On Jan 5, 8:08*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Jan 5, 7:39*am, Frank wrote:

The Global warming alarmists will tell you that weather extremes are
caused by global warming

Which is their right, except; they keep getting laws passed on their
assumptions that make life more expensive and not particularly better.



Sunday, 03 Jan 2010 05:11 PM

A former director of the National Hurricane Center called Sunday for
an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by
‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been
marginalized by the mainstream media.

The emails not only are troubling because of what they reveal about
how some scientists played with data, according to Neil Frank, who
directed the National Hurricane Center for over a decade, but for the
flawed assumptions they make about the role of CO2’s effects on
warming. Frank called for the investigation Sunday in an article in
the Houston Chronicle.

Climategate is the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the
computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United
Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and
other documents. One of the top climate research centers in the world,
CRU has been the source for much of the evidence supporting climate
change theory.

But any of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate
scientists in Britain and the U.S. in the emails suggested that data
that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or
ignored.

“Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing
the perception that man is causing global warming through the release
of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases,” wrote
Frank, who was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1974 to
1987.

“Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the
believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made
global warming is large and potentially catastrophic,” Frank wrote.
“The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold.
First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession
journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by
the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers.
Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false
accusations.”

The science isn’t settled, Frank wrote, despite what “climate
alarmists” would lead you to believe. They also attack skeptics by
painting them as tools of Big Oil or questioning their qualifications.
But they are “numerous and well qualified,” Frank wrote.

“Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became
so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that
they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's
endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than
9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate
minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland
Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for
skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March,”
Frank wrote.

“They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with
outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent
publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes
that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon
dioxide.”

“Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela
Merkel urging her to ‘strongly reconsider’ her position supporting man-
made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action.
Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for
man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that
the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.”

The skeptics do agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of
a Little Ice Age around 1850. But they question the cause, Frank
wrote. Believers think the warming is created by man, but skeptics
believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal
and certainly not potentially catastrophic.

And skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant
life. They cite numerous field experiments that have confirmed that
higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity.
Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, they believe. More than
90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water
vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it
must involve water vapor.

Finally, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly over
predicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon
dioxide, Frank wrote. “We are being told that numerical models that
cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run
forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an
economic disaster on the U.S. and the world,” he added.

“Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped
science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question
the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring
skeptics back into the public debate,” he concluded.