Guest post by Dr. Vincent Gray
NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 308
APRIL 25th 2013
I have been neglecting you. Things have quieted down. I am 91 and it is high time I retired, like my friend Will Alexander in South Africa or my major protagonist, former Professor Martin Manning.. I thought I would call it a day on Newsletter No 300.
When I began, in 1991 I was still in China. I got involved in commenting on the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and I just completed those on the Fifth Report which will surely be my last.
To begin with I was the only critical voice in New Zealand. Last week I attended a packed meeting of the Press Club in Wellington to hear Lord Monckton tear apart the IPCC and everything connected with it. The University scientists will not listen to him. But one of the organisers of the meeting was from the Music Department.
But, surely, we are at the beginning of the end.
The globe has stopped warming; even when measured by the botched-up biased system that they favour.
The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Emissions by former members are in steady decline compared with those from non-members
The support literature has dried up. I used to go to the University every month and photocopy the latest scientific outrage for these Newsletters. The only recent feeble attempt was the rapidly discredited attempt by Marcott to fabricate yet another Hockey Stick at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/
The “Economist” magazine has expressed doubts
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21574490-climate-change-may-be-happening-more-slowly-scientists-thought-world-still-needs
A recent report by the Influential [Norwegian] Research Institute SINTEF at
http://www.sintef.no/upload/Teknologi_og_samfunn/Teknologiledelse/SINTEF%20Report%20A24071
has shown that there is a genuine scientific controversy that should be encouraged; that it is by no means, “settled”
The Emissions Trading scheme is in retreat. European prices have headed for the bottom and they.are about to ditch their scheme. I do not know what has happened to our prices but you can all be assured that whatever happens to the Mighty River Power shares the incentives to go in for windmills and solar power will disappear and we can, eventually have a sensible, economical power policy which will include fracking, coal and small scale nuclear.
But you would hardly think so, listening to all of our politicians, or if you read the newspapers or watch TV. So let me finish by encouraging you all with this article by James Delingpole
Cheers
Vincent Gray
Wellington
New Zealand
Good for you, Vincent. In five more years I will be caught up with you. In the meantime, there is that pseudoscience to smoke out. They invent a non-existent warming and then they want us to pay for saving the world from it. Arno
To Konrad, very good post, I totally agree, but – what will they do with the existing solar panel subsidies to private homes, and also those land owners who are getting rich from rent on wind turbines. They had a great subsidy for rain water tanks as Oz generally has tap water, other than in some rural areas. (A huge dispersed population too). I put in a 5,000 litre tanks beside my house, to use for washing clothes and flushing one laundry toilet. I got full compensation at the time from the State and Federal governments. Only once in 5 years has the tank almost run out, so it had to be topped up enough by mains water to allow the pump to work. Only for a few weeks though and we managed OK.
Sorry for piling on but…
“If I had a dime for every time that some warmist had declared this was the beginning of the end of civilization over the last 20 years, I’d be much richer than I am.”
PS: It’s been a chilly Spring here in New Hampshire…
Logic and reason has not reached the US. The EPA works independent of the government and continues to try to rule by regulation, regardless of the administration in power. The Obama administration appears to still be smoking the AGW hooch which appears to give them immunity to logic and reason. There is no extreme AGW problem to solve, regardless US spending on green scams will not solve the non problem.
New coal plants (13) are going into service in Germany as a modern coal plant is the lowest cost of power. There are 1000 coal plants planned to be placed in service in the next few years in other countries, 75% of them in China and India.
The US regulatory efforts and money spend on green scams such as the conversion of corn to ethanol which results in a net increase in CO2 emissions, if all energy inputs are considered, have only succeeded in making US industry less competitive and are an indirect tax on US consumers.
This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by EPA’s own scientist which supports the assertion that there is no AGW problem to solve. The EPA buried the report. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming was not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf
“Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act”
Technical Support Document for Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act
I have become increasingly concerned that EPA has itself paid too little attention to the science of global warming. EPA and others have tended to accept the findings reached by outside groups, particularly the IPCC and the CCSP, as being correct without a careful and critical examination of their conclusions and documentation. If they should be found to be incorrect at a later date, however, and EPA is found not to have made a really careful independent review of them before reaching its decisions on endangerment, it appears likely that it is EPA rather than these other groups that may be blamed for any errors. Restricting the source of inputs into the process to these these two sources may make EPA’s current task easier but it may come with enormous costs later if they should result in policies that may not be scientifically supportable.
