By Bob Jamison

          So you believe it. You can’t be blamed even if you are right or wrong because, for the most part, one side is essentially all you see or hear by means of the media. But some have a different slant on the factors that have been reported and indeed, endorsed at the recent conference in Copenhagen.

          However, there might be a few in the media that would bring up some interesting points about this alarming and seemingly crisis prediction of doom. Dr. Neal Frank (PhD.) is a retired meteorologist from Channel 11 in Houston with somewhat of a different idea. His thoughts were published in the Houston Chronicle January 2, 2010.

          To summarize Frank’s position we have listed some excerpts from his study of Global Warming. To get the complete story there is likely a search available in the archives of the Chronicle.

          In part, these issues were mentioned by Dr. Frank:

          #1. Is global warming (GW) scientific debauchery?
          #2. Climate Research Unit of the U.K. indicates troubling revelations about how harmful CO2 releases actually are.

          #3. IPCC scientist (proponents of GW) claims large and potentially catastrophic conditions.

          #4. IPCC gained control of climate-profession journals.

          #5. Oregon University opened a web site inviting scientist comment on GW. The response included 4000 PhDs. And 700 scientists endorsing a 231 page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming.

          #6. German scientist asks their Chancellor to seriously reconsider her endorsement of the IPCC conference.

          #7. Some global warming has occurred since the year 1850. However, it is doubtful that the freeways were crowded with autos and trucks for many years after 1850.

          #8. Scientist argues that CO2 is not a pollutant. In fact, it is essential to plant life and considered beneficial to agriculture.

          #9. The issue that makes more sense to this humble writer is the fact that proponents of global warming base predictions of 100 years ahead with their meteorological models when they can’t seem to agree on a week to ten day forecast of the weather!

          It doesn’t appear that either side is totally right. But no doubt the scientist of today and days ahead will make known their opinions. Far be it for this uninformed article to change anyone’s mind. It is for you to decide.

          While you are deciding this, think about land subsidence or rising ocean water. They say glaciers are melting yet they began thousands of years ago at the top end. And that’s why the oceans are rising? Of course, we can notice the oil fields in Baytown for instance. Water is encroaching on the land. But what about the oil wells. If the land is subsiding why aren’t the well heads sticking ten feet up in the sky as the production zone remains cemented at the perforated strata of oil sands.

          So if this keeps you awake wondering who is right, relax and put another log on the fire; it’s cold outside.