COVID-19 Update: How to protect yourself. Click Here to Learn More.

Scientist Says Global Warming Just Isn’t So

global-warmingOn Sunday, January 3, 2010, the former director of the National Hurricane Center called for an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been marginalized in the mainstream media in a Newsmax article.

Neil Frank, who directed the National Hurricane Center for over a decade tells us that some scientists played with data in order to show CO2 had an effect on warming and then marginalized global warming skeptics.

Frank went on to say that “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.”

“Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-make global warming is large and potentially catastrophic,” Frank wrote.

Frank continued: “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 questioning man-made global warming. . . .

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.

Frank concluded: “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. . . . 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.

EDITOR’S NOTE: CO2 is not a pollutant but rather vital for plant life. In fact, field experiments have shown that higher levels of CO2 have a positive effect on agricultural activity. And let’s not forget that we humans take in oxygen and exhale CO2.

There are some who want to tax all sources of CO2 gases, which if enacted would add an estimated $2,000 in taxes to every citizen in the United States. (To learn more Google: “The Global Warming Hoax”.)

Comments

  1. cmdecker January 12, 2010

    I won’t say that MAN is the major producer of CO2. We certainly do contribute our share of it. However, where I live, so many trees have been uprooted, the rain forests are being logged, man is destroying the nature that requires CO2. With the decreasing number of plants, there will be a corresponding increase of CO2.

    Unfortunately, this gas isn’t our only problem. There are large numbers of pollutants being expelled into the air, to the point where so many cities have Smog Alert days. While Global Warming may not be as drastic at this point as some people claim, I do believe we need to protect and preserve the environment God created for us. We were designed to live in harmony with nature, not to destroy it.

  2. johnbamf January 12, 2010

    Like all of us we are in the hands of the scientists and the scientific institutions. Unless the scientific world has been politicized I can’t see why scientists would want to lie about these issues. That said, I take the attitude that all forms of pollution need to be reduced regardless of whether they are leading us to global warming or not.

    Therefore I’m more than happy to join in the global action to limit CO2.

    Frankly I believe the argument about the cost of doing so is the usual one between the haves of this world and the havenots. The haves never want to spend money on social issues and the havenots don’t have it to spend.

    No doubt its the haves of this world that are causing global pollution, with their excessive consumerism. Therefore it’s only reasonable that they pay for their excesses rather than the havenots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *