The climate models are worthless. Interview with Dr. Vincent Gray.
“Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.”
This is the introduction to “Unsound Science by the IPCC”, a publication by Dr. Vincent Gray, which proves the main claims by the IPCC are scientifically unsound (the full report is available here). Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview.
Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?
It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.
Q: I have read the comments to IPCC AR4. Your comments to the drafts have persistently been rejected. I imagine this is not the first time. Why do you continue to be Expert Reviewer? What is it that drives you?
It is immensely worthwhile. I consider that I have had a definite influence on them. For example, the first Report had a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. When it appeared in the first draft of the next Report I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated the term was wrong. In the next draft they changed “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times. They do not use the term or even discuss how it might be done.
The models are “evaluated” by seeking the opinions of those who are paid to produce the models. These are not “forecasts” but “projections” and they are no more than complete guesses from people with a conflict of interest, and thus worthless.
I have learned an unrivalled store of information about the climate while doing this and I know the attitude and activities of the IPCC scientists intimately. I am in a position to criticise them from the basis of this close knowledge.
It has been fascinating and immensely worthwhile.
Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming? What are your thoughts on the temperatures levelling off and even slightly falling since 1998? Has the warming trend stopped? Can we even anticipate a cooling?
The “climate” sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder, and sometimes stays the same. I even believe it.
It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing. My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall. 2007 was particularly cold and the IPCC people have even PREDICTED that 2008 will be cold. They are in deep trouble if it goes down much further for much longer. If the past trend continues it should continue to go down.
Q: Why do you believe that CO2 is not a major climate driver?
Because there is no evidence that it is. The models are worthless, as I have said. No model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere.
Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models?
The “weather” cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead. If you call it “climate” the same applies; the system is too complex.
All the models are based on the “Flat Earth” theory of the climate where a quarter of the sunlight falls on all parts of the earth all the time and the temperature is constant. I regard this assumption as completely unrealistic. I might change my mind if they could show convincing predictions, but their “projections” are always so far ahead that they will have enjoyed their generous salaries and pensions before they are found out.
Q: What do you think is needed to turn the media and public opinion against climate alarmism?
A prolonged period of cold weather possibly combined with the economic downturn they have forced on the world.
Q: Some of the readers of my blog persist that there is no evidence that the current climate change is purely natural. Do you think that human activities affect the climate in any significant way?
I am a scientist and I like to be supplied with evidence. There is no question that humans influence the climate. Every city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shelter Belts modify the wind. Agriculture of all kinds has an influence. There is even such a thing as “pollution”. But I know of no evidence that it is, overall, harmful.
Q: In your opinion, what major environmental threats are we facing today?
The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.
Humans, like other organisms have to work to set up surrounding circumstances, which are favourable to our prosperity, health and development. The greatest “threats” today are to the lives and existence of people in many countries, and response to these threats should have priority over the supposed threats to other creatures. Most of these are grossly exaggerated. Did you ever hear of an “Endangered Species” that actually became extinct?
I would like to thank Dr. Gray for answering my questions. It has been an honour.
Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.
18 comments
[...] min intervju med Dr Vincent Gray på min engelska [...]
[...] Gallimaufry wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptNo model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere. Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models? The “weather” cannot be … [...]
[...] The Climate Scam wrote an interesting post today on The climate models are worthless. Interview with Dr. Vincent Gray.Here’s a quick excerptI contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview….Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming?… [...]
Those were some very interesting answers from Dr. Gray. I have a great respect for scientists with lots of integrity, something I feel we see less of these days.
Good questions, too.
Good interview! His description of climate modeling was spot-on.
Several of the obituaries following the recent death of the meteorologist, Edward Lorenz, remind us of his eureka moment. He was reproducing a weather simulation that he had previously run on his computer when he found that this time the results were wildly different from the previous simulation. In the first simulation he had entered figures accurate to six decimal places into his twelve variable model, whereas in the rerun they were only accurate to only three. The margin of error was less than one tenth of one percent yet the results were so different that he relaised that the model would be useless for prediction.
From this observation Chaos theory was born. It is not necessary to understand the mathematics that describes the behavior of these nonlinear dynamical systems to draw lessons from them. One which springs immediately to mind is how little credence can be placed on the predictions of those climate models favoured by the IPCC, some of which include as many as forty variables, if an inaccuracy of less than one in a thousand caused Lorenz’s twelve variable model to fail as a predictor?
A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal with the last article being published 17 years ago.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1215
Anders: Good choice of information source.
No bias whatsoever.
Maggie: Maybe the point is whether the information correct or incorrect? Has he published any scientific research on climate change or not?
Anders: Come on, Dr Gray has been an reviewer on all of the IPCC reports. Also all of the chapters, which I think speaks for itself.
VINCENT GRAY is an old fashioned scientist, originally with a Ph.D degree in Chemistry from Cambridge University, and with a long research career in UK, France, Canada, China and New Zealand, research in petroleum, coal, timber, building materials, paint, adhesives, with many publications. He became interested in climate science some 14 years ago and he has been an “Expert Reviewer” for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change almost from the beginning. He has published many papers on climate science, including detailed critiques on each of the IPCC science reports. The latest is “The Greenhouse Delusion: a Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001′”, which can be purchased from http://www.multi-science.co.uk
“Expert reviewer”? Wow, that title carries a lot of weight, doesn’t it?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
Anders: Actually I have read many of Dr Gray’s comments on the IPCC AR4 (have you?) and I must say, they do make a lot of sense. But then “sense” carries a lot of weight these days, doesn’t it?
Well, sense - whether it’s common or not - is great. However, it’s limited when it comes to evaluating complicated scientific research. You usually need scientific knowledge to do that in a meaningful way.
Anders: If you think that the only way to acquire scientific knowledge is by earning a degree, then you are much mistaken. And vice versa, if you think that a degree is a proof of credibility, you have a long way to go.
Anders: Oh, and by the way, you are dodging the question…
Maggie: Is the question “(have you?)” than the answer is: No, just one.
Anders: And I suppose you haven’t been in contact with Dr Gray either. Why are you then trying to belittle a great man whom you don’t know? Just because other alarmists do? Or do you perhaps have a personal opinion of Dr Gray that you would like to pass on?
I’m just correcting your inaccurate description of him as a “climate scientist”. I also pointed out that he hasn’t published any scientific research in any peer reviewed journals, and that the title “IPCC expert reviewer” essentially has no meaning. Why is that belittling, if scientific credentials are of no inherent value?
Leave a Comment