Monday, 26 March 2012


By Vincent Gray
Sinking in a sea of debt.

MARCH  25th 2012


"Those whom the Gods would destroy, they first  make mad". This ancient saying is attributed, wrongly, to Euripides.

Western Nations are sinking in a sea of debt, yet they are obsessed with the belief that our civilisation is being destroyed by our own actions, and the chief culprit is our need for energy. By  preventing the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power we are hastening our own departure.

I have been involved with trying to understand this mad delusion for over twenty years. At first I was trapped by the authority of those publicizing the "Global Warming" theory and it was only by slow degrees that  I became convinced that one aspect of its claims after another was without scientific foundation until I reached my current assessment that everything about it is wrong, It violates every possible principal of physics, mathematics and elementary logic..

 I was never a professional meteorologist.. I did, however, run a weather station on the roof of my school in Hammersmith, London, between the years of 1937 and 1939. I accepted, at the time, that the science of Meteorology, which represented the collected wisdom of over 200 years, was the only reliable scientific study of the climate. This scientific study has improved since then, and we get the latest knowledge of the entire world climate on our weather report every day..

Why has it been abandoned by so many people?  An alternative theory based on a postulate that changes in the climate are exclusively caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases has penetrated the entire academic science community world wide.  Some of its supporters have, through it,  found scientific employment where it did not exist elsewhere, Some have been attracted by the money, travel experiences and promotion, even a Nobel Prize. These reasons are easy to understand. What is difficult to understand is how so many can believe that their activity is beneficial to :the "Planet" and even to human progress. It is a belief that is similar to a religion, yet many religions, at least in their early stages, play a part in improving human welfare. This belief is hastening the road to disaster.

When I first developed an opposition to the aberrant pseudo-religioin I was almost a lone voice, both within my community and in the world outside. Now there are groups of people who have realised the absurdity of the "global warming" theory and the public is waking up to its harmful economic consequences. We may be termed "Sceptics": but the "warmers" call us "deniers", an example of the deliberately confusing use of words, with which they specialize. None of us deny that the climate is changing. Indeed it is the "warmers" who insist that without the evil influence of humans  the climate is static and unchanging. Once the evil human influences are removed by a form of World Government, the climate will go back to a version of paradise.

I am currently being bombarded by a collective Email with fifty listed names, which include several of the most prominent sceptics. The purport of its organizers is to argue that there should be some sort of consensus of climate sceptics to present a more effective opposition to the "warmers" who do, indeed, somehow present a united "census" opinion .

There are some propositions which are accepted by all scientists. The claim that the earth is flat is actually one of the assumptions of the IPCC theory. Opponents of Newton's Laws of Motion are few. Those of us who have studied Thermodynamics accept its basic deductions.

The problem with the organizers of this Email attempt at a "consensus, is that they misapply the  basic principles of Thermodynamics and, by doing so, claim that the "greenhouse" theory is wrong. The "greenhouse" theory is wrong for a whole number of reasons, but these people seem to be little concerned with these reasons, so they have invented yet another wrong reason which is incompatible with the basic principles of Thermodynamics and they are trying to persuade all of us to accept it.

Their contention is that since the greenhouse theory postulates that radiation from the atmosphere contributes to the warming of the earth, this violates the Second Law of Thermodymanics which forbids transfer of heat from a cooler object to a warmer object.. They are, perhaps, confused by the fact that the IPCC model is supposed to be "balanced". There is no claim by the IPCC  that this is the same as thermodynamic equilibrium or that thermodynamics laws should apply to a system which is persistently being constrained out of equilibrium.

The IPCC theory depends entirely for all its energy exchanges on a continouous supply of external energy from the sun.. If the sun were removed, the system would, at equilibrium, revert to absolute zero, and all the radiation would disappear. The climate system is exactly comparable to any externally energized system such as a refrigerator, a heat pump, a heated building and a human body which are all systems whose internal  energy exchanges would disappear if the external source is removed.

The "Slayers" as we may call them, are forever taking a small section of the system and showing that it does not work. It is like taking a human heart, on its own, and showing that it does not beat; therefore humans do not exist.

Scientific "consensus" is an anathema that no genuine scientist could ever accept. We "sceptics" unlike the "warmists" will continue to disagree. I have enough trouble persuading people that almost everything about the models is wrong, but the presence of "back radiation" is certainly not one of them..

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


  1. Oh Geoff, please don't tell me you believe this stuff? I have made a critique of this piece that you may find interesting. I have also set a little task or two for you. It is here.

  2. From the above blog - I’m a research scientist working in an ecology based discipline. I am passionate about people having access to quality scientific information and would like to see a greater understanding of what “science” is and how the scientific process works. I am also an atheist and dislike the infiltration of superstition into our classrooms and politics.

    This is my first attempt at a blog.

    Well, with tripe like this item, it can only get better. But let's look at the post.

    This anonymous ??scientist?? hiding in anonymity, attacks a chemist who is not afraid to use his own name.

    Looking at his/her post, what do we find?

    First incorrect statement.

    He then, like all of the alarmists attacks the man not the message.....

    "Mr Brown recently posted in his blog" - sorry, it is not my blog but is (as is stated above)The Official blog of Australia's NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party (NCTCS)

    Second incorrect statement.

    "To me it’s a bit like a bloke who drives a Holden ute with truck mudflaps, truck spotlights, a buffalo horns sticker on the back glass, wearing a flannelette shirt over an ACDC T-shirt, smoking Winnie Blues, drinking VB and doing donuts in the street saying he isn’t a bogan because he doesn’t have a pair of fluffy dice."

    Looks like the writing of a fool known in other areas as the Cooloola fool. I drive a small car that has been measured as having very low emissions of CO2, don't wear flannelette shirts nor ACDC Ts, don't smoke, don't drink VB, don't do donuts. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

    Then he attacks an 80yo scientists - Vincent Gray.

    Not a good start and I have better things to do with my time than read any further.

  3. Oh dear.

    I do value a bit of anonymity and I have very good reasons, legal reasons of a personal nature, none of which is related to my posting blogs and is quite frankly none of your business. I realise that to attack my anonymity is an easy cheap shot and there's nothing I can do about that and expect it but if cheap shots is all you have....

    Now, you did post it whether or not it's your blog is irrelevent to the point I am making. You posted it without critique so I can only assume you endorse everything in it. Once again you avoid the main point. Do you endorse everything in it? It is a straight forward question.

    Now, I suggest you undertake a bit of year 3 or 4 grammar and learn what a simile is. When I say "it's like a bloke...." either you really don't know a simile or an example when you see one or you are being deliberately stupid.

    And I am attacking an 80 year old scientist because he is incorrect. His age has nothing to do with it. If he was 30, 40 50 I would still criticise him because what he is claiming is wrong. Trying to paint me as some sort of ageist is really very weak but then I guess when you lack the ability to understand any of the science all you have are the weak angles.

    Finally, your 'better things to do with my time' statement is a cop out. Surely defending your position is of the utmost importance or do you not care that you come across as a know-nothing blowhard that cuts and pastes information he doesn't undertand?

  4. I even post your comments that I don't understand, Mike.

    1. Looks like my non-answer has scared off the new blogger whose blog is


      Oh dear Mike! Killed with a non-reply?


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