The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a well-respected government organization that studies weather and our planet's oceans. Usually, people listen when they offer opinions about weather forecasts because it is considered a scientific fact more than an opinion.

On Sept. 10, 2009, NOAA released a report that showed the summer period – June through August – was one of the coolest on record with averages temperatures well below norms in most areas of the United States. They went on to detail their findings. However, I did not read one story about this release in the major news media.

On Dec 8, 2009, NOAA released a press release stating, "Global surface temperatures for 2009 will be well above the long-term average, while the annual temperature for the contiguous United States will likely be above the long-term average, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C."

The news media immediately picked up on this report. In fact, NBC sent their Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent Ann Thompson to Peru to show how the glaciers are melting because of the warming. The United Nations released a statement that the first decade of the 21st century would be one of the warmest on record.

Maybe it is my cynicism showing, but the first thing I noticed is the first paragraphs of the two reports. The September report provided data and conclusions. The December report I notice phrases like "will be," "will likely be," and "preliminary analysis." The report also picked a specific data set of surface temperatures to make the conclusions.

Add this recent reports that climate scientists e-mails show that they specifically took actions to control the release of information in order to support a certain conclusion leads to more doubt.

Proponents that seek to blame humankind and force specific changes in the planet's lifestyle quickly claim that these e-mails are insignificant and does not impact the overwhelming data available. Opponents say that this is just the tip of the iceberg and there is plenty more.

In the past, publications and news media made an effort to give voice to both sides of a scientific position or argument when there was any doubt. This time, there is evidence that those scientists that disagree are not allowed to voice their opinions in print or their reports are buried or heavily edited. The number of dissenters is significant. One report claimed 30,000 people have signed petitions and 6,000 of them had PhD degrees. When major news media disregard specific data and hurriedly jump on data that supports a single viewpoint, it makes it seem as if the support for humankind global warming and the supporting data is overwhelming and I think that is just not the case.

Let me list another example of selective reporting. I am sure everyone has seen the reports of the large ice sheets that are breaking off Antarctica. The latest piece I read claimed that many chunks of ice bigger than the state of Texas have broken off that continent. However, there is data including military remote automatic sensors that reveal that much of the ice in Antarctica has been growing. I did not see that reported by the normal news sources although the data is readily available to the public. To me, I would think that the failure of ice chunks to break off on occasion would lead to another entire set of problems eventually.

As to why this is happening, it is my opinion that it comes back to the same driving forces as always: power and money. It is very powerful to think a handful of people could force lifestyle changes on the entire population of the world. This is the next best thing to world domination. By having investments in specific sectors, those same people would become extremely wealthy.