AGW and the (Foreign) Press

Once again I bring to your attention the increasing quantity of data and evidence that AGW is a crock of manure and that we may have much more dire things to worry about. And once again this information can only be found in news outlets located outside the USA, or by depending on information obtained from foreign sources.

An editorial in Investor's Business Daily (which I'm sure all of you subscribe to and read daily) reiterates the idea that I've introduced you to before -- that the sun is the driver of the climate and that it overpowers what little (if any) effect man-made CO2 has on temperature. But look closely at where the data are coming from: the Danish Meteorological Institute, Canada's National Research Council and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Carleton University, Germany's Max Planck Institute of Solar Research, and a Russian astronomer. Where are the Americans? Cowed by the PC police, that's where.

The better piece comes from the the Australian News regarding a recent interview on Australian radio, revealing that both terrestrial and satellite data are showing that since 1998 the Earth has been cooling -- and that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, that mouth organ of the UN that is the main champion of the AGW cult) is very aware of this data! Of course, the statement is made that the meteorological community is "having trouble digesting the findings" since the data don't fit their beloved computer models, and as we all know, the computer models can't be wrong, can they?

I particularly like the second half of this Australian article, where it talks about the "implications" of the failure of the AGW hypothesis, focusing mainly on the political aspects. But right near the end, the article reveals that even in the foreign press, there is still politically correct censorship -- I mean editing. In republishing an essay from the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian paper The Age deleted the following statement:

What The Age decided to spare its readers was the following: "Well-meaning intellectual movements, from communism to post-structuralism, have a poor history of absorbing inconvenient fact or challenges to fundamental precepts. We should not ignore or suppress good indicators on the environment, though they have become extremely rare now.

Guess that assessment hit too close to home. It certainly hits too close to home in the USA. Only here, we don't see only the editorial musings of an essayist "edited". Here, the news media edits the facts as well. Thank God there are foreign media outlets that still allow for true freedom of the press. The First Amendment? That only limits the government from censoring the press. It doesn't say anything about censorship by liberal ideologues.