Morano: "All goes hand in hand with what President Obama did with the UN Paris agreement, which is about wealth redistribution a Global Climate Fund, where the United States wants to contribute 100 billion dollars, and we're going to be distributing money to the poor countries to compensate for the fact that we have emissions and we cause global warming, which is making them poor, none of which is, you know, and any way scientific and even logical in any way you could follow."
Morano: "The models are tuned to show that humans are the cause, and they admit the models don't account for things in nature,” he says. “And models are not evidence. Models are not proof. They are tuned by the programmer to get the result they want.”
Skeptics argue that federal research has become tainted by the involvement of activists and a grant process that rewards climate-disaster scenarios. “The only way to get a truly independent review of climate science is to go outside the government and allow a truly independent review of climate science,” said Climate Depot’s Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
“When you have groups like the National Academy of Sciences, which are nearly 100 percent dependent on government funding, it is very difficult to ever expect unbiased reviews,” he said. “When you have reports like the National Climate Assessment that was coordinated by Obama’s lead UN Paris negotiator and activists from the Union of Concerned Scientists, you can’t expect unbiased reports on the science.”