Friday, 23 March 2012


The Beehive (left) and Parliament House (right)
Image: Wikipedia
 By Dr Vincent Gray
MARCH  23rd 2012

I cannot do anything but rejoice at the departure of Nick Smith from the Cabinet because of a "Conflict of Interest:" He is the most fanatical supporter of the theory that "global warming" is caused by emissions of carbon dioxide. I might just repeat  once again, my experience last year.

Rodney Hyde asked a question in Parliament regarding the evidence for the "global warming" theory. Nick Smith replied that he would lay on a briefing for him and the other MPs to explain this. Rodney asked whether he could bring along an expert with him. Nick Smith immediately agreed.,

As I am a member of the Climate Science Coalition in Wellington. I found myself appointed as this expert. I went along to the ACT Party office a bit before  the appointed time to discuss things with Rodney Hyde. I was introduced to Sir Roger Douglas and then we went to Nick Smith's office in Parliament and went and sat down. I was welcomed by everybody present.

Then, in walked Nick Smith. He went red all over when he saw me and shouted "You don't belong here. This is for MPs only. GET OUT". So I got out. Rodney Hyde said nothing.

So now he has gone from the Environment post. Good riddance.

But "Conflict of Interest"? Is this a good reason for a dismissal?  Nobody seems to realise that the most elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest that has been inflicted on the public is the "Global Warning" Theory.

I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate.

How have they got away with it?

Attempts to "simulate" their unreliable and manipulated past climate "data" have been failures, yet are claimed as successes, But even if the "data" were genuine and the simulation successful it does not prove anything. Correlation, however convincing is not evidence of causation. The only way you can demonstrate the success of any theory is successful prediction  of future climate over the whole range it is intended to be used, to a satisfactory level of accuracy. This has already been done with Newton's Laws of motion and Darwin's theories of evolution. It has not been done with the "global warming" theory. There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event. They do not even pretend they can do it, as they only provide "projections" from their models, not "predictions": .

How have they persuaded us that they are able to predict future climate?

They operate a system called "attribution". This is a combination of "simulation" (correlation), and "assessment" by "experts".  The "experts" are all paid to provide the models that they are assessing. These assessments are therefore an elaborate and comprehensive  conflict of interest.

They apply a whole series of "likelihoods" to each "assessment" and apply a fake "statistical significance" which, unlike those normally applied to genuine science, have no background of actual experimental observations.

I attach the official list of instructions on how to perpetrate this elaborate fraud on the international community, from the Fourth IPCC Report.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035

"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact"   Charles Darwin

Attachment: AR4 Uncertainy Guidance Notes (pdf)


  1. Peter O'Loughlin24 March 2012 at 00:03

    Is it not past the time when our'friends' in the EU who so enthusiastically preach the gospel of climate change to justify yet more 'contributions' and their ardent supporters and beneficiaries, here in the UK were vigorously challenged over the confidence trick they have been perpetuating on us?

  2. "There has been no successful attempt to predict any future climate event" - how about Hansen's prediction of the effect of Pinatubo on global temperatures in 1991 which used computer models and was pretty much spot on in the global temperature decline the following year?

    1. How is global warming able to be blamed on human activity when the Mt Pinatubo eruption released more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in 4 days than the human race has produced in the past 300 years? Perhaps the Earth has an immune system like all the creatures on her. Earth has a particularly nasty case of humans and her immune system is doing what all animals do when infected, the core temperature rises to make life more difficult for the offending organism.

  3. Given that you worked for the NZ Coal Research Association Id say you pretty clearly have the conflict of interest sir.

    We don't live in the USA, take your lobbying efforts elsewhere.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. GIVEN that Tim Flannery, Will Steffen work for the Australian government, they clearly have a conflict of interest with a government who is going to tax citizens on a litany of lies.

    They lied their way into office by saying there will be no carbon tax; they lied saying that they will tax carbon when they are going to tax clean colourless vital-to-life carbon dioxide.

    The same goes for the government servants in USA and UK who have lied and cheated with results.

    SO if you want to believe a litany of lies from government servants who are constantly asking for more research fund when they tell another lie: "The science is settled."

    If it is settled, close down your researches.

    Lobbying efforts? Why. Dr Gray is only pointing out the truth.

    Believe thieves? I'd prefer to believe an honest scientist like the retired scientist Dr Vincent Gray. Gray has called for the IPCC to be abolished, claiming it is “fundamentally corrupt” due to his conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound and that the IPCC resists all efforts to try to discuss or rectify these problems.

  6. Andrew Bolt describes the laboratory funding budget:

    Top Australian physicist Prof Brian O'Brien last year warned of the pressure on scientists to conform to the warming faith, telling of a colleague who'd confessed: "Brian, I completely support what you're saying, but I have 65 researchers in my laboratory and the only funding I can get for them and to get their PhDs is greenhouse funding from Canberra or wherever."


  7. We need to proceed with true science.
    Look at Lysenkoism in USSR, which lead to famine & murder.
    & Eugenics, which gave an intellectual basis to the holocaust
    in Nazi Germany. Even if this hoax(?) has the best of motives it will not succeed. It is slowly unravelling. If the intention was to avoid population & industrial tragedy, it will prove counter productive if (when?) proven false.
    If figures are shown to have been fraudulently presented,
    prosecutions should follow.


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!