The failings are listed below in decreasing order of importance in my view: (See attached for details.)
1. Lack of observed upper tropospheric heating in the tropics (see Section 2.9 for a detailed discussion).
2. Lack of observed constant humidity levels, a very important assumption of all the IPCC models, as CO2levels have risen (see Section 1.7).
3. The most reliable sets of global temperature data we have, using satellite microwave sounding units, show no appreciable temperature increases during the critical period 1978-1997, just when the surface station data show a pronounced rise (see Section 2.4). Satellite data after 1998 is also inconsistent with the GHG/CO2/AGW hypothesis 2009 v
4. The models used by the IPCC do not take into account or show the most important ocean oscillations which clearly do affect global temperatures, namely, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, and the ENSO (Section 2.4). Leaving out any major potential causes for global warming from the analysis results in the likely misattribution of the effects of these oscillations to the GHGs/CO2 and hence is likely to overstate their importance as a cause for climate change.
5. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility of indirect solar variability (Section 2.5), which if important would again be likely to have the effect of overstating the importance of GHGs/CO2.
6. The models and the IPCC ignored the possibility that there may be other significant natural effects on global temperatures that we do not yet understand (Section 2.4). This possibility invalidates their statements that one must assume anthropogenic sources in order to duplicate the temperature record. The 1998 spike in global temperatures is very difficult to explain in any other way (see Section 2.4).
7. Surface global temperature data may have been hopelessly corrupted by the urban heat island effect and other problems which may explain some portion of the warming that would otherwise be attributed to GHGs/CO2. In fact, the Draft TSD refers almost exclusively in Section 5 to surface rather than satellite data.
“2.9 The Missing Heating in the Tropical Troposphere
Computer models based on the theory of GHG/CO2 warming predict that the troposphere in the tropics should warm faster than the surface in response to increasing CO2 concentrations, because that is where the CO2 greenhouse effect operates. Sun-Cosmic ray warming will warm the troposphere more uniformly.
The UN’s IPCC AR4 report includes a set of plots of computer model predicted rate of temperature change from the surface to 30 km altitude and over all latitudes for 5 types of climate forcings as shown below.
If we were dealing with science it might be the beginning of the end, but we’re dealing with religion so this is just the beginning of the first millenium. You have a fine mind Dr Vincent Gray, it’s a pleasure to share a country with such as you.
In four years there will be a significant climate change. It would seem Obama has great insight after all.
😉
Hmmm…
Don’t underestimate the ability of politicians to ignore facts in their eagerness to sell a good story, especially when they can see money in it.
And don’t underestimate the eagerness of financiers to help politicians build a gravy train the lucky few can ride on…..
Thanks for your perseverance and honest Dr Gray.
Enjoy putting your feet up and fighting only the battles you chose.
I believe/intuit that this tool we are using, has been the wildcard for myth breaking.
What this ability to communicate, exchange info and access support has done is hard to evaluate.
But you have enabled many others to understand the faults in the IPCC’s selective use of science, this info has travelled around the world many times, mobilized many isolated realists and sped the exposure of this UN scam up by years.
Many commenters here will be surprised how quickly these artists scamper away from an enraged voting public.
As those brainwashed children, heavy handedly indoctrinated to react to a planetary warming, that has not existed in their entire lifetime, what better civics lessons?
Authority lies, attempts to install fear in children, to further their power.What the lesson? Kiddies?
Your honesty Dr Gray.
Stan Stendera,
I am so glad to hear that. My pleasure.
I almost started to make a list of Valiant Warriors for Science Truth just from the MANY super-wonderful scientist bloggers on WUWT, but, in such a sampling population, leaving out even one of its members would cause far more harm than any good my list would do. So, I’ll stop with a list of two: Dr. Gray and you, Stan Stendera.
Warm [but not warm – ing :)] regards,
Janice
P.S. I must say, though, that any of the fine posters on WUWT who have tried or who are trying to teach junior high or high school students or beginning science-major and or non-science-major college students math or physics or biology or chemistry. THANK YOU! Talk about fighting for truth in the trenches. YOU WONDERFUL TEACHERS AND PROFESSORS ARE THE UNSUNG HEROES in the war for truth. This non-science major will be FOREVER GRATEFUL for her dedicated, patient, excellent, teachers in the above subjects.
I don’t know. These liberal schemes work fine in times of largesse. But people are paying attention now as social programs begin to strain and buckle . My prediction is that by the time the economy rebounds in 6-7 years, enough time will have passed for these folks to move on to a different topic that is catastrophic, man made, global and requires immediate attention and your tax dollars now.
I am a retired engineer with a background in the design and management of scientific studies. Three years ago, out of idle curiosity, I began to snoop around in global warming climatology. To view results from the validation of the IPCC climate models that I assumed to have taken place was the fastest way in which to come up to speed on the science of global warming. Thus, I began my investigation via a Web search on the statistical population underlying these models, for a statistical population was required for validation to have taken place. This search came up with nothing. If there was no statistical population, it was impossible for the climate models to have been validated and thus the methodology of the investigation of global warming that had been conducted by the climatologists could not have been scientific!
My Web search did come up with an article by Vincent Gray. The title of his article was “Spinning the Climate.”
In his article, Vincent described the reaction of IPCC management when he pointed out to them that their climate models were insusceptible to being validated. Their reaction was a deceptive argument of the kind that was known to philosophers as the “equivocation fallacy.” Subsequently, Vincent pointed this out in the article that he entitled “The triumph of doublespeak.” “Doublespeak” was a synonym for “equivocation.”
An “equivocation” is an argument in which a term changes meaning in the middle of this argument. By logical rule, one cannot properly draw a conclusion from an equivocation. To draw a conclusion is the “equivocation fallacy.”
Applications of the equivocation fallacy are the sole basis for alarm about CO2 emissions. We have Vincent to thank for alerting us to this deception.
Two of our champions hobnobbing in NZ – Sir Vincent and Sir Christopher – the vision warms the heart. And a “beginning of the end” prophecy to boot! The final nail in the coffin for for ICAGW would be the publication in a peer-reviewed journal a paper setting out the truth about climate change by one or both of our champions. (Or maybe Tony could step up to the plate)
I wish it were the beginning of the end, but as long as the global warmers are rolling in dough they will crank out the junk and the press releases, all to be lapped up by a gullible public and journalists who pander to them.
@ur momisugly eo says:
April 25, 2013 at 3:45 pm
I think you raise an important point. It is the nature of how things are viewed and evaluated.
As you rightly point out, processes dependent on The Law, at least in its contemporary form, which has developed – not at at co-incidentally in accordance with the interests of lawyers and those who rely on structural societal processes for the justification of their role and advantages – from concepts of expression of “natural justice” to a system of administration only tangentially related to that, differ in nature from not just scientific inquiry but any reconciliation of reality with actions.
As highlighted by you, the decisions of courts are simply a matter of personal opinion dressed in this process to give the illusion of gravitas and certainty. There is no regard for the truth as being obligatory in reaching such a point of judgement in any case. “Plausability” of position measured solely as degree of conformity to this body of guidelines and the process around it dictate the outcome. A “lawyerly” manner of thinking and prosecuting an argument has different aims – to give advantage to those advocated for – and priorities to any dispassionate establishment of truth in any area, and is antithetical to that – and therefore science.
But this “standard” of “appraisal” and action has now come to be the dominate reference for anything in society, and does not preclude elements of manipulation and obscuring or misinterpreting truth, and in fact is integral to it. Such must be the case where outcomes are determined in this way.
So I think what we see in “Climate Science” is a reflection of this. It has been normalized across the board and in fact no-one expects anything different.
As you say, this issue is about addressing core beliefs, but I think it is also about making a clear distinction between these two antithetical positions.
@ur momisugly Konrad says:
April 25, 2013 at 3:29 pm
You are right to now focus on the actions of individuals. This issue from its inception has been created and driven by people, and their particular motives and requirements, not as many continue to have the delusion, people whose core position is always regard for truth as expressed through scientific processes, and the integrity of any application of that. Whilst that personal or collective element is to some degree is part of anything in society, in this case it is and always has been dominant.
Many individuals involved in this are perfectly aware of this, and it is the ultimate determinant of their actions. They have killed, are killing, and intend to continue to kill. For reasons of self-interest.
There are no excuses: no-one can now say “I didn’t know”. Not to hold these people to account would be the ultimate travesty – confirmation that if structural advantage can be gained, immunity is assured, and anything at all can occur.
It is existentially vital to hold these people to account.
bushbunny says:
April 25, 2013 at 8:08 pm
———————————
Bushbunny,
Most of the Chinese solar panels will be dead due to individual cell failure and delaimation in 5 to 10 years. The aluminium and glass can be recycled.
