You had to be there 50 years ago, and I was. As a young reporter for a local TV station in Houston, I frequently visited NASA (“the space base,” we dubbed it), met many of the astronauts and reported on their exploits. Along with people from around the world, I watched the lunar landing on television, July 20, 1969, fulfilling President Kennedy's goal of putting a man on the moon by the end of that decade.
Hulu’s latest original series The First, which debuted on September 14, is an interesting, non-partisan science-fiction series set in the 2030s surrounding the trials of NASA astronauts on the first mission to Mars …most of the time. Starring raving lefty lunatic Sean Penn, you might be surprised to learn the series manages to keep politics out of the main plot. Sadly, it fails to leave its liberal agenda completely behind.
Sheila Jackson Lee was right! The astronauts must have planted an American flag on Mars because, according to Hollywood, they didn’t put one on the moon.
The new Neil Armstrong biopic First Man starring Ryan Gosling records the astronaut’s iconic small step, but ignores the other iconic moment from the 1969 moon landing: Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planting the American flag.
A peer-reviewed research report published last week by three highly qualified researchers with the agreement of seven others similarly accomplished charges that the entities reporting historical and current worldwide temperatures have adjusted their data to show global warming which has not actually occurred. The trio has concluded that this data is "not a valid representation of reality," and that as a result, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2009 "Endangerment Finding" — essentially that global warming has been occurring and continues to accelerate due to human activity — is, in the study's words, "invalidated." The establishment media's silence has been deafening.
On the heels of my Drudge Report-linked post about NBC’s Ron Allen informing MSNBC on Wednesday that the Paris climate change deal “is designed to stop” weather events like Hurricane Matthew, Thursday’s PBS NewsHour joined ranks of the absurdity as Judy Woodruff and guest Gavin Schmidt from NASA pondered the “interconnection” between the two.
Yesterday, I noted that Associated Press reporter Karl Ritter actually wrote, and AP actually published, a story about how complying with the Paris climate agreement would require greenhouse gas emissions "To Drop Below Zero."
Perhaps Ritter, whose beat includes "cover(ing) climate change, from UN negotiations to Arctic melt," looked around and realized that if he didn't put out something distracting, no matter how absurd, he'd have to cover one or more of three other "climate change" developments during the past couple of weeks — none of them favorable to the warmists' cause. An editorial on Thursday at Investor's Business Daily, one of the key places readers need to regularly visit to get important news the establishment press won't report, addressed them (links are in original; bolds are mine):
The New York Times’ Christmas Day editorial got off to a wonderful start with a tribute to the astronauts of Apollo 8, the first humans to orbit the moon. But it quickly fell back to earth, as the liberals on the editorial board took advantage of the season to interpret peace on earth and goodwill toward men as a Christmas wish list for the left wing, celebrating Black Lives Matter, gay marriage, the climate change accord, and Syrian refugees, while putting America on the naughty list.
At the math-challenged mess known as MSNBC, the network's "all new video experience" known as "Shift by MSNBC" tweeted a dire warning: "Latest UN report says humanity will warm the planet by 2.7˚C or roughly 37˚F." Though not revealed in the tweet, this warming will allegedly occur by 2100.
If MSNBC's conversion were true, it would of course mean that the earth as we know it is in dire straits. Fortunately for us, but unfortunately for the ignoramuses at MSNBC, 2.7 degrees Celsius equates to roughly 4.9 degrees Fahrenheit — and even that estimate, based on the track record of computer models which have been predicting the arrival of catastrophic global warming, looks (excuse the expression) cooked.
The New York Times bills itself as "all the news that's fit to print," but the liberal newspaper has made some spectacular stumbles over the years. On Friday, the Twitter account of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center spotlighted the 46th anniversary of the Times making a significant correction to a claim made on its editorial page – that a rocket wouldn't be able to operate in the vacuum of space.
On Friday's CBS Evening News, a NASA scientist made a surprising admission about climate change during a report about an erupting volcano in South America. Correspondent Michelle Miller turned to Dr. Allegra LeGrande, who detailed how the gases from a volcanic eruption can lead to a reduction in the amount of sunlight that reaches the Earth. Le Grande added that "this is a small component of why we're not as warm today as the climate models predicted we would be seven years ago."
As of 5:30 p.m. ET today, a search on "Koningstein" at the Associated Press's national web site returned no results.
That's an indication that the wire service's globaloney-believing pseudo-science reporters are still trying to figure out how to respond to a November 18 article in the IEEE Spectrum by Ross Koningstein & David Fork, a pair of Google engineers tasked by the company in 2007 to "tackle the world’s climate and energy problems." The pair, whose active work on the project at Google ended in 2011, have concluded, as succinctly stated in the UK Register (HT Instapundit), that renewable energy sources "will never permit the human race to cut CO2 emissions to the levels demanded by climate activists."
Carol Costello's liberal bias emerged yet again on Tuesday's CNN Newsroom, as she covered the catastrophic failure of the Antares rocket during a launch from NASA's Wallops Flight Facility. Costello wondered, "Can NASA really trust private companies to do its business?" The anchor later pressed on with her skepticism of private business: "Well, you know, it's a concern, because NASA also plans to use private companies to take astronauts into space. Should those plans be put on hold in light of what happened?"