Marc Morano abets emailed threats of violence

Marc Morano, former environmental communications director to Senator Jim Inhofe and the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, recently published on his Climate Depot website the email address of conservative MIT climate scientist and hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel. As a result, Emanuel was deluged with hate mail that not only threatened his life but also threatened his wife. (MotherJones has the full story.) Other climate scientists and their family members have been threatened with torture, rape, and murder in the past, so it’s likely that similar threats were involved here.

I’m not a lawyer, but I thought threats of violence, if deemed credible, are crimes. Not only that, but given that most emails cross state borders, credible threats via email would thus be federal crimes. I my understanding is correct, Morano could be abetting the commission of a federal crime every time he publishes a climate scientist’s email. And this isn’t the first time Morano has published private email addresses, nor the first time such publications led to threats of violence. Morano has done this repeatedly in the past, and will likely continue to do so in the future until he’s legally prevented from doing so. Morano knows that people are threatened when he publishes their emails, so he must approve of such threats. The feds should investigate Morano’s possibly criminal behavior before someone like Emanuel, or an innocent bystander like a scientist’s spouse or child, is attacked.

It tells you a lot about someone’s character when they’re willing to condone threats of violence. That’s the kind of person Marc Morano is. And it tells you a lot about the character of the people who have employed or funded Morano too, like Sen. Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh, Newsbusters, and the ExxonMobil-funded libertarian think tank the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow.

22 replies »

  1. In case you haven’t noticed, the address Morano displays for Emanuel is his publicly seen college email – also easily found with a simple online search. But do you condone promoters of man-caused global warming who threaten to publicly display PRIVATE email addresses and threaten to go after those same people who do not agree with their views? As in the example of this screen capture?

    • I did notice, and no, I don’t condone the text in that image. Now answer mine – do you condone the threats against Emanuel and his wife that Morano abetted by publishing Emanuel’s email?

      That Emanuel’s email (or anyone else’s) is already public does nothing to nullify Morano’s responsibility. Emanuel’s MIT office location and office hours (and probably home address) can be found by a simple web search too. If Morano posted that information online, he’d be responsible for dead rats and envelopes filled with flour that showed up at Emanuel’s office or home that could be traced back to Morano’s posting. We know that Morano’s posting of emails is directly responsible for the increase in the number of death threats because the number of threats goes up immediately after Morano posts an email and then tails off – cause and effect is easily identified.

      Morano is doing two things. First, he’s making it as easy as possible for unbalanced people to send threatening emails to climate scientists that Morano disagrees with. A simple web search is a low bar for anyone who REALLY wants to track down a scientist, but with Morano’s posting of emails, even that bar is gone. Second, eliminating that bar creates an atmosphere of fear for anyone who Morano disagrees with.

      What Morano is doing is a half-step shy of anti-abortion sites that put crosshairs over abortion providers. And he’ll be just as responsible for any crime committed as a result of posting public emails as those anti-abortion sites are for the murders they condone.

      • Can we get our hands on Morano’s home address and contact information? Since he seems to condone the approach I see no reason why we shouldn’t return the favor.

        I mean, that would be cool, right?

  2. There is no evidence Marc Morano made any threats of violence. There is no evidence any threats were indeed made, as Emanuel strangely chose not to report these threats to the police.

    There is no evidence Marc Morano elicited or condoned any threats of violence against others. Infact while Morano publishes the email address, he has never made any direct request, or statement, that anyone should contact that address in any way.

    The accusations made in this article are borderline libelous. Perhaps the attorneys should review its contents before Morano brings a defamation of character lawsuit.

    • Oh, please – give me a break. Try reading what I actually wrote next time. I said that Morano abets threats, not that he has issued any himself. I said that he knows that others make threats against climate scientists when he posts the scientists’ emails at Climate Depot, and thus Morano bears some responsibility for those threats. This is especially true given that people like me bring the threats to Morano’s attention, yet he continues to post more emails.

