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...