4 thoughts on “Potential Eyes in the Sky on Greenhouse Gases”

  1. “It’s a consciousness shared by the heads of all the space agencies.” Ah. So they’re all idiots. That $5 billion could fund a pretty fair-sized oil refinery. . . .

  2. Since 1958 atmospheric CO2, the most notorious ‘greenhouse gas’, has risen from about 320 ppm to 400 ppm, a whopping 25% increase. The corresponding increase in ‘global average temperature’ at the most optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your agenda) is 0.5 degrees over the same period, a totally underwhelming 0.017%, a significant portion of which is due to observed variations in *solar* output.
    How much money will be wasted on this ‘ghost hunt’ before they realize that ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ is not the scary monster they have been trying to sell us?
    I heard that people may be suing their governments for not acting on AGW. How about suing the governments for wasting money on AGW schemes (‘renewable’ energy, biofuels, electric cars that people cannot afford) that could have been spent more productively on maintenance of critical infrastructure, medical advancements, safety, food production and distribution, etc.?

  3. The same people who want to use satellites to measure CO2 do not want to use satellites for measuring global temperatures.

    Why? Because the satellite readings have shown no temperature increase – so they insist we use a small number of strategically placed land based monitors. (By strategically placed I mean wherever they will show the most warmth.)

    The two uses of satellites should be tied together. This will give even further proof that while CO2 may be increasing, no warming results. They want satellites, let’s use satellites.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.