      There comes a point where responsibility shifts from “I didn’t ask anyone to make threats on my behalf” to “I didn’t ask people not to make threats on my behalf.” In my opinion, Morano passed that point after the third time he posted a climate scientist’s email and threats were emailed to that scientist. At this point, the fact that Morano doesn’t specifically request people not to email threats makes him culpable.

      And, according to the definition I linked to above, I think the term “abets” is legally correct, although as I’m not a lawyer, I can’t be certain.

      Finally, are you accusing Emanuel of forging the emails that he showed to James West, the reporter who wrote the Mother Jones piece that I link to in the OP? Or are you accusing both Emanuel and West of lying to the public? And do you condone the threatening emails that have been sent out to climate scientists as a result of Morano’s posting of their emails on Climate Depot?

  3. Angliss, Emanuel , Gore and the entire Global Warming extortion movement simply need to stop lying and making people angry…They will hopefully reap what they sow…I did not threaten violence..I merely said that I hoped that someday they would be reaped…

  4. at the ending of the first paragraph you say “it is like that similar threats were involved here ”
    it either was or it was not . you should be a little more specific in this respect .
    also while we are on the subject this has happened on the other side also . anti warmers have been targeted in just such a manner . also certain industries have been targeted for criminal damage .

  5. Geof, as I have not seen the threats myself, I can not confirm that they did, indeed, contain threats of rape. What the Mother Jones article says is this:

    Climate Desk has seen a sample of the emails and can confirm they are laced with menacing language, expletives, and personal threats of violence.

    Threats of violence against anyone, from anyone, are not acceptable.

    Industries and corporations, on the other hand, are not people – they cannot be raped, assaulted, battered, or murdered. As such, comparing the two is a particularly egregious false equivalence.

  6. im not sure but i imagine that these threats happen on both sides of the fence . a lot of warmers have called their following to arms saying that since they are in the “right ” any kind of assault is acceptable . do you believe that to be the case ?

    • So, without any evidence whatsoever, you feel free just imagining that there’s probably intimidation on both sides. Right. Scientists are known for their thuggish, strongarm tactics.

      I’m sure this applies in a lot of other areas. I mean, I don’t have any evidence, but I imagine a lot of doctors probably murder anti-abortion terrorists. Hey, this is fun!

  7. So, is Russell C a perpetrator or a victim of a hoax about “”? Or is that a genuine screencap from a site that happens to have become unavailable or perhaps never was accessible without a secret code that takes you to some other place than One is curious. Inaccessibility of the source makes it rather hard to look at context and decide if it was a spoof site when it did exist; but that’s idle curiosity in the first place, isn’t it? We all recognize that the jpg illustrates bad behavior.

  8. Regarding Angliss’ #2 and #8 comments: Your statement in the 8th one about “I have not seen the threats myself, I can not confirm that they did, indeed, contain threats of rape” renders the question you ask me directly in your 2nd one as an unanswerable premise. There has never been any indication at ClimateDepot that readers should resort to threats when making use of the email addresses, thus your insinuation doesn’t stand. If anything, I interpret the existence of such email addresses as an opportunity to ask the individual questions about why his or her statements on global warming are contradicted by others. It’s an opportunity for a learning experience, and is quite revealing when the individual sidesteps such questions.

    I also disagree with the premise that unbalanced people would actually be intellectually savvy enough to have any clue who Emanuel is or what he does, much less be the types who actively read ClimateDepot. My fear, considering how the MotherJones article did not bother to show actual evidence, is that it may not exist, or has been twisted out of context. Anthony Watts had a lengthy post about a similar incident where “30 Australian climate scientists get death threats”, yet when the story came under pressure, no evidence was offered to support it – see:

    Crosshairs on abortion clinics? Spare me. We got an earful out of that on last year’s Rep Giffords shooting, and it is rather obvious now that the shooter didn’t have any clue about the existence of Sarah Palin’s PAC site with the gunsight targets on Giffords’ district. But notice among all that coverage, not a word in the mainstream media about the implied violence in the’s web site about blowing up global warming skeptics, not a word about the potential for deranged people derailing coal trains after hearing James Hansen’s remarks about them being “trains of death”, not a word of condemnation about Al Gore’s rhetoric from his followers potentially inspiring a man to try bombing the Discovery Channel building in September 2010 while ranting about overpopulation and global warming.

    Regarding commenter Porlock Junior at the #12 spot, I wish I’d saved a screencapture of my original questions to the comment section at, quite straightforward ones about why Gore and IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri refuse to debate skeptics. She didn’t publish the comment, but noted how “deniers” were spamming her. When I re-submitted my comment and asked why she couldn’t answer a simple question, I was hit with the first of her warnings, which is something I’d never seen before or expected. When I MERELY clicked on her site again, I got what you see in the screencapture in comment #1. Assuming she is still using that IP trick, I’d suggest commenter Porlock Junior simply try posing as a skeptic questioning her views on global warming, and he will undoubtedly receive the same result. The url in my screencapture redirects to the new site operated by the same person. The old site is no ‘inaccessible secret’, it’s found at the internet archive pages: Of course, the threat was a hollow one, no usable personal information can be gleaned from IP addresses. However, she did have my entirely private email address as a result of sending in the comment, which is otherwise quite hard to find if an internet searcher does not know where to look for it.

    I’ll finish by saying I absolutely do not engage in any such threats of violence and more vehemently do not condone such threats by anyone on any side. It shows the person does not have either the courage or knowledge to participate in an actual debate. And, I appreciate that my initial comment appeared as #1. Greg Laden advised that such criticisms should be either ignored, or the links within them changed in order to deprive readers of critics’ intended site links – see . Tell me Mr Angliss, do you condone that kind of malicious behavior? And would you go the extra mile to ask Greg Laden to stop giving such advise about changing commenters’ links, in a separate blog here?

  9. My question is hardly unanswerable, Russel, given that at least one reporter for Mother Jones has read a sample of emails that Emanuel received. Either Emanuel and/or James West are lying for some reason, or real threats were received as a result of Morano’s posting of Emanuel’s email. I have seen copies of threatening emails received by other scientists (not Emanuel himself) where the threats are directed at spouses, I know that threatening emails like this do occur. I’ve received one or two myself. I have no reason to suspect either Emanuel or West of lying about something like this (there is no motive I can see, nothing for either man to gain from lying), so I trust that both are honest and that threats were received. You clearly disagree, however – why?

    However, since you don’t condone threats in general, I’ll take that to mean that no, you don’t condone the threats made against Emanuel and his wife that occurred as a direct result of Morano’s posting Emanuel’s email address.

    Again, I never claimed that Morano directly requested anyone threaten Emanuel – Morano is far too smart for that. However, it’s been established that threats are emailed shortly after Morano posts a scientist’s email. It is impossible that Morano is unaware of this pattern (again, he’s too smart for that), and so he knows that every time he posts an email, scientists receive threats. In my opinion, this makes Morano morally and ethically responsible for those threats. If the threats break federal law, this might also make Morano partly criminally responsible. Not to the level of the person issuing the threats, of course, but partly.

    Your own examples disprove your claim about unbalanced people not being intellectually savvy, however. After all, it takes quite a bit of intelligence to build a bomb, and obviously James Lee cared a great deal about overpopulation. Anyone of any intelligence can be unbalanced – Bruce Ivins was an anthrax scientist with a PhD and he killed himself instead of facing charges in the 2001 anthrax attacks. Ted Kaczynski is a mathematician. Many of the 9/11 hijackers had college degrees. I could go on, of course, but I think you get my point.

    I wasn’t thinking about Giffords, actually, but rather the murder of Dr. George Tiller outside his church in Kansas and the fact that anti-abortion websites have been forced to shut down by the feds due to violent imagery and implied threats. As far as 1010Global goes, a little digging has shown me that the disgusting ad was denounced by climate realists like myself as soon as they heard about it. James Lee (Discovery Channel guy) was driven by issues of overpopulation, not Gore’s book An Inconvenient Truth. And if even I, someone who follows climate news pretty closely, hadn’t heard about Hansen’s “trains of death” comment, there’s a pretty good chance that almost no-one in the mainstream media had either. Because, let’s be realistic here – the mass of the public doesn’t care about Hansen or even climate disruption in general unless something major happens, like the publication of the IPCC AR4, Climategate, or the like.

    Finally, I understand that some other websites do randomize comment order or remove links. S&R’s comment policy allows us to do so, but we don’t consider that appropriate if the links are on-topic (ie not spam). I understand where Greg is coming from, but I don’t agree with him. However, I don’t consider that malicious – it’s all part of trying to maximize your impact and minimize the impact of others, both in Google searches and on readers. It’s also pretty much harmless (and unnecessary too – you could accomplish the same thing with a simple “nofollow” tag in the link) in the big scheme of things.

    Entirely unlike Morano’s posting of emails.

  10. Brian , i have read your answer to Russell ,and i want to point out to the names you mentioned in your letter : Kaczynshi , Lee and Ivins . greenies who did something more than threaten .
    tll me please, is it because of these people that you are worried about mere threats ?
    your idea of trying to develop the theory , that Marc Morrano is criminal for letting out names of scientists who mislead the public , is getting off of the subject . the original subject was that the scientist involved is a lier . maybe that person should get charged with fraud or misrepresentation . when people lie like certain greenies have been lieing they should be persecuted for it if it can be proven they are doing it . Marc Morrano is doing the proving.

  11. Geof, re-read the original post I wrote – my point is entirely that Morano might be guilty of abetting criminal behavior. Your claim that Emanuel is a liar (offered without proof, I might add) is what’s off topic here.

    The 9/11 hijackers were hardly “greenies,” to use your own term. And the politics of Kaczynski and Lee are far too convoluted to be so simply dismissed as mere “greenies.” If you prefer, let’s talk about the intelligence of Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, or James von Brunn, all of whom were “righties.”

  12. For Brian Angliss, @ comment #14: I clearly disagree about this so-called set of threats against Emanuel because so far there is no direct evidence to support it. The MotherJones writer had a marvelous opportunity to reproduce the email evidence verbatim, and chose not to do so for inexplicable reasons. Therefore, you may NOT take it to mean I “don’t condone the threats made against Emanuel and his wife that occurred as a direct result of Morano’s posting Emanuel’s email address”. How can I, in the absence of proof? You’ve mentioned your own threats against you – why not show ’em here? I showed the one I got right off the bat, and showed an archive link in my comment #13 to explain to commenter “Porlock Junior” why the url in my screencap now goes to a different name.

    The motive behind Emanuel’s and MotherJones’ outrage is the same old shell game distraction tactic employed by believers of man-caused global warming for years: marginalize the critics so that debate over the underlying science can be avoided. IPCC / Al Gore followers are blissfully unaware of how self-destructive such a tactic is. Skeptics across the spectrum constantly ask to debate global warming believers, presenting details from both sides of the issue, pointing out the contradictions. IPCC / Al Gore followers do the opposite, presenting only their side of the issue, while constantly telling all not to listen to anything the skeptics say because such people know the science is settled, but oppose it because they are ‘corrupt, criminal-behaving, ignorant, religiously/politically motivated’, etc. These accusations just FEEL right to IPCC / Al Gore followers, no need to provide evidence to back it up.

    On your attempts to paint Morano as criminally responsible, it is an opinion. Try presenting that to a judge and jury about what you believe Morano ‘knows’, and you’ll find it an incredible uphill struggle to disprove that Morano was not instead encouraging the public on Jan 6th to ask Emanuel to explain statements about voting in the NH GOP primary and feeling “ashamed to be an American” since some of the candidates were global warming skeptics – arguably a very strange thing for a supposedly objective scientist to say.

    Funny how you confuse general intellectual savvy with narrow technical knowledge. The Discovery Channel building bomber cared about a perception of overpopulation created in his own imagination, and about global warming based only the decidedly one-sided narrative about the phenomenon ‘destroying the planet’ (which you apparently missed, item #6 of his manifesto, easily found on the internet), while the Sept 11 hijackers based all of their reasoning on an incredibly warped interpretation of religious values. Kaczynski would be hard-pressed to put together two coherent sentences to explain what led him to chose his victims. I seriously doubt such unbalanced people would have the patience to understand the importance of the ClimateDepot links, they’d be bored to tears reading them.

    You say the Discovery Channel building bomber was not driven by Gore’s book. Technically true. According to this 2008 Maryland newspaper article, he was ‘awakened’ by watching Gore’s movie: “Money-throwing protester gets probation, fine”

    ‘Climate realist’ people may have denounced the’s video, but as I pointed out in my comment above, not a word was said in the mainstream media about the video or any other such violent threats against global warming skeptics during all those discussions about creating a more civil tone after the Giffords shooting, while so much concern was directed at potential violence arising out of TEA-party rhetoric – where we have yet to see any such predicted violence occur. Strange that you think no one in the mainstream media ever heard of Hansen’s “coal trains of death”. No less than the New York Times’ Andy Revkin reproduced the quote verbatim at his November 26, 2007 “Climate, Coal and Crematoria” article. To his credit, Revkin questioned Hansen on the impact of those words. Meanwhile, Hansen himself repeated the sentence in his own Feb 14, 2009 UK Guardian article titled “Coal-fired power stations are death factories”. I’s suggest the mainstream media is more than aware of Hansen’s coal train diatribes, but they would rather sweep them under the rug. He is, after all, one of the big stars in the movement, and the overall narrative is consistently undermined by such statements from him.

    On Greg Laden, if you don’t consider his advice to other bloggers about changing critics “links to point to the web site of the Spam Museum” malicious, what do you consider it? And why would you condone a need to “minimize the impact of others” yourself? Aren’t you confident that Laden can support his own arguments by engaging in the arena of ideas? Surely if a commenter relies on links that instead make the commenter look like a buffoon, then Laden would want to draw particular attention to it, and reveal point-by-point how the information in the link is faulty. Why erase any chance for readers to look at the link and judge for themselves….. other than the possibility that the link ends up being so persuasive that it causes readers to question Laden’s opinions?

    I continue to be baffled about that tactic and why IPCC / Al Gore followers fail to consider that the appearance of continual efforts to hide / and or marginalize critical opinion only makes more and more people wonder what else there is that they aren’t being told about.

    As in this case. We have an accusation hurled out by MotherJones, supported only by hearsay. Will you call on MotherJones to show us those emails in their cpmplete form along with some kind of proof that such emails originate from people who can be identified as anti-global warming haters?

  13. Russell, do you think it should be standard practice that people post the exact contents of the hate mail they receive? Can you even think of anyone who does this? “Lowtax” of Something Awful fame comes to mind, but apart from him I have never heard of anyone who routinely posts the hate mail they’ve received online and in verbatim form. Imagine what your reaction would be if someone sent death threats, against you and your friends and family. Would you think, “wow, I better screencap these and post them on my blog, or else people will think I’m lying”? If so, you are probably in a very small minority. On the contrary I can think of many reasons why someone might not want to post their hate mail online or to get the police involved.

    Nevertheless, police occasionally do get involved. Death threats against climate scientists other than Emanuel and Hayhoe are not unheard of, as I’m sure you know. The federal police in Australia have investigated death threats against scientists there, and steps were taken to improve their safety.

    Are Nature, the Telegraph, and ABC News also lying? Are the Australian police lying too?

