Articles Tagged "Vincent Gray"

The SEAFRAME sea-level study on 12 Pacific islands is the most comprehensive study of sea level and local climate ever carried out there.

The sea level records obtained have all been assessed by the anonymous authors of the official reports as indicating positive trends in sea level over all 12 Pacific Islands involved since the study began in 1993 until the latest report in June 2010. In almost all cases the positive upward trends depend almost exclusively on the depression of the ocean in 1997 and 1998 caused by two tropical cyclones.

If these and other similar disturbances are ignored, almost all of the islands have shown negligible change in sea level from 1993 to 2010, particularly after the installation of GPS leveling equipment in 2000.

Click source to download PDF file and read FULL report from Vincent Gray

The IPCC and most climate scientists are obsessed with Linear Trends. They are encouraged by the fact that the only regularly available statistical treatment of irregular information on “scientific” calculators and computer spreadsheets is a “linear regression” calculation, using the method of least squares. Most people do not appreciate that its results are unreliable unless the original data are from a representative sample, uniform in time and place, and they approximately fit the Gaussian “bell” curve in every way. including by being symmetrical

Yet anybody who has attended any lecture on mathematical statistics and even many popular introductions to the subject must know that there are several mathematical models that may be more successful in studying irregular data. For example, extreme observations may follow the binomial distribution, which was traditionally successful in explaining the frequency of deaths from horse kicks in Prussian army corps. There are some people who are prepared to support the exponential distribution, which predicts escalating change extending to infinity, an impossible outcome for any climate trend except for those projected by the most enthusiastic environmentalists.

There are many reasons why linear trends are not a useful means of studying climate events. Samples are usually not representative. Observations usually take place at different times, using different methods or instruments and often in different places. The distribution curve of observations is often not symmetrical. The calculated “linear trend” may be quite different, depending on the starting and finishing point of the sequence. Ignorance or deliberate disregard of these necessities means that many opinions on the climate which have disregarded them are unsound.

NZCLIMATE TRUTH NO 249

THE PERVERSION OF SCIENCE

The "Independent" enquiry into the Climategate Enmails has now been published. There is a link to the report at

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/story/33683/final-inquiry-to-climategate-j-1.asp

The Report endorses and even practices the perversion of the scientific method now so comment amongst the scientific community, which confirmed that there is no scientific evidence for the supposed relationship between climate properties and increased emissions of greenhouse gases

Here is a direct quotation

"5.1 The Scientific Process

4. Scientific hypotheses and theories are presumed to be provisional: they can be refuted by testing but they cannot be verified as correct or true in an absolutesense. Verification is however possible of the results of the experiments upon which theories are built or that attempt to test a theory. If they can be repeated, and produce the same results, they are said to be validated. It is important to recognise that science progresses by substantive challenges based on rigorously logical, published arguments that present a different view of reality from thatwhich they challenge. Criticising and attacking process and behaviour is not thesame as an attack on a scientific hypothesis. Failure in one is not necessarilyfailure in the other.

THE FLAT EARTH

All of the computer models of the climate have adopted the flat earth theory of the earth's energy, as portrayed in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bull. Am. Met. Soc. 78 197-208.



The attached graph is in all of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, and it is fundamental to all their activities.

It assumes that the earth can be considered to be flat, that the sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity, and that the temperature of the earth's surface is constant.

IPCC expert reviewer Gray — whose 1,898 comments critical of the 2007 report were ignored — recently found that proof of the fraud was public for years.

Nothing about the revelations surprises me. I have maintained email correspondence with most of these scientists for many years, and I know several personally. I long ago realized that they were faking the whole exercise.

When you enter into a debate with any of them, they always stop cold when you ask an awkward question. This applies even when you write to a government department or a member of Parliament. I and many of my friends have grown accustomed to our failure to publish and to lecture, and to the rejection of our comments submitted prior to every IPCC report.

But only recently did I realize that I had evidence of their fraud in my possession almost from the birth of my interest in the subject.

"Forecasting is difficult: particularly about the future” This piece of wisdom is attributed to Yogi Bear. But it does not apply to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, since they do not make “forecasts” at all, only “projections”. As they make clear, “projections” are dependent on the correctness of the assumptions made by the computer models and the futures scenarios from which they are made.

This has not always been so. In the first IPCC Report (1990). on the first page of the “Executive Summary” there was nearly a whole page headed “ Based on current model results, we predict” with no less than ten actual “predictions”.They used the phrase “models predict” several times throughout, but they did, at least admit that there were “uncertainties”.

Chapter 4 was entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. Paragraph 4,12 “Methods and Problems of Model Validation” showed that such validation is quite a problem, and it seemed to show that, so far, no model has been truly validated. Chapter 8 “Detection of the Greenhouse Effect in the Observations” had the answer when it said (paragraph 8.4) “the fact that we have not yet detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question: when is this likely to occur”

There's no evidence that any potentially harmful change in the climate can be related to emissions by humans of greenhouse gases. Yet so many people seem to think that there is. How can this be?

The answer is that every single argument put up by the IPCC or their supporters is fallacious. They all contravene the basic laws of logic.

My Newsletter No 212 "The Triumph of Doublespeak" shows how they can manipulate language to give an impression of evidence. These are all examples of the VERBAL FALLACY, the idea that a conclusion can be reversed purely by altering the name of the thing being considered.

I might summarize some examples

CHAOS AND PREDICTION

The most dishonest statement in "Climate Change 2007" is as follows: from Chapter 1, "Climate Change 2007", page 104 "Frequently Asked Questions 1.2 "

"A common confusion between weather and climate arises when scientists are asked how they can predict climate 50 years from now when they cannot predict the weather a few weeks from now. The chaotic nature of weather makes it unpredictable beyond a few days. Projecting changes in climate (i.e., long-term average weather) due to changes in atmospheric composition or other factors is a very different and much more manageable issue"

Now all of us know that weather forecasters "cannot predict weather a few weeks from now" The complexity of the system is the main reason, but some scientists try to blame "chaos" .

"Chaos" was featured by the late Edward N Lorenz. In his paper at

Several people have made comments to the recent article Greenhouse Theory Disproved a Century Ago, take a look at what Lord Monckton had to say....it helps understand the process that is used to show CO2's influence on our climate is overstated.

I wondered why Arrhenius had spent the entire Arctic winter of 1895/6, after he had lost his wife, performing 10,000 individual calculations by hand to reach his conclusion that CO2 doubling would raise temperatures globally by 5 [4, 8] K, when he could more simply have used the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation to perform a single calculation.

From Jim Peden

The cold hard reality of the alarmists vs deniers battle is, one side or the other is dead wrong. I "came out of retirement" to study the issue at the request of others, and confess at the beginning of my personal investigation, I was inclined to believe the popular notion that mankind had indeed mucked up his environment ( again ). I come from an era when science was a noble profession where we all strived to diligently uncover the truth, shared our findings with others, and would quickly change our minds on a particular theory if material evidence proved otherwise. The mantra at the time I began my personal investigation was that the science was settled, the debate was over, and the time for rapid and radical overhaul of our entire civilization was long overdue. It didn't immediately appear illogical to me at the time, because I still trusted science, and scientists in general.

Updated Below from Vincent Gray