Marc Morano has spent years researching climate change along with environmental and energy issues. He traveled to Greenland in 2007 to investigate global warming claims and attended the United Nations climate eco-conferences in Kenya, Indonesia and Poland in 2006, 2007 and 2008.
Morano authored the 2007 groundbreaking report of 400-plus scientists and the follow-up 2009 report of 700-plus scientists dissenting from man-made global warming fears.
Former communications director for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, he is executive editor of ClimateDepot.com.
We talked by phone Wednesday after U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that world leaders have just four months to secure the future of the planet.
•Q: Climate Depot's Web site broadcast the doom-and-gloom assessment from the U.N. secretary-general under the banner "Be afraid ..." You're having some fun with this?
•A: Yeah ... the United Nations is in a panic. The Earth's failure to warm, the number of dissenting scientists coming out of the woodwork, the countries failing to commit to the economic and emission targets that the U.N. is setting, including the big emitters like India and China. The collapse of Kyoto I. It's turned into a joke.
So we have a U.N. coming out saying we have just four months. Gee, that takes us to right around Christmas and what happens then? Oh, yes, the next U.N. conference. Would you buy a used car from someone with these kind of tactics?
The U.N. is out of control. And then if you look back to 1989, the United Nations was giving the same warning except then they gave it a little bit more time. They said we had a climate tipping point in 10 years. So by 1999 we had to act.
•Q: The Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding targets for industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, expires in 2012. What should happen next?
•A: The world needs to get a reality check when it comes to fears of carbon dioxide emissions. The world needs to look around at the 1.6 billion people who don't have access to electricity and they need to look at countries like India, which said they're not going to be part of any U.N. treaty or any part of Kyoto II because it would be immoral for them to consider restricting energy when 40 percent of their residents don't have electricity. It is immoral to force Chad to stop burning charcoal because of global warming fears. ... People can't heat their homes, they can't cook.
I think we need an energy initiative, not anti-energy initiatives, as we go forward and the less the United Nations has to do with that, the better.
•Q: Former EU Environment Minister Margot Wallstrom has said that Kyoto is about the economy and there's a lot of talk about a global tax to help nations cope with global warming. Is that what this is really about?
•A: Even Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., came out this week and said it's really not about ... the sciences, we need to do this policy. Former Democrat Sen. Timothy Wirth has said even if we're wrong on the science of global warming, we're doing the right thing by policy. We had Al Gore just last month announce that the congressional climate bill was the first step to global governance, echoing former French President Jacques Chirac, who said that the Kyoto Protocol was the first step toward authentic global governance. This has always been and will always be about politics. This is not about science.
•Q: We're coming off one of the coldest Julys on record ...
•A: It's hard to look at month-to-month variations, but yeah, we have record cold in the U.S. ... We've had no significant warming since '95 and a general cooling trend in the past few years. This has put the U.N. in a panic. Because of the number of scientists dissenting on a regular basis ... this has turned the public skeptical. Public opinion is showing dramatic growth in skepticism even among Democrats and independents at this point. ...
High school kids today forced to watch Al Gore's film will be nearly eligible for AARP ... when warming resumes. We're talking about a generation that won't even know global warming other than these scary documentaries on National Geographic and watching Al Gore's film.
•Q: To satisfy House Democrats' low-cost solution to global warming, Americans would have to double their reliance on nuclear energy by 2030 -- a target the nuclear industry says is unlikely and that many environmentalists and Democrats dislike. Do you think that will fly?
•A: Even Barbara Boxer and other senators who staunchly support global warming bills have voted against ... provisions for nuclear energy. That's how opposed they are. The same people who are worried about man-made global warming from carbon emissions are now the same people saying we can't have nuclear. You know, in fact, The New York Times said it best: Is Jane Fonda responsible for global warming? Because her film "The China Syndrome" derailed U.S. public opinion and government policy away from nuclear. So, if we do have a global warming problem, you can lay it squarely at the feet of Jane Fonda and the anti-nuclear activists.
•Q: The cost of cutting greenhouse gases, greenhouse emissions, has been estimated at about $300 billion a year ...
•A: Yes, the U.N. calls it a phenomenal amount of money. ... Guess who's going to be in charge of spending and overseeing the money? This is their dream. Controlling carbon dioxide is a bureaucrat's dream. He who controls carbon controls life. And right now the U.N. is a field of dreams. These U.N. bureaucrats can think of nothing better. It's the ultimate, ultimate control of human behavior across the globe.
We inhale oxygen; we exhale carbon dioxide. If you can regulate and declare a toxic pollutant what we exhale from our mouth, you've achieved a level of control George Orwell didn't even contemplate in his book "1984."