The authors of this study have ‘egg all over their face’: Marc Morano

Here's a summary of the provided transcript, maintaining the original language and focusing on detail:

Key Concepts

Study Retraction: A significant scientific study, initially published in the Environmental Journal of Nature and widely publicized, has been fully retracted due to methodological flaws.
Climate Policy Impact: The retracted study was used as a baseline for green agenda policymaking.
Financial Implications: The study claimed potential costs of $38 trillion per year by 2049.
Methodological Issues: The retraction highlights "glaring methodology issues" and "ridiculous assumptions and data."
Extreme Modeling Scenarios: The study relied on extreme modeling scenarios, reportedly invented and funded by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg.
Retraction Watch: A website that tracks retractions and "scientists behaving badly."
Zillow's Climate Risk Score Removal: Zillow has removed its climate risk score from home listings, citing its use to manipulate market values.
ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance): Analogies are drawn between Zillow's climate risk score and ESG scores, with examples of negative economic consequences.
Public Pressure: Zillow's decision is seen as a response to public pressure and pushback.

Main Topics and Key Points

1. Retraction of a Major Climate Study

Study Details: A significant study published in the Environmental Journal of Nature in 2024 has been fully retracted.
Amplification and Policy Use: This study was heavily amplified by liberal media and used as a baseline for green agenda policymaking.
Claimed Financial Impact: The study projected a cost of $38 trillion per year by the year 2049.
Reason for Retraction: The retraction is due to "glaring methodology issues." The author stated that corrections were not possible and a full retraction was necessary because the numbers were "so big."
Attribution: Marc Morano is quoted as saying, "THIS IS HUGE."

2. Criticism of Media and Funding

Associated Press (AP) Funding: The AP receives significant funding ($8 million) from the Rockefeller Foundation and Hewlett Foundation, leading to accusations of being "bought and paid for by climate advocacy groups."
Cheerleading and Campaigning: The AP is described as "cheerleading and campaigning" for climate agendas, regardless of the actual numbers.
Logical Inconsistency: The argument is made that as the Earth has warmed since the end of the Ice Age, there has been massive economic growth and human prosperity. The U.S. has seen increased growth and environmental improvement since the first Earth Day, despite dire predictions.

3. Broader Trends in Climate Studies and Retractions

Increasing Retractions: There has been an increase in retractions of climate-related studies.
Example: Lizard Study: A few years ago, a study claiming lizards would get hotter and faster than the rest of the planet was retracted after a scientist reviewed his own paper with 20 people.
Retraction Watch: This website documents instances of "scientists behaving badly."
Attacks on Studies: The retracted paper was immediately attacked upon release for having "ridiculous assumptions and data."
Funding of Extreme Scenarios: The study relied on "extreme modeling scenarios" that were reportedly invented and funded by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg. This is presented as a pattern where these individuals fund the creation of extreme scenarios.

4. Zillow's Removal of Climate Risk Score

Action Taken: Zillow has removed its climate risk score from home listings.
Reason for Removal: The score was used to "manipulate market values."
Analogy to ESG: The situation is compared to ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) scores. Sri Lanka is cited as an example where going "all green" led to economic collapse.
Lack of Logic/Science: The climate risk score is described as a "number without real reasons, logic or science."
False Data and Impact: Zillow issued high data risk assessments for properties, claiming they would flood when they were not in FEMA flood zones and had never flooded. This resulted in homeowners losing thousands or more in value.
Silicon Valley Agenda: This is framed as Silicon Valley attempting to "impose a climate agenda."

5. Zillow's Business Motivation and Public Pressure

Profit Motive: Zillow makes money off leads and is motivated to remove anything that would deter clicks.
Avoiding Negative Association: Similar to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives, companies may want to distance themselves from controversial or problematic aspects.
Fake Data and Financial Decisions: Zillow's climate risk data is described as "fake data" based on "potential climate model scary scenarios of future" that "none would ever pan out." This data was used to make financial decisions impacting homeowners.
Public Pushback: There has been a "flurry of push back in the last 4 months."
Positive Outcome: Zillow's response is seen as a positive outcome, indicating a reaction to public pressure.
Future Concerns: There is a concern that the climate risk score "still become back," but the immediate goal is to "kill" it.

Step-by-Step Processes and Methodologies

Study Publication and Amplification: A study is published, then amplified by media.
Policy Integration: The study's findings are used as a baseline for policy.
Methodological Scrutiny: The study's methodology is later found to have "glaring issues."
Retraction Process: Due to severe flaws, a full retraction is deemed necessary by the journal.
Public and Media Reaction: The retraction is downplayed by some media (e.g., AP reporter calling it a "tiny change"), while others highlight its significance.
Data Application (Zillow): A company (Zillow) develops a score based on climate models.
Market Impact: This score is applied to real estate listings, affecting property values.
Identification of Flaws: The score is found to be based on "fake data" and "ridiculous numbers."
Public Pushback: Homeowners and the public express dissatisfaction and push back against the score.
Company Response: The company removes the score, potentially due to public pressure and business considerations.

