Global Warming Debate Loser Bans Winner From Website

Talk about sore loser. NewsBusters (on a serious roll today, I might add), posted a global warming debate a few days ago. I watched it but didn't post on it as there were minor players involved. It's not like the Goreacle got his clock cleaned (Algore refuses to debate for good reason). Here was the first video with the debate beginning at the 3:45 mark (spare yourselves some boredom):

Here's the second and final video:

Sen James Inhofe's (R-Ok.) former communications director, Marc Morano, debated and clocked Climate Progress's Joe Romm on matters relating to the global warming myth. I figured that was the end of the story. I was wrong.

Today over at NewsBusters: Debate Loser Romm: No More Morano Posts at Climate Progress. Here's the gist: In today's That's the Funniest Thing I've Ever Heard moment, the loser of March 27's global warming debate, climate alarmist extraordinaire Joe Romm, has taken his defeat like a man: he's officially banned from his Climate Progress website any articles by the victor, Marc Morano.

Attaboy, Joe!

Not only that, Romm actually made the banning official in a CP posting Tuesday (I'm not kidding):

...I will not be linking to his website nor will I allow any links to his website to appear on this blog. It is conceivable that circumstances might arise where I refer to something Swift boat smearer Marc Morano has written, but I can’t imagine them right now. ...

Ouch! Not only that, but he excused his total defeat with - ahum - grace:

Yes, I did debate Swift Boat smearer Morano recently – but I was filling in at the last minute as a favor. As readers know, I believe such debates are pointless if not counterproductive, since we have known for 25 centuries that debates are not won on the facts but by who is a better debater, which is to say, who understands the principles of rhetoric (see “Why scientists aren’t more persuasive, Part 2: Why deniers out-debate “smart talkers” and “Voodoo Economists 4: The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates“). In particular, it is very hard to win a debate against someone who just repeatedly makes stuff up.

NewsBusters rightly points out that people that make stuff up are inherently easier to defeat than those that don't. It's easy to say that someone makes stuff up, it's another to show it. He can obviously do no such thing.