Nuclear Street News Team comprises of industry writers and journalist.
Originally published in the Hawaii Reporter
- By Michael R. Fox Ph.D., -
If this scandal of November 20, 2009 continues in the horrendous path it’s taken, it should be the end of the man-made CO2 global warming hypothesis. Beyond the warmers inability to prove their simple hypothesis after more than 20 years and $80 billion dollars, has been their collective bullying behavior patterns. This bullying has been so outrageous and out of character of honest scientists, that it is as offensive as it is noticeable. This behavior suggested to me that this group of people were being less than honorable in their conduct of their work.
In a speech last Spring in New York by John Sununu I was reminded that the climate warming leaders were high paid bullies who determined who got funded (the recipients of those $89 Billion), and who didn't, who got published and who didn't, and who got the acclaim, and who didn't. Much of this is now confirmed in the released emails from Hadley/CRU.
The release of 62 Mbytes of the climate research data from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in computer files has been momentous, almost unique in human history (http://tinyurl.com/yha4lxn). During the 24 hours following the release of these 62 Mbytes of documents, emails, letters, and reports, all became public knowledge around the world and thousands are pouring over the contents.
While still in the beginning stages of analyses, gleaned information has been showing horrendous levels of corruption, suborning subterfuge and deceptions, and controlling the science journals in limiting publications of research which do not support the AGW hypothesis. I have never ever seen anything like this, so high level, so unethical, and so evil.
I say evil since the unproven AGW hypothesis promoted by these insiders, is the basis for the trillion dollar Cap and Trade legislation and the redistribution of trillions from the US to the rest of the world. It is the basis for the Copenhagen meeting coming up in December which is designed how best to cripple the economics of the west through increased energy costs and energy rationing. It is the basis for the EU and the UN asking the US to pay trillions in reparations to all of those 3rd world nations which have been "damaged" by global warming.
These nation members walk the halls of the UN promoting "justifications” for reparations for their "damages" and their need for our wealth. It is the basis for demanding green energy sources to be installed with trillions of our dollars all over the 3rd world. Green energy sources already installed in the 3rd world, are not working well either. This debate has profound global implications and I find it contemptible that adults, Ph.D.s or not, would works so fanatically to achieve these destructive goals.
I also point out the thousands of media, academics, environmentalists, legislators, and movie elites who have taken strong and powerful positions in this debate, as if the AGW hypothesis has been validated. It hasn't. All of them have failed to ask the simple question "Show us the evidence that man-made CO2 causes global warming." That such people, presumed to be Americans, could promote and defend such a dangerous policy for our nation, is stunning.
Many of the global warming supporters seem to think that a photo of a polar bear on an ice floe is evidence that man-made CO2 is the cause!! The implied message is that this has never happened before, that man is causing it, that it is dangerous, which is all nonsense. They also seem to think that a photo-shopped video of a tidal wave roaring through downtown Manhattan is evidence of sea level rise, or that an iceberg calving from a glacier is evidence. We might also add that consensus is not evidence either, nor are appeals from high authority, nor are computer model predictions. If it weren’t for faulty computer models there would be no controversy at all, since real world measured evidence is still unreported.
Too few seem to have the wits to ask for a thermometer or ask for real Temp data, or sea level data, or hurricane data, or polar ice data. Also missing from the discussions is the large program needed to achieve high quality of all of the data, and how that is sustained. I have never seen a word of a Quality Assessment/Quality Control programs being used within the climate science realm. Then there is the entire issue of pathetically poor quality of the climate computer modeling programs. Anthony Watts at www.whatsupwiththat.com has undertaken to examine the low quality of the temperature stations and the low grade erratic temperature data they produce. His findings also show low grade station and data management as practiced by our climate agencies.
The British seem now to have realized the damage to all of science which has been done by the AGW crowd at the Climate Research Unit (CRU). In response to recent revelations contained in leaked e-mails originating from the CRU at the University of East Anglia, Lord Lawson, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), has called for a rigorous and independent inquiry into the matter. While reserving judgment on the contents of the e-mails, Lord Lawson said these are very serious issues and allegations that reach to the heart of scientific integrity and credibility:
"Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."
