January 4, 2010

Neil Frank Rains on the Gorbasm Snow Job

Hatched by Dafydd

Another denier obviously in the pay of Big Ergs. It's time to say bye-bye to this American lie:

Now that Copenhagen is past history, what is the next step in the man-made global warming controversy? Without question, there should be an immediate and thorough investigation of the scientific debauchery revealed by “Climategate.”

Clearly Frank hasn't a clue; after all, what does he know from atmospheric science? He only directed the National Hurricane Center for nine years and was the chief meteorologist for KHOU in Houston. Oh, and his fellow meteorologists elected him to the council of the American Meteorological Society for a four-year term.

But what has he done lately?

Anyway, here he goes, making a big trouble, parroting the line of the Holocaust Globaloney deniers -- and probably being paid under the table by Gobbel Oil. I mean, why else would he say things like this:

If you have not heard, 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. CRU is one of the top climate research centers in the world. Many of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. who are closely associated with the authoritative (albeit controversial) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 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-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic. 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.

Since Frank retired such a long, long time ago -- back in 2008 -- it's fair to conclude that he's totally out of touch with modern Gorospheric Global Climate Change. I can still remember how that last consensus made me smile; and I knew if I had my chance those data-sets I could enhance, and Algor would be happy for a while.

Clearly, this septuagenarian sock poppet "Frank" (if that is his real name) needs to be sacked, à la Alice in Wonderland -- that is, roped fore and aft and stuffed in a sack (along with the experiments and studies that turned out obviously wrong, in unacceptable conflict with the Vision). Otherwise, he might continue to rave such heresy and lèse majesté as ceci:

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. 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.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. 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.

Surely we can't have that! Already, January makes me shiver with each prognosis I deliver: Bad news on the hock' stick; can't replicate that horse schtick.

Somebody please stop this overly Frank man before he commits further sacrilege against the anointed one... for if he's allowed to continue his anti-Big Science activities, it could be the day the IPCC * died.


* IPCC -- pronounced "ip-sick," of course.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, January 4, 2010, at the time of 9:13 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/4165


The following hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin

All you really need to look at in order to understand the "scientific consensus" on AGW is to look at the proposed solutions. EVERY idea they have for "saving the planet" is focused on higher taxation and command and control.

The whole sham is about power - and not the kind of power generated with fossil fuels.

The above hissed in response by: Stephen Macklin [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2010 4:41 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

There are any number of studies, generally "supressed," that completely and absolutely expose the whole thing as a myth. The latest of which I am aware points out that, contrary to the hoaxters' proclamations, the ocean and plant life are absorbing the increased CO2 just fine, and not being "overwhelmed" at all. It's almost as if Mother Nature had feedback mechanisms set up to control CO2 and temperature within some natural range and that could work for, oh, say, billions of years.

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2010 7:40 AM

The following hissed in response by: Sabba Hillel

Since we now have "Global Cooling", does this mean that they will take control and mandate increased emissions of CO2? It appears that they would have to create a control board to analyze and decide on the correct levels of emissions every year.

The above hissed in response by: Sabba Hillel [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2010 8:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

They've already switched to saying "Climate Change" but all they accomplished was to display the reality that Global Warming wasn't happening, which most of us are already noticing. So any bets on how long before this whole hoax gets exposed and the hucksters laughed off the world stage? Or will they actually succeed in selling us the snake oil?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 5, 2010 11:52 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved