The media, pretty much worldwide, have accepted the pronouncements of the cohort of scientists committed to the position that "global warming" is: worldwide, of dangerous proportions, caused by excess generation of CO2 and exponentially increasing, year by year, right now.
A story by Michael Fumento casts serious doubt on this whole scenario, specifically: Due to miscalculations, intentional or unintentional, by NASA, the timeframe of global warming is seriously rearranged by Stephen McIntyre's findings. Instead of 9 out of the 10 hottest years occurring since 1995, actually only three of the hottest years have been in the past decade. Four of the 10 hottest years were in the 1930s, before CO2 was supposed to be a problem.
This then casts doubt on the targeting of CO2 as the major culprit for "global warming."
There are those who target evaporation from irrigation as the main reason for "global warming," and have maps that make their point.
There is also a large cohort of scientists who target sunspots as the major culprit and have a long history of recurring cycles of heating and cooling the earth to substantiate their views.
The point here is that, at this point, we really don't have enough facts as to what is causing "regional warming," rather than "global warming" to be expending billions of dollars on reducing CO2 emissions, when they might not be the cause of "regional warming."
Worse yet, the jury is still out on whether "regional warming," at the level we are experiencing it, is good or bad for the earth and its produce. As the attached article by Dr. Fred Singer shows, "many economists argue that warming creates net benefits. While virtually all economists agree a colder climate would be bad."
I keep emphasizing "regional warming," because the "Global Satellite Temperatures" since 1979 show a marked difference in the degree of warming between the northern and southern hemispheres. These figures also come from NASA and as far as I know, these are the only unadulterated, non-speculative, figures available.
Most ground-based figures are subject to interference from human activities, buildings, pavement, irrigation, etc. The satellite figures aren't. Also they are actual readings, not someone's projections.
I am asking you, as a responsible member of the media, to start making your readers aware of the attached facts: That the immediate terrors of "global warming" are not immediate and may not be caused by overproduction of CO2; that the gradual "regional warming" that we are experiencing may be beneficial, rather than harmful; that as things stand now, the world has a number of more immediate and more serious problems that should be receiving our attention.
This is particularly true of our school children. It is very important that they know the factual situation, rather than grow up believing projections of people with agendas.