BY MICHAEL R. FOX PHD – The promoters of man-made global warming have demonstrably misled the UN and many of the world’s governments (https://tinyurl.com/29dzmwm). Their credibility has been destroyed. The UN and its promotional arm the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have widely distributed reports now shown to be untruthful.
The Inter Academy Council (IAC) based in the Netherlands, representing a consortium of National Academies, recently found that the IPCC was seriously deficient in its efforts to promote man-made global warming (https://tinyurl.com/39dcmsv). Not only was there a lack of solid scientific evidence, but the IPCC also failed to discuss the uncertainties always present with such science. A major reason for the scientific failure is that government money was heavily involved with supporting the man-made global warming mythologies.
Regrettably the IAC is a dubious organization itself (https://tinyurl.com/2e3dpaj). . In spite of its national academies members, many of these are themselves warming advocates, so they are unable to discuss the actual evidence of climate forces and the atmospheric physics involved with climate evidence.
The problem is, of course, that no one knows all of the forces involved that drive our climate, not even the climate modelers. And we should not be making energy policies such as cap and trade policies based upon dubious science, or even worse, because of the scare stories of the advocates. One of the Academies involved is the National Academy of Sciences of the US, whose president is Ralph Cicerone. As Professor Tim Ball has written (https://tinyurl.com/2e3dpaj), Cicerone himself has been an ardent promoter of the man-made global warming hypothesis.
He has been very active in the defense of the IPCC positions and attacking those who dare question. Given the makeup of the IAC review committee we could not expect a thorough and balanced review of the work of the IPCC, and they didn’t provide one. They did assemble some mild go-to-your room criticisms. One cannot expect serious “scientific” reviews from one’s friends.
Over the past 20 years an estimated $79 billion dollars has been thrown at global warming “research”. These have enriched thousands of international “experts”, academic “experts”, and media “experts”, all at taxpayers’ expense. Many are Ph.Ds. university faculty members, graduate students, heads of the science and engineering departments, and national laboratories.
State and federal agencies have also been heavily involved in the promotion of junk science. These include Congress, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Additionally, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Washington State Department of Ecology have totally embraced the flawed UN/IPCC reports as their justification to imposed horrendous cap and trade regulations. These will create energy shortages, increase energy costs, increase the loss of jobs, cause the export of industry, and cripple our economy.
State legislatures from Hawaii, to Washington, to Virginia have been unstinting supporters of this hypothesis as well. No legislators have seemed interested in asking simple questions like “Show us the evidence”. Hawaii is notable in that more than 80% of its electricity comes from the burning of imported oil. Yet cap and trade legislation is being seriously considered by the Hawaii State legislature. This legislation would restrict the use of such fossil fuels, create massive electrical shortages, and cause even higher energy costs. Can you say economic suicide?
Thousands of scientific and political reputations have been destroyed in these groups who subscribed to, promoted, and often benefited from the global warming myths. And unlike serious scientists, they routinely resorted to heaping scorn, insults, and bully tactics on those with whom they disagreed. One can buy a lot of prostitutes for $79 billion, and that is what appears to have happened on a large scale.
Will the public ever trust a scientist again? The “scientists” promoting the global warming issues show plenty of reasons and examples not to, especially those employed in government, and those on the government dole. These apply not only to those “experts” who actively participated and received millions in grants, but also those who failed to speak up or behave properly. A German philosopher once noted that “failure to speak up is to speak; the failure to act is to act”. Hundreds knew this was taking place but failed to speak or act.
Distilled to its essence, the theory of man-made global warming failed long ago. This was primarily their failure to produce the scientific evidence showing that man-made CO2 was a major problem. Instead we were treated to computer model predictions of doom and gloom. For those familiar with computer modeling, such models do not produce scientific evidence. They produce computerized guesses of what the modelers themselves believe to be all of the natural forces driving the climate. No one knows all of these forces because some (or many) are simply not yet known to anyone. Computer models do not produce evidence, consensus does not produce evidence, and appeals to authority do not produce evidence. Only observable, measurable, replicatable data produce evidence.
The so-called skeptics (skepticism is an essential part of science) who asked for simple science answers rarely got honest, straight forward evidence and answers. Honest respectful debate has been uniformly absent, which renders suspect the practitioners of the bullying and name-calling. This has no place in science and should be grounds for dismissal.
It has been extraordinarily interesting to witness the massive, unscientific gullibility of thousands of government leaders, scientists, and representatives from the UN member nations, all in agreement about the validity of this hypothesis, and all wanting to exploit this nonsense for their own gain, while all remained oblivious to the lack of evidence.
We need to better use the rules of science as a basis for such policies and regulations. After more than 20 years the promoters of global warming did not provide evidence showing that man-made CO2 was a problem. It is time to examine the actual evidence (if it exists) and the actual horrendous costs to our society. It is also well past the time to abolish the IPCC, its leaders, and its unscientific minions.
Finally, several important nations are not buying into the man-made GW nonsense. They listen to their scientists, not political advocates. But then again the UN and the IPCC are not targeting these nations for the harm intended for the United States. These nations include China, India, and Brazil, to name a few. China is building new hydro facilities, a new coal plant per week, and has more than a dozen nuclear reactors under construction, with plans to build 70 more by 2020. India is close behind.
There a currently 42 nuclear reactors under construction around the world, none in the US. Dozens more are in the design stages. Manufacturing companies are moving out of the US to take advantage of these sources of low cost electricity. It is time to demand that solid science and evidence once again become the basis of our decisions so we can avoid such huge, costly, and mis-guided energy policies.
Dr. Fox, in one sentence you say there is not enough evidence to form a conclusion, and in the next you form one: that global warming is a hoax. These contradictions ignore the concepts of “toxicity” and of “bio-accumilation”. These are concepts you must address to get to the real issues regarding our current methods of industrialization, and the dangers they represent. Given the uncertainty you claim where is the science you claim in your methodology? Mercury from burning coal is serious issue, to name one, which is never addressed in your discourse. Does it exist in your thinking? All fossil fuels began as organic material produced by photosynthesis. Like it or not, all of the coal, natural gas, and oil we extract from the ground began as solar energy. With few exceptions all of the energy we use to heat our homes and factories, power our vehicles, and power our industry – started as solar energy. Skepticism is healthy, but ignoring basic physics is not. I challenge you to address toxicity in our fossil fuel use, as well as nuclear fissile material you advocate.
Comments are closed.