Every so often my irritation with the news media boils over. This is one of the cases that blatantly exposes there is some agenda in the mainstream media. Whatever you may decide it is, it isn’t about saving the planet.
Rainforest Light and Shadow
You’ll already know many think/believe Anthropomorphic Global Warming is a foregone factual conclusion and everyone agrees it is a HUGE problem. You know, 97% of scientists agree… Whether it is or not, of note is the father of the American Warming side of the debate, James Hansen, has just written an article on Renewable Energy you’ll likely never hear talked about by mainstream media
For NASA warming is a $2± billion a year business, from a $200 billion a year budget. There has been no government money for any climate study that does not include warming for the last 20 (?) years. The NASA budget is currently being decided by the US House of Representatives. The Senate has had their say passing a NASA bill: S.442.
What should you tell your representative? Spend more? Less? Close NASA Earth Sciences (ES)? Save ES?
You’ll find the information about what the House is doing in the House’s appropriations bill, a continuing measure as Pres. Obama stopped preparing a Federal budget for submission to and approval by Congress as required by US Law years ago. We now stagger from financial crisis to crisis.
A point in deciding what to tell your representative would be to look at the facts of what NASA ES has been doing. Francis Menton has been publishing a series of articles detailing just that. Francis’ latest (14th) article is about how NASA has been adjusting the temperatures from a weather observatory near his home located at Falls Village (Town of Canaan), Connecticut. It is worth reading before deciding.
I think this is an amazing thing for Scott Adams, the author of Dilbert, to do. Scott is not what I would consider a climate skeptic. But, his challenge is amazingly simple and direct. This is the type of thinking I love. His humor about corporate life and management is often too true.
There is a lot of climate news we don’t hear about in the mainstream media. Finding reporters without an agenda willing to report facts going against their thinking is difficult. What I am betting you haven’t heard is this new information: Deserts ‘greening’ from rising carbon dioxide.
For support of the UN’s IPCC claim that manmade CO2 is warming the world the UN needs to be able to measure temperature change and show warming. But, what if someone were faking the data? We have a new study of the temperature data records used to show warming and what happens if you compare the current data to 2010 data. What does it show?
In February 2015 the US Congress was starting to consider an investigation of NOAA and NASA and their handling of temperature data. We have lots of people looking at recent data and some even recording their own. So, we should be able to see any faking of recent data. But, there doesn’t seem to be any recent faking of data. The fakery is elsewhere. Continue reading →
Anthropomorphic Global Warming has been an ongoing debate since the mid 1970’s and for this generation since the 1990’s. Low information voters tend to be warmers and high information voters tend to be skeptics. Presumably that is because high information people do more research and dig below the surface. Low information people tend to accept the easy to find and hear information. At least that is my personal experience. What do you actually know about the global warming debate?
Left out of the article is the information from studies of temperatures on Mars and Venus. They have been paralleling temperature changes on Earth. That makes it much more likely the sun is the source of heating and cooling than it is CO2, unless you think our CO2 is making it to to other planets…
But, facts seldom change minds… and common sense long ago left the arena.
I have often found that figuring out whether a cause is worthy is just a matter of looking at the people supporting it. It is definitely a consideration for whether I’ll participate or not. I had no problem deciding to oppose ISIS at every level. A quick, but stomach churning, look at the search results for ISIS killing pictures should do it for any sane person.
The philosophy of a group of people sets the limits to which individuals in the group will go. Yet, every group has its wackadooles, the crazy out of touch people we find annoying but not overly dangerous. Groups also have some number of fanatics and radicals that range from crazy annoying to deadly dangerous. So, painting any group with a broad brush is usually misleading.
Christian charity workers help people all over the world. That doesn’t prove the existence of God, the accuracy of their beliefs, or provide a guarantee of each Christian’s character, but the general quality of the people and their devotion to a cause and how they treat people suggests they have a generally beneficial belief system and cause. It begs the question what is it about that belief system that leads so many onto caring about their fellow man?
Pic from Catholic.org – Actual image issued by ISIS.
On the other hand I am reading of ISIS fighters beheading and burning alive people… All this in the name of God and the goal of world domination. I can find no merit in the cause of these people and how they treat other humans. I question the quality and thinking of such people, their philosophy, and the core belief system that seems to eliminate any care about fellow humans. This also begs the questions, what is it about their belief system (especially their personal belief systems) that leads so many toward conquest, slavery, rape, and brutal killing? What kind of people are these? Continue reading →