I remember the water tank problem in OZ as I was there at the beginning. At uni I designed a domestic rainwater tank as part of a rotomolding project, with integrated hose reel and solar charged DC pump. I ran into problems with the marketing section of the course as at that time water rates were charged on property value not usage and there was no incentive to save water. However I think the drought shortly after had a greater impact on policy than petitions from students 😉
While I am an AGW sceptic, I am also an environmentalist. I don’t own a car and the only vehicles in our house are kayaks and bikes. I want a environmentally clean and responsible future. I also know we cannot achieve this from a foundation of lies.
jc says:
April 25, 2013 at 11:26 pm
—————————————-
While Sun Tzu’s art of war indicates that you should always leave your enemy an avenue of escape, this is not possible for AGW supporters in the age of the Internet. The collapse of the AGW hoax is going to be very painful for some, but the pain of the few should not outweigh the needs of the many.
The fall of AGW hoax has been a significant test of freedom of speech and the power of the individual. Those at the endangered atmosphere conference never anticipated the Internet when they laid their plans. Those involved in the hoax should not be allowed to escape unscathed. The reason is is that it will send a vey clear message to any who would try something similar in the future.
That said, while the environmental movement and climate science have effectively destroyed themselves, some of their goals and science are still needed. Real pollution and environmental damage appears to be an accelerating problem in the developing world. We also need real climate science to deal with the issues raised for agriculture in the coming solar cycle 25. The only solution is new people.
Maybe 20 years ago there were doubts cast about CAGW in the media. Ten years ago they were firmly on board. Today they are breaking ranks – Reuters, AP, The Economist, Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph etc.
The change of weather to harsher NH winters would have been unheared of 10 years ago. People are looking out their windows. The temperature standstill is clear to see according to Hansen, Pachauri, Met Office et. al. Carbon schemes are headed to failure, bankrupcies of some wind and solar companies is on the rise.
CAGW is not dead yet but if current trends continue 😉 it (will, might, could, may, possibley…) 😉 be over within 5 years. The last 5 months is not like 10 years ago.
Thank you for your efforts.
“joeldshore
says: April 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm
“If I had a dime for every time… etc”
—
Wow, if I had an increased tax burden for every time a warmist has used public money to indulge a fantasy….
Actually, given the funding that has been available to any AGW related fantasy I am a bit surprised that joeldshore HASN’T been getting dimes paid to him.
Janice Moore says: ‘VICTORY is assured.’
Yes – but at what a cost!
joeldshore says:
April 25, 2013 at 2:34 pm
If I had a dime for every time that some AGW skeptic had declared this was the beginning of the end for AGW over the last 20 years, I’d be much richer than I am
Ifa I had a centime for everytime it’s ‘worse than we thought’, the world will drown, we are all going die through drought, etc, etc , etc I would own the world not just be the richest.
You don’t get any better do you Joel?
@ur momisugly Konrad says:
April 25, 2013 at 11:49 pm
I am not sure that any parallels with a war, with two distinct and essentially foreign armies facing each other is applicable here. In such a (cliched) situation, one army is vanquished and allowing an escape is prudent and without cost because they abandon the ground, allowing it to be occupied by the the victor.
This situation is not like that, it is better seen as an army (humanity and/or a society) which has been infiltrated by traitors. These traitors have inserted themselves into significant positions. When discovered, in any army, they are dealt with. Ruthlessly and completely. And it is essential that this be so.
For all the unrelenting hype and propaganda, the numbers of people involved here are very very small. There are significant numbers of camp followers, but these in themselves are insignificant compared to the settled or uninvolved population.
There are others in ancillary roles whose claim would be “we service any army”. Their culpability is generally debatable.
The actual protagonists are tiny in relation to a world population of 7 billion, and tiny in any one country in which they are based. Their strength is entirely in the structural positioning they have been able to attain. If revealed for what they are, that disappears. They are then entirely vulnerable. And it is beholden on society to then judge and dispose of them in a manner that does not need to take any protestations they make, or prior structural advantage they had, into account at all.
This then is purely a matter of societal will.
I completely agree that the advent of the internet, both as communication and as record, changes everything. There can be no escape from this. What at a different time could be obscured and avoided now cannot.
As to new people, clearly. But not just that, new (to current practice) standards and values and a rigor in maintaining them in the face of the “inconvenient” whether personal or political.
Pachauri either does not know what he is talking about or he is attempting to deceive. This moving of goalposts cannot fly as per Santerr and 17 years of temp standstill and NOAA [pdf] 15 years of standstill required to discredit the models with 95% certainty. A few more years of standstill and the models will be shown to be 100% wrong.
Here are some insightful quotes: