Guest essay by Dr. Vincent Gray, Wellington, NZ
For over 30 years the world has been saturated with the environmental fallacy.
It has taken over the media; newspapers, radio, TV; the education system;, the schools, the universities.
It has led to a retreat from experimental and theoretical science.
My professional career began during the war when science made a
substantial contribution to its outcome. We had vigorous scientific
discussions both in public and in the media. We published them in the
journals. We enjoyed prestige, attractive salaries and public
confidence.
It declined immediately the war ended. R V Jones, in his “Most Secret War” recounts that as soon as the war ended the military were no longer interested in measures to improve conditions of survival of pilots.
I endured a steady decline of science. In industrial research the
role of the scientist was to justify the decisions of the sales
department, and now it is increasingly to justify the policies of the
Government even in the universities.
We have benefited from technical progress, based on scientific
discoveries of the past. Chemistry, X-Ray diffraction have enabled
molecules to be visualized. Combined with the genetic code it has led to modern medicine and our longer lives. Computers and solid state physics have changed our communications completely. The environmentalists
accept these grudgingly, but they reject nuclear power, chemical
pesticides, genetically engineered crops, and even (current National
Geographic article) nitrogen based fertilizers. They have rubbished
Darwin’s theories of evolution and replaced them by The Environment and
Sustainability
There have not been any truly revolutionary scientific discoveries for 50 years
Scientists now live on short term contracts, interspersed with press
announcements which either scare the public or claims to have made world shattering discoveries, all in the aid of receiving the next grant.
The climate models that have been foisted on the public would have
been rejected by all the journals I knew in 1940. They can only gain
credence in an atmosphere where science education has been replaced by
dogmatic endorsements of the pioneers, and, increasingly, of the
charlatans who have taken science over.
I have recently been revising my old NZClimate Truth Newsletters
where I said it all years ago. There are no new publications worth
answering. The latest IPCC Report merely repeats previous shibboleths.
They have confessed that they are frauds in the Climategate letters,
and even, as I point out, in such items as Jim Hansen’s item on “The
Elusive Surface Temperature”.
But, who cares? They still routinely promote the views of
environmental activists on every excuse, Prince Charles and Al Gore keep up their worrying.
So, at last, to get to the point of this Newsletter, are we returning slowly to reality?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/10/the-way-back/
Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Summary
for Policymakers
by
Vincent Gray
Introduction
Since I returned from China in 1991 my whole life has been
dominated by the scientific
reports from the Working Group WG1 of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). I first became interested in the possible
consequences of the enhanced greenhouse
effect when I was teaching English in the Teachers’
University in Kunming. I spent my spare
time in their library where they had an excellent
collection of recent scientific journals in
English. I became an enthusiast and gave several lectures
on the subject to Chinese students.
When I returned to New Zealand the drafts of the first IPCC
Report were being circulated and
when my interest was known I was asked to make comments,
which at that time were
forwarded through the New Zealand Government. Over time I
became an independent “expert
reviewer” on my own. Since then I have provided comments on
both drafts of all four major
scientific Reports (1990, 1995, 2001, and, now, 2007) plus
the subsidiary reports of 1992 and
1994. These have amounted by now to many hundreds of pages.
My comments on one draft
alone had 90 pages.
My disillusionment with the whole process began very early.
The very first Report was
dominated by an attempt to persuade the value of computer
models. Climate data on the
supposed warming were largely confined to the end of the
Report, presumably to draw
attention from their lack of confirmation of the models.
This was concealed by claiming that
the size of this warming was “broadly consistent” with the
models.
I could claim my first success, that after my comment, all
subsequent IPCC Science Reports
have placed the climate data at the beginning.
But that was not the only cause for suspicion. In the first
draft of the IPCC WGI 1995 Report
there was a Chapter headed “Validation of Climate Models” I
commented that this word was
inappropriate as no model had ever been “validated’, and
there seemed to be no attempt to do
so. They agreed, and not only changed the word in the title
to “evaluation”, but they did so no
less than fifty times throughout the next draft. They have
rigidly kept to this practice ever
since.
“Validation”, as understood by computer engineers, involves
an elaborate testing procedure
on real data which goes beyond mere simulation of past
datasets, but must include successful
prediction of future behaviour to an acceptable level of
accuracy. Without this process no
computer model would ever be acceptable for future
prediction. The absence of any form of
validation still applies today to all computer models of
the climate, and the IPCC wriggle out
of it by outlawing the use of the word “prediction” from
all its publications. It should be
emphasised that the IPCC do not make “predictions”, but
provide only “projections”. It is the
politicians and the activists who convert these, wrongly,
into “predictions.”, not the scientists.
An unfortunate result of this deficiency is that without a
validation process there cannot be
any scientific or practical measure of accuracy. There is
therefore no justified claim for the
reliability of any of the “projections’
They have tried to draw attention from the undoubted fact
that the models have not been
shown capable of making predictions by seeking the
“opinion” (or “guess”) of a panel of
“experts”, all of whom have a financial stake in the
outcome, and apply to these guesses
levels of “likelihood” which have even been given a spurious
numerical value. If the experts
were employees of oil or coal companies, and their opinions
were undesired there would be
an outcry. As the “experts” are employees or recipients of funding from governments
promoting the notion of greenhouse warming, criticism is
not heard.
.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers
The current document is really a Summary BY Policymakers,
since it has been agreed lineby-line by government representatives
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/GrayCritique.pdf
Wall St. sets the stage for the next Big Heist
As in all
schemes brought to life by Government office, the first question that begs to
be asked is Qui Bono? When a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Cap and Share program is
announced the one thing that can be assumed is that it will be designed to make
money for those who usually make the money all along. To believe that Washington or London have developed a more altruistic nature and suddenly want to save the world, is
to deny decades of Political and economic history. The road to discovering the
real truth behind the plan is to follow the money, the players and the science.
http://tinyurl.com/7qgfww
Enron and the Politics of Influence
Rent-seeking in Washington is a highly developed art-form and when really humungous amounts of money are
involved, it is always the case that a Baptist-bootlegger coalition has been
put together to get the necessary legislation through Congress.
The expressive term 'Baptist-bootlegger' derives from the days
of prohibition. Under prohibition bootleggers and those who transported
and supplied illegal alcohol made fortunes. One such entrepreneur
was Joseph Kennedy whose second son, John, became US President
in 1961. It was in the interests of the bootleggers and their
associates to maintain prohibition, but their capacity to engage
openly in politics was circumscribed. However, they had allies
in the Baptists (and other teetotalists), who believed that alcohol
was a deadly threat to the social order, and had worked for decades
to get prohibition onto the statute books. The Baptists provided
the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds.
The two groups maintained a great social distance from each
other. The middle man in the coalition was a politician who would
receive the bootleggers on Sunday morning, and accept campaign
donations, and reassure the Baptists, at a convenient weekday
appointment, that he was firm for prohibition.
Enron was at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition,
but there is no shortage of evidence of the connections which
the company and its CEO, Kenneth Lay, had with their Baptist allies.
The rents which Enron energetically sought, were truly gargantuan,
but could only be realized if the Kyoto Protocol became established
as part of US and international law. Ken Lay saw Enron as not
only making billions from sales of the natural gas which was to
displace coal as the preferred fuel under the Kyoto commitments,
but he realised that as an international and domestic trader in
carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth.
Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of
paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established
and policed a global policy of de-carbonisation under which a
global tax on carbon was to be enforced.
So as the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed
momentum, Ken Lay built up alliances with the green movement,
his contemporary Baptists allies. On December 12, 1997, just a
day or so after the Kyoto meeting had concluded, an internal Enron
memo asserted that the Kyoto Protocol 'will do more to promote
Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside
of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe
and the United States'. It described the Protocol's endorsement
of international trade in CO2 credits as 'another victory for
us' adding 'this agreement will be good for Enron stock'. The
memo claimed that Enron had 'excellent credentials with many green
interests' including Greenpeace. These groups, in turn, were described
as referring to Enron 'in glowing terms'.
http://tinyurl.com/9byffd
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/11/26/202133/hansen-stands-by-coal-traindeath-train-analogy/?mobile=nc
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/20/computer-programming-and-the-destruction-of-creation/
Re-Energize Iowa: An Opportunity to
Lead the Nation in Stewardship of the Earth and Creation
Jim Hansen, 5 August
2007
A price on
carbon emissions is needed to stretch oil and gas supplies as we develop
technologies needed for the world ‘beyond petroleum’. The carbon price will
drive efficiency and low-carbon or no-carbon energy sources. If instead we
continue business-as-usual, addicted to more and more fossil fuel use, as oil
begins to run out we will be unprepared,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Iowa_20070805.pdf
We've lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place
By Boris Johnson
12:01AM GMT 02 Feb 2006
"Billions will die," says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a "broken rabble
ruled by brutal warlords", and the plague-ridden remainder of the
species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last
temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622794/Weve-lost-our-fear-of-hellfire-but-put-climate-change-in-its-place.html
Hardtalk - James Lovelock - Population reduction (max 1
billion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLA-Sn6bi-U
For over 30 years the world has been saturated with the environmental fallacy.
It has taken over the media; newspapers, radio, TV; the education system;, the schools, the universities.
It has led to a retreat from experimental and theoretical science.
My professional career began during the war when science made a
substantial contribution to its outcome. We had vigorous scientific
discussions both in public and in the media. We published them in the
journals. We enjoyed prestige, attractive salaries and public
confidence.
It declined immediately the war ended. R V Jones, in his “Most Secret War” recounts that as soon as the war ended the military were no longer interested in measures to improve conditions of survival of pilots.
I endured a steady decline of science. In industrial research the
role of the scientist was to justify the decisions of the sales
department, and now it is increasingly to justify the policies of the
Government even in the universities.
We have benefited from technical progress, based on scientific
discoveries of the past. Chemistry, X-Ray diffraction have enabled
molecules to be visualized. Combined with the genetic code it has led to modern medicine and our longer lives. Computers and solid state physics have changed our communications completely. The environmentalists
accept these grudgingly, but they reject nuclear power, chemical
pesticides, genetically engineered crops, and even (current National
Geographic article) nitrogen based fertilizers. They have rubbished
Darwin’s theories of evolution and replaced them by The Environment and
Sustainability
There have not been any truly revolutionary scientific discoveries for 50 years
Scientists now live on short term contracts, interspersed with press
announcements which either scare the public or claims to have made world shattering discoveries, all in the aid of receiving the next grant.
The climate models that have been foisted on the public would have
been rejected by all the journals I knew in 1940. They can only gain
credence in an atmosphere where science education has been replaced by
dogmatic endorsements of the pioneers, and, increasingly, of the
charlatans who have taken science over.
I have recently been revising my old NZClimate Truth Newsletters
where I said it all years ago. There are no new publications worth
answering. The latest IPCC Report merely repeats previous shibboleths.
They have confessed that they are frauds in the Climategate letters,
and even, as I point out, in such items as Jim Hansen’s item on “The
Elusive Surface Temperature”.
But, who cares? They still routinely promote the views of
environmental activists on every excuse, Prince Charles and Al Gore keep up their worrying.
So, at last, to get to the point of this Newsletter, are we returning slowly to reality?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/10/the-way-back/
Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
Summary
for Policymakers
by
Vincent Gray
Introduction
Since I returned from China in 1991 my whole life has been
dominated by the scientific
reports from the Working Group WG1 of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). I first became interested in the possible
consequences of the enhanced greenhouse
effect when I was teaching English in the Teachers’
University in Kunming. I spent my spare
time in their library where they had an excellent
collection of recent scientific journals in
English. I became an enthusiast and gave several lectures
on the subject to Chinese students.
When I returned to New Zealand the drafts of the first IPCC
Report were being circulated and
when my interest was known I was asked to make comments,
which at that time were
forwarded through the New Zealand Government. Over time I
became an independent “expert
reviewer” on my own. Since then I have provided comments on
both drafts of all four major
scientific Reports (1990, 1995, 2001, and, now, 2007) plus
the subsidiary reports of 1992 and
1994. These have amounted by now to many hundreds of pages.
My comments on one draft
alone had 90 pages.
My disillusionment with the whole process began very early.
The very first Report was
dominated by an attempt to persuade the value of computer
models. Climate data on the
supposed warming were largely confined to the end of the
Report, presumably to draw
attention from their lack of confirmation of the models.
This was concealed by claiming that
the size of this warming was “broadly consistent” with the
models.
I could claim my first success, that after my comment, all
subsequent IPCC Science Reports
have placed the climate data at the beginning.
But that was not the only cause for suspicion. In the first
draft of the IPCC WGI 1995 Report
there was a Chapter headed “Validation of Climate Models” I
commented that this word was
inappropriate as no model had ever been “validated’, and
there seemed to be no attempt to do
so. They agreed, and not only changed the word in the title
to “evaluation”, but they did so no
less than fifty times throughout the next draft. They have
rigidly kept to this practice ever
since.
“Validation”, as understood by computer engineers, involves
an elaborate testing procedure
on real data which goes beyond mere simulation of past
datasets, but must include successful
prediction of future behaviour to an acceptable level of
accuracy. Without this process no
computer model would ever be acceptable for future
prediction. The absence of any form of
validation still applies today to all computer models of
the climate, and the IPCC wriggle out
of it by outlawing the use of the word “prediction” from
all its publications. It should be
emphasised that the IPCC do not make “predictions”, but
provide only “projections”. It is the
politicians and the activists who convert these, wrongly,
into “predictions.”, not the scientists.