"There may be a perfectly innocent explanation. But what is clear is that the integrity of the scientific evidence on which not merely the British Government, but other countries, too, through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claim to base far-reaching and hugely expensive policy decisions, has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."
People in the media, academics, legislators, movie elites, and environmentalist group have been quite sympathetic to the AGW promoters, and with apologies to Sherlock Holmes they have been the “The Dogs Which Didn't Bark”. They knew or should have known that these climate crimes were being committed and they knew or should have known who was committing them. They not only did nothing to stop them, they attacked, insulted, and dismissed those who objected. These are actions of dangerous people, too, and are unforgivable.
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a nuclear scientist and a science and energy resource for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyst for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field.
He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.
He can be reached via email at mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Mike if honest scientists don't deal with this scandal. The man on the street will show the same contempt for scientists as they do the proverbial used car salesman.
I think the leaked emails show that they don't actually have any data. But they do have lots of numbers....
A fantastic article, but clearly very disturbing subject matter! This is recommended reading for all human beings.
You can hide anything in a computer model. Ask for source code.
Just because a few scientists put out this data...that discredits all the good work being done? I will repeat some simple questions...and hope for answers.
CO2 drives temperature, stays in the atmosphere for decades and we are putting 7 billion tons of it into the air/yearly: is there some cause and effect?
Why are the oceans becoming more acidic? They cannot store all the CO2?
Why...like here in Oregon...is glacial ice retreating? (4 glaciers near my home are now gone?)
Lastly...when you hear of industry paying "scientists" for global warming debunking...where was the outrage? When the American Petroleum Institute was caught trying to use high school kids/their teachers as pawns to debunk global warming...where was the outrage? Call for congressional hearing? How about some answers!
GLOBAL WARMING is BENEFICIAL. In 70 years(1938 -2008), the WORLD POPULATION has increased from 3 Billion to 6 Billion. Over the next 100 years, it will increase to prox 16 Billion! Where are we going to get enough water to take care of people, animals, industry, and agriculture? Hurry up and melt the ice (which holds 70% of the wold's FRESH water), BEFORE THE OIL RUNS OUT! Google me for MORE info! If you want it. I got it!
In this debate the assertions are that the only possible outcome is global wraming. In Australia our leaders now just take Global warming as a fact! There are no absolutes in science. The fact so many have forgoten that or worse still are actively drowning any other view limits reaserchers to investigating only one possible outcome. The Greatest discoveries in history have often come from individuals who at the time were completely at odds with the opion of the day. The stronger the negative debate the more pressure on the researchers to provide quality work. If we kill negative debate we will all be worse off regardless of which viewpoint ultimately proves to be right
I have to say that I am looking forward to watching this hoax unravel and also watching the numerous liars and frauds who call themselves 'scientists' lose their careers. Truly these are individuals who have no honor.
I know that the Earth goes through periodic "Warm" and "Cold" phases from time to time.
I'm no expert so I'm not in a position to say whether the current "warming" is natural or man-made.
I seem to remember from my school days in Physics class that matter cannot be created or destroyed but I know that its state can be changed.
So if we burn Fossil fuels then CO2 is the result, it can't be a good thing.
It seems to me that if more people think burning fossil fuels is to be avoided then the Nuclear Energy option appears to be a good idea.
In that case I don't understand the language used here, calling people "evil", "liars" just appears unprofessional.
What is with humans thinking that what they do is unnatural. Is this not the natural progression of human history? I am not against people going green. They have every right to by organic and recycle, get solar panels for their houses, plant their own gardens, and find alternitive energy sources. If thats what they like and want to do with their time and money good for them. Thats capitalism in action. People have a passion for something and they pursue it to it's final end.
But as for this scientific political propganda, I have a few things to say.
First, science in the twentieth century coupled with political philosophy was the number one most destructive agent of the century. Social Darwinism led to Adolph Hitler. Advances in physics coupled with war gave us the nuclear bomb. Abortion leads to the death of thousands of fetus' a day. And if you think that the last comment is too right wing conservative, remember this 1/3 of my generation doesn't exist. Not because of war, pestilence, or famine, but because irresponsible people are sold hook line and sinker on some wretched idea of manifest destiny. All the while, scientist still can't decided when a fetus actually becomes a baby.
