Hurricane Center Cheif says Investigate GW Liars
noo b
3 Jan 2010
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.
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 many 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 Neil Frank, who
was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987. Frank
called for the investigation Sunday in an article in the Houston Chronicle.
"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.
Tater Gumfries
> Hurricane Chief: Probe Climategate
> 3 Jan 2010
>
> A former director of the National Hurricane Center
So he's not the Hurricane Center chief.
That makes you a liar.
Tater
Surfer
>Hurricane Chief: Probe Climategate
>3 Jan 2010
>
>
>A former director of the National Hurricane Center called Sunday for an
>investigation into the "scientific debauchery revealed by 'Climategate,'"
>......
>
Yes. But in a recent article, the Associate Press stated they reviewed
the thousands of stolen emails (of which only a HANDFUL led to this
so-called "climategate") and came to the opposite conculsion.
AP IMPACT: Science not faked, but not pretty
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails