A climate clearinghouse': Two takes
Editor's note: Trib editorial writers Bob Pellegrino and Alan Wallace take different paths but arrive at much the same conclusion over news that the Obama administration will create a climate-change clearinghouse:
To further confound the public's perception of climate-change "science," President Obama wants to create a new ministry of information.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Service, expected to bow by year's end, would provide "one-stop shopping into the world of climate information," says NOAA chief Jane Lubchenco. "Climate change is real, it's happening now."
Just don't pay any attention to the large body of peer-reviewed scientific evidence to the contrary.
The agency, which would combine portions of the National Weather Service and some NOAA offices -- at a cost to be determined, of course -- might have credibility if it offered some analysis of research that disputes man-made climate influences.
Or if it addressed findings that climate data through the years have been manipulated to substantiate a predetermined conclusion.
But as more cash and political capital are plowed into government "solutions," even the most damning evidence of scientific fraud is muted.
And an agency more appropriate to a Marxist regime is unveiled.
-- Bob Pellegrino
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.