THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IX, Issue # 197, October 22, 2007
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SUPPORT FOR THE CALL FOR REVIEW OF THE UN IPCC
By Dr. Vincent Grey
THE UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE & THE ORGANIZATION'S PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC
METHODS: THE IPCC'S MANUFACTURE & MANIPULATION OF LIES, DISTORTIONS, & FLAWED EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
THE THEORY OF HUMAN-INDUCED CATASTROPHIC GLOBAL WARMING -- THE NEED TO ABOLISH THE IPCC, AS WELL AS TO
SUBJECT THE ORGANIZATION & ITS PROCEDURES TO CRITICAL REVIEW
FULL STORY:
(Editor's Note: The following statement is a letter from Dr. Vincent Gray to Professor David Henderson
supporting the latter's call for a review of the UN's IPCC and its procedures. However, Dr. Gray goes much further,
calling for abolition of the IPCC.)
Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.
I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments
on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report.
Over the period, I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their
whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books, and comments and have published many comments of my
own in published papers, in a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.
I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would
take place purely on the basis of facts, logic, and established scientific and mathematical principles.
Right from the beginning, I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any
answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were
frustrated indefinitely.
Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC, I have found increasing opposition
by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that, for significant parts of the work of the
IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or
rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that
this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is
fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.
I wonder whether I could summarize briefly some of the reasons why the scientific procedures followed by the IPCC are
fundamentally unsound. Some of you may have received more detail, if you received my recent NZ Climate Truth
Newsletters.
The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide
emissions are responsible." Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.
To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has
been increasing.
This claim fails from two fundamental facts.
Fact # 1: No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.
How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?
What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day
at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to
be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The
potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming."
Fact # 2: The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No
statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected."
It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records
for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is
likely.
And then, after all, there has been no "global warming," however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be
cooling. As a result, it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming." The buzzword is "Climate Change,"
which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"
The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration
of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this
concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which
they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the
last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst
Beck has published on the Internet all the actual papers.
Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide
you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have
a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the socalled "background figure" is therefore
biased in an upwards direction.
My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models
should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory
level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for
prediction.
No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept
this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction," only "projection." But they then go ahead predicting anyway.
There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at
least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore
it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.
The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an
approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the
current promotional lectures.
The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any
models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who
originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to
notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been
developed to a complex web of "likelihoods," all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.
By drawing attention to these obvious facts, I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local
professional associations. Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local
science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.
I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle. The IPCC, from the beginning, was given the licence to use
whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate,
even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.
The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable, but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly
realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the
past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later, all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the
thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately, severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that
happens.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
The Earth's Natural History, Global Climate Changes,
& the Future of Human Life & Civilization on the Planet:
Science, Ideology, & Public Policy
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
The United Nations, Its Agencies, & U.S. National Interests
Dr. Vincent Gray, a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England, and a member of the UN IPCC Expert
Reviewers Panel since its inception, has a long research career in the United Kingdom, France, Canada, China, and New
Zealand. He has published more than a hundred scientific papers on energy, coal, petroleum, timber, building materials,
paint and adhesives, plus a dozen in climate science, including detailed critiques of IPCC science reports. His articles have
appeared in numerous publications, including NZ Climate Truth Newsletters.
Professor David Henderson, formerly Head of the Department of Economics and Statistics of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, is presently Visiting Professor at the Westminister School of Business, London, England. In
New Zealand, he has worked at the Business Roundtable, having his papers published under its auspices.
The foregoing letter by Dr. Gray was originally published on the Internet website maintained by the
New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, the mission of which is "to represent
accurately, and without prejudice, facts regarding climate change; to provide considered opinion on matters related to both
natural and human-caused climate effects; and to comment on the economic and socio-political consequences of climate
change." According to its "About Us & Contact" page, the Coalition "is committed to ensuring that New Zealanders
receive balanced scientific opinions that reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that have been
made about anthropogenic [man-made] global warming.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume IX, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity