One Politico article at least said a scary future was contingent on alleged gases rising further:
“if emissions of heat trapping gases continue to increase.””…
——————————————-
Borenstein repeated government terror guarantees such as sewage into Lake Michigan would double. The truth is Seth’s job is over because US CO2 danger is over, and won’t be back for years to come if ever. Assuming it was a danger to begin with. The 1000+ page report is just more government waste. Though focused on the US, the report is written under the authority of “Global Change Research Act of 1990.“ If “global” warming exists and emissions flow globally, the US could theoretically remove all traces of humanity from its borders and its atmosphere could still show effects of human damage from a far away country’s activity
Putting aside for a moment that we already know US CO2 emissions have dropped and are going lower as mentioned above, we’re now asked by AP and other media to focus on a completely different scientific concept, one that says we in the US, a massive, advanced civilization of 300 million people, must have no voice.
Shut up about whether and how much of these allegedly fatal emissions are coming across our borders from elsewhere and are something we couldn’t stop even if we evacuated our country. We’re to focus only on diminishing ourselves in deference to the political class. Take a look into Jeb Bush's eyes sometime if you don't believe that.
Up til now we’ve been told Americans driving to baseball games and using light bulbs are causing sinking islands in the Indian Ocean. But if it’s still really “global climate change” the media is upset about, then we have no problem! The world authority on global climate is the UK Met Office, and they say global warming is not happening, has not happened recently, and isn’t likely to happen in the near future. Will Seth celebrate?
Unfortunately Politico says Obama is already on the move with-what else–more punishment for non-existent crimes of poor and middle class Americans who will continue to quietly submit to unspeakable cruelty by the political class:
1/11/13, “The Obama administration, meanwhile, is moving forward with its own efforts on climate change, including beefed-up fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas regulations for new power plants.”…
AP’s Borenstein repeats grotesque claims about Alaska that even minimal fact checking would’ve rendered a joke such as:
“$6.1 billion in repairs need to be made to Alaskan roads, pipelines, sewer systems, buildings and airports to keep up with global warming.”
Alaska has actually cooled significantly over the past decade: 2 citations:
“In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.”…
12/23/12, “Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age,” Alaska Dispatch, Alex DeMarban
“The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that’s so 20th Century. In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit….The third warmest decade was the 1920s, by the way.”…
========================
2012, The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska,” benthamscience.com, G. Wendler, L. Chen and B. Moore
========================
Alaska was specifically excluded from the “2012 hottest:”
The Washington Post says the “2012 hottest year” report specifically excluded Alaska saying it didn’t have record-setting heat in 2012:
1/8/13, “2012 hottest year on record in contiguous U.S., NOAA says,” Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin
“Alaska and the Pacific Northwest did not have record-setting heat last year.”…
===========================
Basics for journalists dealing with government data:
Poynter.org, a journalism website, suggests basics for journalists reporting data including data from government sources:
1/10/13, “Programmers explain how to turn data into journalism & why that matters,” Poynter.org, Jeff Sonderman
“Data can be wrong, misleading, harmful, embarrassing or invasive. Presenting data as a form of journalism requires that we subject the data to a journalistic process.
We should think of data as we think of any source. They give you information, but you don’t just print everything a source tells you, verbatim. You examine the information critically and hold yourself to certain publishing standards —
like accuracy,
context, clarity and fairness. (under subhead, “Why they don’t”)…
“Is the data accurate? Unless you built that data set yourself, you probably can’t be sure.
Even if it comes from a government source, like the gun-owner database did, there’s a chance it contains inaccurate data. (under subhead, “Why not publish this?”)”…
---------------
(Please click here for balance of above post. Thank-you.)
.
No comments:
Post a Comment