Analyses: Global Warming Fiasco

article top

BY MICHAEL R. FOX PHD – The underlying “science” supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) via man-made CO2 emissions, has been completely destroyed. After more than 20 years the AGW movement has provided no supporting evidence for their own hypothesis.


The promoters of AGW are little more than a self-appointed group of 5-6 dozen unscientific  bullies ( trying to provide scientific acceptability to one of the most dangerous energy policies ever devised by the greens, leftists, progressives, or a frightening anti-energy American Administration (

Our civic duties are to understand the flawed nature of these people, their theories, their causes, and their agendas, and that these do not involve science at all.  Instead these involve national and international leftist politics in their most dangerous form.

Furthermore, our duties are to inform the policy makers, media, educators, and public of these analyses and agendas. The damage already incurred through this agenda is enormous and if implemented, would still be very dangerous.

On the last page (p.449) of The Hockeystick Illusion, Clmategate and the Corruption of Science, A.W. Montford states the following, relating to what was revealed in the emails found a year ago from what we know now as the Climategate fiasco):

“First, that the senior climatologists (involved with promoting the AGW within the CRU, IPCC, and American supporters, agencies, and counterparts—MF) have sought to undermine the peer review process and to bully journal editors into suppressing dissenting views. This means that the scientific literature of climate research is no longer a representation of the state of human knowledge about the climate. It is a representation of what a small cabal of scientists feel is worthy of discussion. (Entire climate science libraries have now been extensively corrupted by the AGW these so-called climatologists and supporters of AGW, such as those at many universities and the many other research institutions around the nation to such a level that little in these libraries can be trusted).

Second, the IPCC Assessments Reports (AR1 to AR4) represent the outcome of a process in which a relatively small group of scientists produced a biased review of literature that they themselves have colluded to distort through gatekeeping and intimidation.

The released emails (from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia—MF), established a pattern of behavior that is completely at odds with what the public has been told regarding the integrity of climate science and the rigor of the IPCC report-writing process. It is clear that the public can no longer trust what they have been told. What  is less clear is what we, as ordinary citizens, can do in the face of the powerful, relentless forces of corrupted science, to set things right.
Awareness, however, is the essential first step.

It is imperative that we recognize that among our first duties as voters and citizens is to provide the evidence of bullying, intimidation, personal attacks, and the unscientific nature of the AGW Movement. Furthermore, we need to convince policy makers, state and federal; they have been misled with regard to the many corrupted aspects of the current man-made global warming hypothesis. The last thing we want is for federal and state legislators to formulate dangerous climate and energy policies based upon corrupted science.

Having now unraveled the many problems related to the discredited Hockeystick and also analyzed and documented in books (such as by Montford (see above),  Booker, Christopher, The Real Global Warming Disaster, Carter, Robert M., Climate the Counter Consensus, Singer, S. Fred and Avery, Dennis T., Unstoppable Global Warming, Spencer Roy W., The Great Global Warming Blunder, et al), we also learned that many of those same AGW supporters were actively involved with fudging the climate data, tree-ring data, and others temperature proxies in constructing the disgraced Hockeystick chart of the last 1000 years of global temperatures.

The discovery that those who constructed the Hockeystick chart used inappropriate proxy data, cherry-picking data, truncations, extrapolations of data, and reliance on ad-hoc and untested methodologies are just the start of the problems found reconstructing the Hockeystick. (Montford, p.388). We should also appreciate that the computer algorithms developed by the AGW crowd were so biased toward producing an upward 20th century temperature trend; they could produce a Hockeystick-shaped curve with a table of random numbers.  They could also remove the higher temperatures of the Medieval Warming Period 1000 years ago, as well as removing the Little Ice Age of lower temperatures.  Computer climate modeling can be fun, and lucrative, filled with adoration.

In the past honest, traditional scientists would welcome criticisms if they were in honest pursuit of solid science. But not the AGW crowds who for years have fought the inquiries, the FOI requests, and questions about their methodologies.  On page 390 of Montford states “what the Hockeystick affair suggests is that the case for global warming, far from being settled, is actually weak and unconvincing. The implications for the policy makers are stark”.

They have granted an effective monopoly on scientific advice to an organization that has proven it to be corrupt, biased, and beset with conflicts of interest. Their advisors on the global warming issue are essentially a law unto themselves, with only the oversight of their actions and findings provided by volunteers like (Steve) McIntyre and his ragtag band of skeptic supporters (  There is no conceivable way that politicians can justify this failing to their electorates. They have no choice but to start again. ”

It should also be noted that some in the current administration such as Jane Lubchenko, have regarded the IPCC and the AGW crowd as the “Gold Standard” of climate science. Obama’s science advisor, John Holdren, has made similar statements.   It is frightening to have such uninformed belief systems in positions of our nation’s power. It is frightening because the energy policies being put forth by the Obama Administration are so destructive to our nation and its people (



Previous articleIRS Here to Help You – Really
Next articlePritchett’s (Pelosi) Pen
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., 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. A former Hawaii resident, 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


  1. This is very a nice shot for the juniors who miss the superior essence treatise for their thesis probe thesis moreover thesis. As we understand the urgency of teaching that’s reason we made a Academy article book benefit study for you to strengthen your rates furthermore CGPA.

  2. When you go somewhere and smell badly it gives the extremely bad impression to others. You feel embarrassment and loses you confidence. Fragrance can help you to smell better and move confidently in life. If you like a fragrance but you can’t find it then contact us we will create it for you.
    point of purchase display manufacturer

Comments are closed.