Second, these scientist are commisioned to find data and report it to those in charge of making laws that effect my country. Whose brain child of an idea was that. Can you say nazi germany. Was it not the nazi's who had the first anti-smoking laws? Oh yeah and what ever happened to stem-cell research? It died the second we found out it was better to use adult stem cells. Those scientist were hoping so bad that they could find some use for that 1/3 of my generation that has been exterminated like genocide.
Third, we all now know what these green laws are for. They're for allowing these freak radical liberals to take from tax payers and give to their socialist hippie buddies who are trying to make a new world order that is disguised with good intentions. What they are doing is trying to strike fear into the common man and the other 2/3 of my generations that does exist into to thinking that we are all screwed. The group think herd like mentality is disturbing. These people need to think for themselves. If they like buying organic good for them, if like buying milk with hormones because it's cheaper good for me. But these people really think they are going to make america a better place by allowing this propaganda exist they are going to find out they will pay heavily for this complete disregard of america and her free citizens.
The news varies depending on the political views of the organization but some blogs and newspapers/television claim that this hack has
revealed that human caused global warming has been faked. Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is my opinion:
To date, there has not been a single credible journal article that shows a natural cause for the modern day warming while also showing how
record high greenhouse gas concentrations are not significant.
Do people really believe that the scientists at CRU are able to squelch every scientist on the planet who tried to publish a landmark
anti-AGW paper? Is there no sense of the low probability and the large scale of this conspiracy for this to be true?
If one throws out the HadCRU data and all papers by these folks, there is still a mountain of evidence for AGW.
Do the rapidly melting ice sheets and glaciers have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?
Do the various climate models that show GHGs as the dominant forcing mechanism have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy?
Do the GISS, UAH, RSS data have access to these emails and joined in on the conspiracy? Certainly Spencer and Christy (UAH crew and noted
skeptics) would not align themselves with AGW and yet their satellite-derived measurements track reasonably with GISS, RSS, and HadCRU.
Does the ocean read these emails and magically increase its heat content?
Does the cooling stratosphere (even accounting for ozone loss) read the emails and join in on the hoax?
Do the plants and animals read these emails and decide to die off and/or change their migratory habits so that they can support the
I could go on ad infinitum.
For quite a long time, we have known that a doubling of CO2 will warm the climate at least 1C and there is fairly good certainty that the
resulting feedbacks will produce at least 2C additional warming with 3C more likely. We are also measuring CO2 increases of 2 ppm and
climbing (except last year where there was a slight decrease due to the global recession) and we have levels that have not been seen in the
past 15 million years.
Are we to conclude that these emails deny all of this evidence?
It is obvious that pre-Copenhagen, the tried and true method of “if one does not like the message then attack the messenger or redirect the
conversation” practiced by Big Tobacco and now ExxonMobil and its front groups (Heartland Institute, George C. Marshall Institute,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, etc.) is alive and well.
Scott A. Mandia – Professor, Meteorologist, Concerned Citizen
Ian Plimer has a great book on this debate "heaven and earth global warming: the missing science, worth a look. CO2 may not be the cause of global warming, But we still must change our living styles if we wish to live with the global warming which we are experiencing, adaptation is how species survive, lets see if humans are up to the challenge.
I'm glad to here that we can now, all exhale with relief! After all, we exhaust CO2 into the atmosphere, don't we? If the "warmer's" keep up, they're all going to tax us for breathing out! But, maybe not in? I have long thought that all the redirection of CO3 to CO2 as being "THE Greenhouse Gas" has been nothing but the latest ploy of economic attack the U.S. by our elected representaion/lobbyists.
Why doesn't someone design a process for removing CO2 from the atmosphere? That's the answer. Everyone should seek solutions, not just whine and complain. That gets us nowhere.
R Rhone TX
if the pollution from emmissions of co2 iscausing respitory and other illnesses, killing fish and making them unedible in our waterways then wouldn't it be safe to sat that it has to be affecting our fragile atmosphere in a negative way?