    Geof @ 15. accused climate scientists of fraud and misrepresentation, without providing any evidence. You have accused Emanuel of lying unless proven otherwise. Are they guilty until proven innocent then? What if we apply the same standards to you? Using your own brand of logic, I could say that there is no proof that you and Geof have not uttered violent threats against climate scientists yourselves, and you are therefore both criminals. I would further state that you must make the contents of your e-mail accounts freely available to everyone on the internet or else we will assume your guilt. And even if you take these steps, there’s no proof that you deleted the relevant e-mails, so you will never be free of suspicion.

    Do you see how absurd this sounds?

    • Russell, what you’re arguing above is not logical. You don’t get to demand that Emanuel and/or James West of Mother Jones provide specific, verifiable examples of threatening emails without providing specific, verifiable reasons why you suspect Emanuel and/or West of lying about the threats. Do you have specific, verifiable evidence that either man has knowingly lied in the past you can point me to? If not, then your generalist motive is what’s hearsay here, not what West reported in Mother Jones.

      Your approach here is also part of why climate scientists don’t debate non-scientists on the issue of climate disruption – what sounds reasonable to a lay person is complete BS to someone who knows what’s going on. Not only that, but it takes seconds for someone who is skilled in public speaking to throw out so much BS that a scientist can’t possibly correct it all in the time available. After all, it’s entirely possible to win a debate while lying about nearly everything if you’re good enough at manipulating the audience. This is why Monckton is so good in a lecture or debate setting – he’s an expert at sounding competent, but his content is nearly entirely wrong. And unlike expert public speakers, the vast majority of scientists are constitutionally incapable of lying, which puts them at a distinct disadvantage. When scientific debates occur between climate scientists, however, BS is discovered immediately and the poorly prepared scientist gets handed his or her head (metaphorically speaking, of course). That’s why Lindzen lost in his public debate vs. Dessler in October, 2010.

      I don’t know what definition of “savvy” you’re using, but it’s not the same definition I know (practical know-how, according to Mirriam-Webster online). Stupid people can’t do more than pull off random violence – it takes “narrow technical knowledge” to build a bomb, sure, but it takes smarts to figure out all the details of how to acquire all the parts without alerting the authorities, how to deliver it, when to deliver it to do the most damage, and even more smarts to succeed.

      Why do you think that the media has any interest in sweeping anything under the rug, Russell? Media companies live and die by scoops, breaking stories before anyone else, and chopping at each other – if there was proof that climate disruption was wrong, they’d leap all over it just as they leapt all over the CRU email hack in 2009. It would be the biggest story in science in years, maybe decades. The media aren’t some monolithic industry that gets its orders from “on high” – they’re big businesses that are ruled by the bottom line as much as ExxonMobil, Verizon, and Apple are.

      As for Greg Laden, he’s been the target of enough vitriol (some of which is his own fault) that I’m unwilling to condemn him for editing out links. S&R doesn’t do it because we don’t think it’s appropriate given our free speech focus, but we are generally unwilling to demand that others hold the same line that we do. And as a group blog, we don’t screw with comments without agreement from all the admins that it’s necessary unless a comment is threatening or abusive.

      Beyond that, however, setting links to “nofollow” or writing similar commands into the “robots.txt” file to prevent bots from tracking links in comments is normal and part of search engine optimization. And as far as I know, nearly every major political website out there does something like it. Laden’s approach is more aggressive, yes, but it still comes down to “reward your friends, not you opponents.” And there’s so much buffoonery coming from the so-called skeptics that no matter what Laden does, he couldn’t reveal how all of it is faulty (and so much of it is faulty for reasons that have been pointed out hundreds, if not thousands of times).

      If you are so sure that Emanuel and/or West are lying, I suggest you contact Mother Jones or Emanuel yourself. But don’t be surprised if they tell you to go pound sand if you can’t offer a better justification to them than you offered above.