Articles Tagged "Michael R. Fox"

When Nuclear Scientist, Dr. Michael R. Fox, first contacted Hawaii Reporter several years ago, the then Kaneohe resident was concerned that the public was not getting the correct information about such controversial science topics as man made global warming, sea levels, sun spots, nuclear science, nuclear power, solar and windmills.

He was passionate about changing this by publicizing real science, and as a result, launched a column called Fox Energy and Environment Reports in Hawaii Reporter in 2003.

Mike wrote dozens of articles over the years that comforted scientists and many conservatives with his exposes on what he called corrupt and phony science and he angered many man made global warming believers. He took no prisoners when it came to taking on powerful people like former Vice President Al Gore and the claims Gore made about climate change.

Since the proponents of global warming are being caught without providing supporting evidence, the theory of man-made global warming is being destroyed before our very eyes. With no hardnosed physical evidence, measurable, observable, replicable evidence, the fiction has been sustained by non-science methods. These include appeals to authority, existence of an elitist scientific consensus, computer models none of which produce physical evidence.

Crippling national energy policies, environmental policies, economic policies are being seriously considered. Such suicidal policies did not originate in the recent fictions of climate change, but from the leaders of the UN and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and their friends within the American leadership.

Consider the statement from Maurice Strong, original head of the IPCC “- “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” This is a very destructive agenda proposed for the US and other free nations by the IPCC, which was met with thundering applause by the thousands of international leftists in Rio. They pretend to be peace-loving but definitely are not. New policies by state and federal agencies, which could cost trillions, cripple our economy, and destroy our nation, seem to be the awful agendas of many federal and state agencies and their leaders as well as the agenda of Maurice Strong and the IPCC.

As the federal government has inserted itself into the sciences, the underlying principles of science research and conduct have been damaged. The conduct of science, the conduct of many scientists, and the standards of evidence in science, has declined over decades. It is not limited to the ongoing global warming scandal but certainly includes it.

As much as science and technology has benefited mankind enormously and helped bring freedom and prosperity to the Western world, it has its detractors. Why anyone would be opposed to that boggles the mind but they are out there and in places of high government and influence.

There have also been excellent examples of good science and how it should be practiced. One of the great examples was when Albert Einstein developed his special theory of Relativity. Although his extraordinary theory created great controversy, he welcomed criticism.

In case you missed it, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently took another major hit, likely to be fatal to its dwindling integrity, authenticity, and credibility. An earlier major hit was the famous Hockeystick chart fiasco, where the last 1000 years of global temperatures as presented by the IPCC were shown to be in error. (http://tinyurl.com/o3x6zt).

While the chart indicated a rapid temperature increase since 1900, the chart was created using inappropriate data and inappropriate computer algorithms. Nevertheless it was highly featured in the IPCC documents as well as in Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”.

Recent detective work (http://tinyurl.com/yzevqqs) shows that some of the tree-ring data used to construct the “hockeystick” curve was “cherry-picked’ from a larger data set. The cherry-picked data indicated warming while the data that was ignored clearly showed cooling temperatures. Such arbitrary selection of data indicates bad science in several areas including the IPCC, and their inability to provide peer review.

The Second Annual International Conference on Global Warming was held March 8-10 in New York City. It featured more than 700 scientists, economists, geologists, biologists, and writers.

There were more than 80 speakers from 14 different countries extending from Sweden and Norway to Australia and New Zealand. This was a meeting of climate realists, who view the climate issues with the simple basics of hard nosed science.

The current international exaggerations on global warming are surprisingly popular yet empty of supporting evidence. All too few ask for the evidence when told of scare stories of rising tides, dying polar bears, stronger hurricanes and mosquitoes moving North, while any supporting evidence is notably absent.

As the federal government has inserted itself into the sciences, the underlying principles of science research and conduct have been damaged. The conduct of science, the conduct of many scientists, and the standards of evidence in science, has declined over decades. It is not limited to the ongoing global warming scandal but certainly includes it.

Consider the working hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). It states "man-made CO2 causes global warming". The question now is does this hypothesis work? Is it true? Is it valid? Does it explain the climate observations and the data that are found in the real world?
Updated below from Alan Siddons

Recalling that people such as Robert F. Kennedy have called climate skeptics “traitors”, David Suzuki calls for their jailing, the Grist website called for Nuremburg trials for them, NASA’s Dr. Jim Hansen calling for their trials for treason, along with the habitual insults from Al Gore, its been difficult for anyone to respectfully dissent. It’s been difficult to stick to the rules of hard science, by demanding evidence and replication, both of which require questioning but are often followed by insults and threats.

There have been many texts and many analyses written about big governments, specifically the tyranny of big governments. Those who have studied them notice big governments such as those of Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba, North Korea, Myanmar, and others, have commonalities among them. “The Road to Serfdom” by Nobel winner Friedrich Hayek, for example, is a short and excellent analysis.

There are invariably major losses of personal freedoms, personal liberty, speech codes, loss of freedom of the press, to assemble, of religion, expression, confiscation of personal property, confiscation of wealth, wages, and overall government sponsored destitution. Most have led in their final stages to tyranny involving huge terror and police states, rendering its citizens broken, deprived, and destitute.

Just when you start to think chicken little and the gang have the sky falling in, up pop's the Hawaii Reporter with a fascinating article from Michael R Fox. It shows that the ice station at the South Pole.....

Extract: -

The temperature station at the Amundson-Scott base at the South Pole has shown a cooling trend since it started in 1957. Yet the CO2 levels rose more than 10% during that time. Is CO2 warming, cooling, or none of the above? A number of surface temperature stations in the State of Washington also have shown cooling for decades as well. Ritzville shows a decline since 1918 and the Spokane station shows a decline since 1880, or 128 years.

Recently, as reported in Science Magazine, global temperatures have not risen for the past 10 years, while CO2 rose. All of the above examples of surface stations showing cooling trends, are contrary to and do not support the hypothesis of CO2 causing warming. It most certainly does not support the theory that man-made CO2 (a small fraction of the total atmospheric CO2) causes warming. The rules of logic tell us that one cause cannot produce two opposite effects.