dioxide we inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide he is calling co 2 pollution which it’s not. This plan as pie in the sky as the green New Deal except it’s a little more tepid. What’s happened here is Beto O’rourke is not satisfying the democratic base. Within minutes of him releasing this plan, the sunrise movement, which was instrumental nut green New Deal is going after Beto O’rourke for going back on his pledge from 2030 zero emissions to now 2050. They are saying that Beto’s plan could result in 100 million climate refugees and tens of million dead. That’s the thanks Beto O’rourke gets for coming up with a lighter version of the green New Deal and a massive federal boondoggle, just not as big a boon dog as the green New Deal’s proposal.
Jedediah: He has all of these Democrats to compete with trying to find a way to stand out. Look at how he plans to fund this agenda. This is a quote. It says a bill will be funded with the revenues generated by structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their pair share. I love that Marc, structural changes is that a way of saying raising everyone’s taxes?
Marc Morano: >> He goes to incredible pains and even the mainstream media will not say tax increase. It’s tax changes. Structural changes. There is no other way to put that. This is a massive energy and regulatory tax on the American economy and America. They are afraid to say that word at all. We are getting things like tax changes. Structural changes. And what he is doing is it’s an Obama re-do. Here’s the difference. Obama only spent $90 billion on his green energy stimulus. Which, by the way no less than CBS News found four out of five of that money from the energy department went to Obama financial backers. So you can see where the money is going to be going with Beto’s plan and the green New Deal.
Jedediah: Thanks, Marc for being here. When people realize the impact in their pocketbooks and businesses they won’t be so excited about it.
Marc Morano: >> Just changes in their pocketbook.
Jedediah: Just changes. Thanks so much.
Beto: We only have ’10 years’ left on Earth if we don’t address climate change – Beto O’Rouke: We need “to make sure that we make this transition in the ten years we have left to us as the science and scientists tell us to make the kind of bold change that we need,” the former congressman continued.
More on “carbon pollution.”
CO2 is not ‘pollution.’ The term ‘carbon pollution’ is unscientific and misleading. As James Agresti wrote: “The phrase conflates carbon dioxide with noxious chemicals like carbon monoxide and black carbon.” “The phrase ‘carbon pollution’ is scientifically inaccurate because there are more than ten million different carbon compounds, and the word ‘carbon’ could refer to any of them. Some of the more notorious of these compounds are highly poisonous, such as carbon monoxide (a deadly gas) and black carbon (the primary ingredient of cancerous and mutagenic soot). Using a phrase that does not distinguish between such drastically different substances is a sure way to misinform people.” Carbon Dioxide – CO2 – is a harmless trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale from their mouth (after inhaling oxygen). Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer has said: “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually
McKitrick on Air Pollution: The models get ‘more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes’ – ‘Particulates and soot are at such low levels in the U.S. — levels well below what they were in the 1970s. The health claims at this point are groundless coming from this administration.I noticed these numbers coming up for Ontario for how many deaths were caused by air pollution. What struck me — was knowing that air pollution levels were very low in Ontario — but they were extremely high in 1960s. So I took the same model and fed in the 1960s air pollution levels into it: How many deaths would you get? I did the calculations and you quickly get more deaths from air pollution than you were death from all causes.In other words, the streets would have been littered with bodies from air pollution if it was actually that lethal. The problem with all of these models is they are not based on an actual examination of death certificates or looking at what people actually died of — these are just statistical models where people have a spreadsheet and they take in an air pollution level and it pops out a number of deaths. But there are no actual bodies there, it is all just extrapolation.’#