What are we going to do about the Marc Moranos of this world?

And now, in another edition of "I was going to ignore this, but," I draw your attention to the latest career move of one Marc Morano and his unwavering campaign to undermine public support for any and all policies that might give us a chance to forestall catastrophic climate change

I was hoping that Morano, the former pseudo-journalist who first rose to prominence by serving as chief propagandist for the Swift Boat veterans who helped defeat John Kerry's presidential bid in 2004, would just go away after leaving the employ of Republican Sen. James "global warming is a hoax" Inhofe a few weeks back. No such luck.

He was resurfaced as the chief pundit and public face of a think tank of sorts called the Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). According to an email obtained by the deSmogBlog group, he's

your counter guest debater to Al Gore and Global Warming Climate change disinformation plus how Obama's Policies are affecting our economy.

For your on-air expert contributor talent files: Credentialed "Counter Guest" to popular global warming ideology: Here's your anti-Gore Global Warming Expert who offers the science to counteract partisan and ideologically driven Environmental entities and issues.

...

Marc Morano infuses the environmental debate with a balanced and truthful scientific perspective. Marc's agenda is to revolutionize Climate and Environmental news dissemination to portray the accurate truth.

Already the Washington insider newspaper Roll Call fell for the gambit, and put him on a televised debate with Joe Romm of Climate Progress, someone who actually does know something about climate science and policy. Morano's contribution to the debate was so full of outright falsehoods it was pretty near impossible for Romm to correct even a fraction of them. This has been Morano's modus operandi for years and responsible media outlets should know better. Yet they keep giving him the airtime, newsprint and webspace such nonsense doesn't deserve. What are we going to do about it?

Some have argued that those who care about science should never deign to debate with someone they know has no intention of playing fair. Simply by showing up to the forum, they argue, you're giving Morano's side credibility. Others counter that we can't ignore the forces of irrational denialism and pseudoskepticism; we must take every opportunity to expose them for what they are.

Chris "The Intersection" Mooney take the latter point of view. Over at his blog's new home on Discover Magazine, he writes;

If we're going to get mad at anyone, meanwhile, I can see two appropriate targets. First, there's the media who allow this game to work, by creating environments (especially on television) where good science can easily get defeated by good rhetoric.

And second, there's the wealthy philanthropists and well funded think tanks and interest groups on our side who, faced with this unfavorable media environment, have failed to adapt and equip us with counter-Moranos-intellectual warriors who are not only up for the task of setting the record straight, and defending accurate science, but actually have it as their full time job description.

It's not just on television and other high-profile media that we need to deal with the Moranos and their ilk, however. We need "intellectual warriors" for every battle, right down to the community library forums.

Last week I attended such a debate, at the county library in Hendersonville, N.C. Arguing against the proposition that "clean coal technology" has a role to play in the region's future energy mix was Avram Friedman, a veteran of more than three decades of environmental activism and founder of the Canary Coalition, a Clean Air advocacy organization for western North Carolina. Arguing for clean coal was Thomas Williams, a policy and communications executive with Duke Energy, one of the nation's biggest electrical utilities and the source of most of the power in the Carolinas.

I took copious notes, but what stuck in my head? Williams, in a breezy, off-the-cuff style, told us about how he spent many summers at church camps in the local ranges of the Blue Ridge Mountains. He married relatively young, he and his wife tend to argue over where to set the thermostat, he votes Democrat and he loves barbecue. (This is the South, remember.)

Friedman, by comparison, told us nothing about himself, choosing to devote his share of the debate time to addressing the question of the day by reading from prepared notes. His first words were "There is no such thing as clean coal."

Despite the fact that most of the audience for a such a debate is pre-selected to favor Friedman's side, and with all due respect to Friedman's remarkable grasp of the facts, there can be no question that Williams projected a friendlier face and won more hearts. I am willing to bet if any minds were changed that day the change was in favor of whatever Duke Energy is planning on doing. (Not that that was every made clear.)

It turned out at that the fate of clean coal was a side issue. Williams insisted he was "not here to defend coal" and assured the audience that he and Duke Energy are very worried about climate change. Instead, the main point of contention was the new coal-fired plant Duke is building an hour east of Hendersonville, called Cliffside 6.

The new 800-MW plant will cost $2.4 billion, but is not being built to accommodate any future carbon-capture technology. It will take decades of emissions (300 million tonnes of CO2 by 2050, according to Friedman's recitation of Duke's own numbers) for Duke to pay off those costs. This despite promises by Duke's boss, Jim Rogers, that the company will cut its carbon emissions in half by 2030. I'm not sure how it's going to do that while still burning coal, but there you have it.

Friedman's command of the subject was impressive. He pointed out that if Duke was to subsidize weatherization of North Carolina homes by spending only a fraction of the cost of Cliffside 6, the resulting reduction in electricity demand would eliminate the need for the 800 MW of power the new plant will provide.

Williams also displayed a high level of expertise communicating his message. "It's not your grandfather's coal plant," he pointed out. But his message invariably involved the use of the phrase "keep the lights on" in an effort to implant the worrisome meme that renewable energy sources aren't reliable. And his occasional misstatements -- he did make them -- were easily overcome with humorous quips.

In the end, everyone agree that climate change poses a real threat, and that we have to cut our carbon emissions. But there's only so much we can do, repeated Williams, if we want to keep the lights on.

I left the debate rather depressed. Friedman's a good guy, but if Duke Energy can afford to send a senior public spokesman to a small-town western North Carolina library debate, just imagine what resources it's devoting to the Washington scene. Which brings us back to Marc Morano.

I have no evidence that Duke is in bed with Marc Morano. He and Williams make very different cases, but it amounts to the same thing. They're both arguing in favor of the status quo. Duke talks a good talk about demanding a carbon emissions cap in general, but when it comes down to specifics, it's still building coal-fired plants. This while NASA's James Hansen argues vociferously and convincingly that we need an immediate moratorium on new plants, and a worldwide shutdown by 2030.

Chris may be right. We may need to take on these people when and wherever. But it's going to take an awful lot of warriors, and they're going to have to be armed with more than intellect. They're going to need training in media relations, public speaking and diplomacy. And they're going to need to be on the ground yesterday.