Sunday, July 20, 2008

More consensus... er...

Once more via Tom Nelson, yet another dissenter from the anthropogenic climate change consensus, Dr Vincent Gray.

As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have submitted thousands of comments to all of the Reports. My comments on the Fourth IPCC Report, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC (2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b)

I am therefore very familiar with the arguments presented by the IPCC, many of which have now been copied by the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the responses to them.

Dr Gray then proceeds to fisk, in fine style, the report on climate change issued on 12 July by the Royal Society of New Zealand's Climate Committee. Here are just a few highlights (tempted though I am to post the whole glorious piece). [Some reformatting for clarity only.]
I will first comment on the Introduction
  • to make absolutely clear what the evidence is for climate change and anthropogenic (human-induced) causes.

    The climate has always changed and always will. No evidence whatsoever for a human contribution to the climate is given in their following statement.

Their Summary is as follows:
  • The globe is warming

    This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. According to the CSSP Report (Karl et al 2007), there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are

    NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)
    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
    Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)
    NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)
    Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)
    University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )
    Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)
    National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)
    European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

    Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.

GISS are James Hansen's lot, and my last post (and many posts passim ad nauseam) show how accurate, truthful and unbiased they are.
  • because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions

    No evidence is presented to justify this conclusion. There are “projections” of computer models but these are not predictions, they are merely the results of assumptions made in the model. No “projected” result has ever been successfully related to an actual change in the climate.

  • Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years.

    This statement is a lie. 90,000 measurements published in peer-reviewed journals since 1850, some by Nobel Prize-winners, have been suppressed by the IPCC because they do not agree with this statement. (Beck 2007). Stability of carbon dioxide in ice cores thousands of years old is questionable. (Jaworowski 2007). Recent measurements of carbon dioxide are confined only to exceptional circumstances over the ocean, and do not include measurements over land. (Manning et al 1994).

  • Further global climate changes are predicted,

    This is another lie. Computer models of the climate have never been shown to be capable of prediction, and the IPCC recognises this by using the term “projections” for the output from the models. This statement refers only to greenhouse gas concentrations anyway, not to any other “global climate change”.

  • with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses.

    “Expected” by whom?. By “experts” whose finance depends on favourable “expectations”. On what basis?. Purely on the opinions of these “experts”.

  • Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

    Again, mere opinion, without any evidence that this “requirement” will work.

  • fostering evidence-based scientific debate

    There is no “debate”. This is a one-sided statement which does not permit discussion or disagreement in public. At least I can debate it on the Internet.

  • We hope this statement makes a useful contribution to public understanding of climate change.

    I hope that my comments will make a similar useful contribution.

Oh, they do, Dr Gray, they do. I recommend that you read the whole devastating post.

Finally, how strongly does Dr Gray feel about this subject?

This Climate Change Statement is veritably an orchestrated litany of lies, to borrow a phrase. As a longstanding member of the Royal Society of New Zealand I am unable to tolerate such a departure as this from the supposed objectives of fair or responsible comment on scientific matters, so I have resigned in protest.

Good for you. The consensus is unravelling; scientists are finally finding their balls and speaking out and people are beginning to wake up and realise that they are being lied to.

There will always be a few morons who continue to cling to their religion but they shall be sidelined, their articles of faith smashed to pieces one by one. These zealots will, of course, continue to wallow in their foetid pit of hypocrisy—for have you seen these people volunteering to live in energy-free communes?

Perhaps some active people like Sunny Hundal and his sycophantic hangers-on—like the LC commenter douglas clarke—could start one? You think climate change is so bad? Fine, ditch your computers and get off the 'net, eschew your electricity, your trappings of the modern age and go and start weaving your own underpants, you gullible fuckwits.

In the meantime, the rest of us eeeevil deniers will continue to get richer, and trade with the poor so that they too can become richer and we can try to stop so many millions of brown people dying every year. And, y'know, generally let the human race progress.

There may be trouble ahead, but it'll be fuck all to do with anthropogenic climate change...


BenSix said...

You're a bit late with this one, DK. Gray's leanings were hardly veiled when he wrote "The Greenhouse Delusion" in 2002.


El Draque said...

Your last three paragraphs completely spot on.
I am on average earnings (or median - I forget which) and I therefore ignore any comment on my standard of living being damaging to the planet, if it comes from someone earning more than me who doesn't voluntarily give away enough of his/her income to bring it down to my level.
So we have to cut our wasteful lifestyle? Well, go ahead, then, set a good example - I might copy you. But you first - if you care about it so much . . .

Anonymous said...

I see that twat Richard Black has pounced on the Ofcom slap on the wrists of C4's "Great Global Warming Swindle".

C4 "did not fulfil obligations to be impartial and to reflect a range of views on controversial issues."

Completely unlike, er, the BBC. Good job they have help from Jo Abbess et al to ensure their complete impartiality.

Anonymous said...

This is up today on the beeb. Its horrible to read with the IPCC brigade lining up to claim a much-needed victory. Very strange the use of Ofcom as well.
E.g. - "The film alleged that the IPCC's scientific reports were driven by politics rather than science, and Ofcom ruled the organisation had not been given adequate time to respond."
Why in the fuck are Ofcom ruling things like that? Why in the fuck have Ofcom stuck their beak in anyway? Or have they more likely been pressured into it?