An unfortunate result of this deficiency is that without a
validation process there cannot be
any scientific or practical measure of accuracy. There is
therefore no justified claim for the
reliability of any of the “projections’
They have tried to draw attention from the undoubted fact
that the models have not been
shown capable of making predictions by seeking the
“opinion” (or “guess”) of a panel of
“experts”, all of whom have a financial stake in the
outcome, and apply to these guesses
levels of “likelihood” which have even been given a spurious
numerical value. If the experts
were employees of oil or coal companies, and their opinions
were undesired there would be
an outcry. As the “experts” are employees or recipients of funding from governments
promoting the notion of greenhouse warming, criticism is
not heard.
.
The 2007 Summary for Policymakers
The current document is really a Summary BY Policymakers,
since it has been agreed lineby-line by government representatives
http://www.pensee-unique.fr/GrayCritique.pdf
Wall St. sets the stage for the next Big Heist
As in all
schemes brought to life by Government office, the first question that begs to
be asked is Qui Bono? When a Carbon Tax or a Carbon Cap and Share program is
announced the one thing that can be assumed is that it will be designed to make
money for those who usually make the money all along. To believe that Washington or London have developed a more altruistic nature and suddenly want to save the world, is
to deny decades of Political and economic history. The road to discovering the
real truth behind the plan is to follow the money, the players and the science.
http://tinyurl.com/7qgfww
Enron and the Politics of Influence
Rent-seeking in Washington is a highly developed art-form and when really humungous amounts of money are
involved, it is always the case that a Baptist-bootlegger coalition has been
put together to get the necessary legislation through Congress.
The expressive term 'Baptist-bootlegger' derives from the days
of prohibition. Under prohibition bootleggers and those who transported
and supplied illegal alcohol made fortunes. One such entrepreneur
was Joseph Kennedy whose second son, John, became US President
in 1961. It was in the interests of the bootleggers and their
associates to maintain prohibition, but their capacity to engage
openly in politics was circumscribed. However, they had allies
in the Baptists (and other teetotalists), who believed that alcohol
was a deadly threat to the social order, and had worked for decades
to get prohibition onto the statute books. The Baptists provided
the political cover and the bootleggers pocketed the proceeds.
The two groups maintained a great social distance from each
other. The middle man in the coalition was a politician who would
receive the bootleggers on Sunday morning, and accept campaign
donations, and reassure the Baptists, at a convenient weekday
appointment, that he was firm for prohibition.
Enron was at the centre of an awesome Baptist-bootlegger coalition,
but there is no shortage of evidence of the connections which
the company and its CEO, Kenneth Lay, had with their Baptist allies.
The rents which Enron energetically sought, were truly gargantuan,
but could only be realized if the Kyoto Protocol became established
as part of US and international law. Ken Lay saw Enron as not
only making billions from sales of the natural gas which was to
displace coal as the preferred fuel under the Kyoto commitments,
but he realised that as an international and domestic trader in
carbon credits, Enron could realise hitherto unimagined wealth.
Such credits, of course, would only become bankable pieces of
paper if governments, particularly the US Government, established
and policed a global policy of de-carbonisation under which a
global tax on carbon was to be enforced.
So as the movement to establish the Kyoto Protocol developed
momentum, Ken Lay built up alliances with the green movement,
his contemporary Baptists allies. On December 12, 1997, just a
day or so after the Kyoto meeting had concluded, an internal Enron
memo asserted that the Kyoto Protocol 'will do more to promote
Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside
of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe
and the United States'. It described the Protocol's endorsement
of international trade in CO2 credits as 'another victory for
us' adding 'this agreement will be good for Enron stock'. The
memo claimed that Enron had 'excellent credentials with many green
interests' including Greenpeace. These groups, in turn, were described
as referring to Enron 'in glowing terms'.
http://tinyurl.com/9byffd
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2007/11/26/202133/hansen-stands-by-coal-traindeath-train-analogy/?mobile=nc
http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/20/computer-programming-and-the-destruction-of-creation/
Re-Energize Iowa: An Opportunity to
Lead the Nation in Stewardship of the Earth and Creation
Jim Hansen, 5 August
2007
A price on
carbon emissions is needed to stretch oil and gas supplies as we develop
technologies needed for the world ‘beyond petroleum’. The carbon price will
drive efficiency and low-carbon or no-carbon energy sources. If instead we
continue business-as-usual, addicted to more and more fossil fuel use, as oil
begins to run out we will be unprepared,
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2007/Iowa_20070805.pdf
We've lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place
By Boris Johnson
12:01AM GMT 02 Feb 2006
"Billions will die," says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a "broken rabble
ruled by brutal warlords", and the plague-ridden remainder of the
species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last
temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3622794/Weve-lost-our-fear-of-hellfire-but-put-climate-change-in-its-place.html
Hardtalk - James Lovelock - Population reduction (max 1
billion)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLA-Sn6bi-U
Posts