Key Arguments and Perspectives

Argument: The retraction of a major climate study signifies a significant "climate backtrack" and exposes flaws in the foundation of green agenda policymaking.
- Evidence: The full retraction of a study used for policy, the author's inability to correct it, and the identification of "glaring methodology issues."
Argument: Media outlets and foundations with financial ties to climate advocacy groups are biased and promote climate agendas regardless of scientific accuracy.
- Evidence: AP's funding from Rockefeller and Hewlett Foundations, and their role in amplifying the study.
Argument: Economic prosperity and human well-being have historically coincided with warming periods, contradicting dire climate predictions.
- Evidence: The period since the end of the Ice Age has seen massive economic growth and prosperity, and the U.S. has improved its environment while growing economically since Earth Day.
Argument: The reliance on "extreme modeling scenarios," often funded by specific individuals, is a flawed approach to climate science and policy.
- Evidence: The retracted study's reliance on scenarios funded by Steyer and Bloomberg, and the analogy to Zillow's climate risk score based on speculative future scenarios.
Argument: Companies like Zillow are driven by profit and will remove elements that negatively impact their business, even if those elements are presented as climate-related.
- Evidence: Zillow's removal of the climate risk score after it negatively impacted market values and likely led to fewer clicks or engagement.
Argument: Zillow's climate risk score was a form of data manipulation that harmed homeowners.
- Evidence: Properties being flagged as flood risks when they were not, leading to significant loss of home value.

Notable Quotes or Significant Statements

Marc Morano: "THIS IS HUGE." (Regarding the full retraction of the study).
Marc Morano: "The author of paper said they could not make any correction that would have justified it, they had to do a full retraction."
Marc Morano: "The Associated Press receives I think 8 million dollars from Rockefeller Foundation and Hewlett Foundation, they are bought and paid for by climate advocacy groups."
Marc Morano: "As the temperature of Earth has warmed, since end of Ice Age we had massive economic growth and human prosperity."
Marc Morano: "A website called Retraction Watch that is scientists behaving badly."
Marc Morano: "It paper was immediately attacked when it was released, having ridiculous assumption and data."
Marc Morano: "It uses an extreme modeling scenario invented and funded by Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg."
Marc Morano: "Zillow, removing their climate risk score from home listings. After years used to manipulate market values."
Marc Morano: "Like the ESG score, Environmental Social Governance, Sri Lanka had one of highest in world, they went all green and country collapsed, same thing, but a number without real reasons, logic or science."
Marc Morano: "By issuing client at risk data they play to climate agenda and it is fake data, based on these potential climate model scary scenarios of future none would ever pan out, to turn it to a financial decision that impacts real homeowners."
Marc Morano: "There have been a flurry of push back in last 4 months this is a good outcome could Zillow is responding to public pressure."

Technical Terms, Concepts, or Specialized Vocabulary

Retraction: The formal withdrawal of a published scientific paper due to serious flaws in its methodology, data, or conclusions.
Methodology: The systematic, theoretical analysis of the methods applied to a field of study. In this context, it refers to the research methods used in the climate study.
Baseline Green Agenda Policymaking: Using a specific study's findings as the foundational data for developing environmental policies.
Extreme Modeling Scenario: A hypothetical future scenario based on the most severe or worst-case assumptions, often used in climate projections.
ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance): A set of standards for a company's operations that socially conscious investors use to screen potential investments.
FEMA Flood Zones: Areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that have a high risk of flooding.
DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion): Initiatives aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within organizations.

Logical Connections Between Sections

The transcript moves from a specific instance of a retracted climate study to broader implications for climate science, media reporting, and corporate practices.

The retraction of the Nature study serves as the primary catalyst, highlighting issues with a study used for policy.
This leads to a discussion of media and funding biases, questioning the objectivity of reporting on climate issues.
The trend of retractions and the reliance on extreme modeling scenarios are presented as systemic problems within climate research.
The Zillow example provides a real-world application of how climate-related data, even if flawed, can impact markets and individuals, drawing parallels to ESG.
Finally, Zillow's business motivations and response to public pressure are analyzed, suggesting that market forces and public opinion can influence the adoption and removal of climate-related initiatives.

Data, Research Findings, or Statistics

$38 trillion a year by year 2049: Projected cost from the retracted study.
$8 million: Amount the Associated Press reportedly receives from the Rockefeller Foundation and Hewlett Foundation.
20 people: Number of people involved in reviewing the lizard study paper.
Last 4 months: Period of "flurry of push back" against Zillow's climate risk score.

Conclusion/Synthesis

The transcript argues that a significant climate study, foundational to green agenda policymaking, has been retracted due to severe methodological flaws. This event, coupled with concerns about media bias and the use of speculative "extreme modeling scenarios," suggests a broader pattern of unreliability in some climate research and its application. The removal of Zillow's climate risk score from home listings is presented as a case study where flawed, agenda-driven data negatively impacted market values and homeowners, ultimately leading to the score's removal due to public pressure and likely business considerations. The overall message is one of skepticism towards certain climate narratives and a call for greater scientific rigor and transparency, free from undue influence.