Mike Fox: The Final Collapse of the Global Warming Myth

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:mike@foxreport.org  

Anonymous comments will be moderated. Join for free and post now! 

  • Anonymous

    Whatever happened to global cooling and the impending new ice age?

  • Anonymous

    there is global warming!

    we saw plenty of it in Copenhagen. all those bags of hot air talking must have heated the planet a few billionths of a degree! what about the co2 emissions from their mouths??

    its a fools errand, and its a blatant grab for total power. they push this garbage down our throats with cap and trade. America is finished, we'll go down with a whimper as our dollar becomes even more worthless. Yes one day people will learn the truth, and there will be nothing but contempt for those who oppressed them.

  • Anonymous

    In reading through Scott A Mandia's article ( if he is the true Scott A Mandia ), then he merited further examination of his claims and his works in the climate change issue.

    In reading through several of his articles, however, it appears that a good part of his articles are based upon the data that is in question.

    Therefore, if he is a true scientist, instead of blasting everyone for wanting to know the truth of the origins and basis of the data. If it is good data, then his hypothesis should merit further examination.

    If not, then he should really want to find methods that would prevent faulty data from being used.

    The fact that permafrost regions do melt, does show there is a climate change at that location, but then again, vegatetation growing under the permafrost indicates that this region has been warm before.

    Finally, gases such as methane and carbon dioxide are bad measurements - methane would get released into the atmosphere from vegetation of the permafrost region, and don't plants thrive with higher carbon dioxide via the process of transpiration ?

    One more consideration, are there other planets ( mars, venus, saturn etc ) experiencing changes ?

    Finally, for those spewing hate of oil and gas companies, many of those companies fund the Sierra club etc, as many of the engineers working at rigs etc enjoy nature, and have been the ones to make improvements in the process of pulling oil from the ground......

  • Anonymous

    If Mr George Brown believes in Global warming it is enough for me, he has seldom been right about anything.

  • Anonymous

    CO2 is a "greenhouse gas,"  but a weak one.  Water vapor predominates, and CO2 absorbs radiation energy in several narrow spectral bands.  Most of these bands are already "shaded" by the effect of water vapor.  The effect is also such that once the narrow band absorption is saturated (about where we are now) adding more CO2 has little effect.  

    The late Holocene shows a CO2 starvation effect.  We are bumping along near the minimum at which plant life can survive.  Plants thrive when CO2 is boosted, showing that they evolved for millions of years in a richer CO2 environment,  Adding more is a very good thing for us and the environment.  

  • Anonymous