Global Warming: Politi-Science or Fact?

Let’s crack this egg wide open.

Here’s what I understand so far:

————————————————————

Years back, a group of scientists came together and presented a case to the world based on their work.

 

They sought to show essentially three items:

 

a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gases are increasing due to human action.

 

b) CO2 causes a green-house gas effect that causes global warming. Global warming causes extreme climate change including extreme colds, warms and weather.

 

c) Unless CO2 levels decrease worldwide the planet will be damaged beyond a repairable state.

————————————————————

Now another group of scientists recently came out to try to disprove the ‘global warming agenda’ citing their own evidence.

 

They are seeking to show essentially these three items:

 

a) CO2 is a natural gas that is less harmful to environment than reported previously. Harmful gases such Carbon Monoxide should fall under government regulation but not CO2.

 

b) They have studied the green-house gas effect data presented and do not concur that this is the cause of climate change. The planet is undergoing cyclical changes not recorded previously due to lack of technology required. 

 

c) CO2 levels and their mandated decrease is ‘politicizing science’ and not a scientific agenda but rather an anti-industry agenda.

————————————————————

 

I don’t pretend to have all the facts on this but I’ve listened to a lot of commentary on it, I can assure you.

 

The bottom line is that no significant figure in any government is coming forward about the one important issue to address:

 

CAN WE LIMIT CO2 GAS EMISSIONS AND CONTINUE TO GROW AS AN INDUSTRIAL NATION?

 

Those versed in this topic will know that certain major super-power nations (China & Russia) refuse to participate in carbon credit programs or CO2 gas mandates on their industries.

 

They believe that regulating such gases will cause a loss of profit necessary to maintain their populations. Or a similar case made in defense of themselves.

 

I would like to take the time and read both of these studies and all the data and every professional I can find who ever said / wrote anything about it. But this is what I see. One side brings a valid argument about how far we can do these actions and remain strong in industry and the other side brings a valid point that once enough damage is done in ignorance there is no return from ruin.

 

Michael Crichton, famed author, held the opinion before his death in 2008 that the combining of politics and science was something he saw as very possible in coming years and very dangerous in its nature. I tend to agree with the author of “Jurassic Park” but I don’t know if I fully trust some internet downloaded research data, and I’m not flying of to foreign countries to gather up all the documents either.

 

I just want to focus on empirical evidence when we talk science and focus on personal conviction when he talk politics. That’s all. Is that some crazy request?

 

I feel it important for those who didn’t know to know that the worldwide scientific community accepts the idea of green house gases effecting current climate changes.

 

————————————————————

 

And let us not forget the pure-politics side of this:

 

Former American Vice-President Al Gore of the Democratic Party has run up the ideological hill and he is not coming back down on this one.

 

He is behind the ‘carbon credit’ concept along with others. Gore remains one of the most controversial figures in certain circles of America because of his intractability on the global warming crisis-issue.

 

The Republican Party, long before any but bought-off scientists said word one on global warming, decried the whole thing a myth created in some liberal agenda book or manifested by what some called ‘religious-environmentalism.’

 

The study I mention are not bought-off scientists, as far my informational sources provide, but rather simply dissenting scientists from the group of scientists that initially presented the whole concept.

 

In the campaign for The White House this year (2008) each campaign had the same line on global warming:

 

“We need to do something about global climate change.”

 

The critical thing to know is that the vocal conservatives, prior to the RNC speech of John McCain where he directly addressed global warming, there was a constant smearing and mocking attitude of people who wanted to speak out on this issue of climate change. Then all of sudden they just stopped talking about it and mocking anyone about that. Not one more mention of those ‘crazy global warming kooks,’ for quite a long time.

 

I tend to believe they and most outspoken-Republicans did was actually read what I read when it came out like 8 years ago and now I can’t remember the name of. The Global Warming Treaty let’s call it for now, because that’s easy for me.

 

Another strange hush-factor that struck the limited-conservatives during the campaign is the whole immigration issue.

 

That’s another issue entirely but both candidates and the right-wing media just completely shut their traps on that issue, almost entirely to date.

 

The only reason it’s significant to bring up is that these loons that call others ‘Enviro-Nazis’ also bashed anyone who didn’t want to ‘kick the bums out of my country.’ They did this ten-fold on John McCain when he sought some kind of solution oriented legislation on the issue. Now they feel better about starting those old lines up again but nobody seems to want to actually do anything about it over in what I hear from Republican-land.

 

It is like a willingness to shove your head in the sand as far it will go. Then leave it there for the course of an entire campaign.

 

Evidence that the Republican Party is willing to engage in not only ‘Politi-science’ tactics but to a willing blindness to anything that is a serious issue in the nation. 

 

They just want to talk about homosexuality or atheism while we go broke and choke to death.

 

 

Eric Lightborn

http://americapress.wordpress.com

December 22nd 2008

R.I.P. Mark Felt (1913-2008)

1.JFKfelt2

A true hero of America if there ever was.

‘Deepthroat’ they called him back when the mass media was young and I wasn’t even an idea yet.
While he was but a speck in a huge pile of corrupt politics, he was a voice of conscious in a storm of perversion.

Those blind to reviewing facts even to this day call him a “traitor.” Where do their allegiances truly lie? With the truth, or with whatever corruption their assume to impose upon them?

He spoke out to the free press to the American people about an issue that concerned them. The things he said that were factual led to bringing down a dangerous President.

Let it never be said unchallenged that Mark Felt should not go down in history as a great American and a defender of the people’s right to a lawful and ethical government.

 

Presumption of Innocence in the Media is Gone

I think the U.S. news media just got tired of the word “allegedly” in regards to OJ Simpson case in the 90’s and thereafter.
Now when anyone is up on charges or accused of anything above an exact threshold that they set, they are “insta-guilty!” in everything but the most stoic of sources in American culture.

I tend to think that “Blago” as we want to call him is not at all innocent of these charges but I wrote a piece of student-journalism regarding the whole issue without accusing him in innuendo or directly. It’s not exactly hard to presume innocence.

[Read “Government Corruption: What to Know to Protect Ourselves” on my Observing America weblog.]

It just drives up ratings / hits if you call him a “corruption king” or a “master of evil” or a “fraud miser.” Solid evidence be damned! Prosecutor opinions and partial pieces of a case leaked to the press be praised!

Yes, I heard the tape of him swearing every other word. And I saw all the FCC blocked out quotes, too. (Why do they even put things like that on TV when it’s more asterisk than English?)

But any one of us could have secret tapes made of us where we said crazy stuff we wouldn’t say in public. Now imagine taking the whole tape and cutting it into 5 seconds or one paragraph of juiciness.

See how anyone could be the media boogie-man by tomorrow regardless of how insane they actually are? Maybe you’re next on the list.

We hold court in this country for a reason.

So the court of public opinion doesn’t start ‘Blago Mobs’ in Illinois, in this case.

You tell me why it is a good idea to have a free media that freely assumes guilt of anyone facing charges they think are big enough to matter.

Not to mention that statute violations and ethical board decisions are often passed over or reported in brief and then unreferenced in later discussions because they do not stimulate enough ratings due to the ‘oh that’s boring’ and the ‘give me a real scandal’ attitudes.

What other media watchdogs are barking, I wonder?

Media Bias Effects You Everyday

Let’s talk about the news media:



A lot of people on the internet are highly active in political commentary, but there is much to consider in the realms of social policy and being more than just a mere echo-box for party-line agendas.

In an article on The Huffington Post, Colin Powell addresses the nature of Rush Limbaugh doing harm to the Republican and conservative movements.

I am no fan of Limbaugh but I want to be very clear about the nature of my distaste. Limbaugh is by all shades of the definition a “master broadcaster” that is highly professional in the manner in which he handles material.

I would challenge anyone to say the same statement about Powell’s endorsement of Obama in different words and not sound explicitly racist in the process. Limbaugh has way of taking the hurtful and hateful and converting it into somewhat-tasteful baloney.

The title of “master broadcaster” is not shared by his clones within the radio media, by my estimation. Slander and false claims don’t amount to anything but a waste of everyone’s time.

Then we return to the concept of why we should care about media figures and what they say or do. No matter what your political leanings are if you have some then you are doing yourself a disservice by viewing only media that agrees with your core values.

I can be made extremely angry by comments made on the radio but I can also turn it off.

We have “freedom of media” in this country which means it is up to you, if you vote, to get the real deal story and not just buy what they sell at your political party gift shop.

This is far easier to start than you think. Just start taking time to consider how much of each side you have heard in your day and attempt to fit the opposite point of view through the media into the end of your day.

Local radio hosts tend to be less biased than national on both political sides, try tuning in to your local AM stations.

Failing everything else you can just click between Fox News and MSNBC instead of locking-in to one or the other.

If anyone thinks this issue is extremely unimportant or bad advise I say to you that we killing this country in partisan politics mainly because of the absolute loss of perspective from slanted media on every side.

We will lose this country with these attitudes, if not for yourself then certainly we must do this for our children.