Wednesday, 28 August 2013


by IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray 
AUGUST  28th 2013


Living organisms are dependent on a whole series of chemical reactions whose rate is dependent on temperature. To maintain life, the whole organism must be surrounded by an environment which keeps the temperature of the organism within the limits necessary for its continuity. The environment must also make possible the provision of the necessary inputs  such as food and  shelter and the disposal of outputs.

The environment required to support life can be divided in a series of levels, reminiscent of the “Circles” of Dante’s “Inferno”. Humans have developed a whole series of these levels to make it possible to survive  the very varied external conditions which it is able to endure.

  • THE FIRST LEVEL may be termed the INTIMATE. It consists of mainly insulated layers of CLOTHING  whose details are adjustable to  circumstances.
  • THE SECOND LEVEL may be termed DOMESTIC. It consists of sheltered regions which reduce the effects of the outside climate and make possible essential functions of human life, such as food preparation and consumption, sleep. reproduction and leisure. Often  heating or cooling may be supplied.
  • THE THIRD LEVEL is PUBLIC. This enables public activity, work, administration and production of goods. It might include means of transport including cars and ships
  • THE FOURTH LEVEL is MUNICIPAL  and is concerned with buildings, cities, roads, water, electricity, gas supply, sewage disposal, clean air.
  • THE FIFTH LEVEL is PRODUCTIVE. This includes all the places providing food, raising animals, growing plants and timber for building, mining of minerals, fishing regions.
  • THE SIXTH LEVEL comprises those regions which are currently not needed for the other five, where there are no permanent residences, food building materials or mineral supply.

The first five levels of the environment are essential for the maintenance of human settlement. The sixth is only required for recreation and exploration . Yet it is the only level that is promoted by “Environmentalists” They are hardly interested at all in the first five levels which are the only really important ones for human progress.

“Protection”  of this sixth level is heavily dependent on the effectiveness and efficiency of the first five: on the expenditure which is left after its essential maintenance.

Environmentalists”  display extreme concern for the non human organisms of the sixth level, but this interest is grossly uneven. Large easily visible organisms are regarded as important whereas small invisible organisms are neglected. This lack of balance prevents effective “protection” of any of them
The “protection” which is demanded of the sixth level often has the effect of harming it. The use of good agricultural land to accommodate windmills, biofuels, or solar panels,  means that in order to produce enough food it is necessary to drain wetlands, clear reserves or demolish native forests. Imposition of expensive energy costs from “renewables” means that budgets for sixth-level environmental protection has to be reduced.

All levels of the environment undergo continuous change from climate and from  technology. The concept of an “ecosystem” as static, unchanging and “pristine” is false. So is the idea that there could be such a condition as “”sustainability”.

“Resources” are thought to be “depleted” yet the character and nature of the substances we need to survive change unexpectedly all the time.  Coal, oil and nuclear energy did not exist as “resources” until the possibility that they could be useful came into existence. A new technology such as “fracking” has suddenly changed  “resources” of oil and the mining of ocean clathrates might change it all again.
The whole environmentalist movement has been conned into believing that emissions of carbon dioxide harm the climate. There is no evidence for this claim, which is merely asserted by self-styled “experts. The fact that global temperatures have not changed for 17 years despite a continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide proves that the two are not related.

All levels of the human environment need  constant attention ,improvement and protection. It is a gross distortion to concentrate exclusively on the sixth level, the least important,  at the expense of all the others.


Vincent Gray

NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics party speaks to

Bill Koutalianos, President of the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics  and NSW No 1 Senate candidate speaks to first time on the Virgin Voters Website explaining why the should consider vote No 1 in the senate for the NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics.

Coalition still believe the Climate Change Hoax

Well meaning but misguided.
Liberals believe in the AGW hoax.
Tony Abbott might have said once that climate change is crap however, a month after making that statement,  he said that his statement was a bit of hyperbole, that it is not his considered position.  

"I think that climate change is real and I think that man does make a contribution” (back-up mp3)

If Mr Abbott really believed that "climate change is crap," would he appoint a  AGW hoax true believer as his climate change minister? 

Greg Hunt, the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water is a believer in the falsified man-made climate change hypothesis. Greg is most likely to be the Minister for Climate Change if an Abbott government is elected on September 8th.

He has continuously bowed to the AGW hoax over the years.  Some examples....

Lateline Interview Oct 19, 2009 (link)

GREG HUNT Yes. There's a big difference between inaction, which is unacceptable, and bad action. . …….we offer 150 million tonnes of savings per annum of CO2. So the real thing, greenhouse emissions, through agricultural offsets. I hope that both sides can join us in supporting saving 150 million tonnes per annum through including farm offsets.

Yes. There's a big difference between inaction, which is unacceptable, and bad action.

Inaction AND bad action are BOTH unacceptable; both waste money on a falsified CAGW hypothesis.
Lateline interview Feb 18 2010: (link)

TONY JONES Professor Garnaut told us last night that your direct action policy on climate change is delusional. It reminds him of central planning that took place in the old Soviet Union, your response to those comments. 

GREG HUNT Well, I understand he also focussed on the Government's $40 million free gifts to the biggest polluters, and called that an abomination. He took a swipe at both sides.  (my emphasis)

Note that Greg Hunt refers to emissions of vital-to-life carbon dioxide as pollution. 
In the interview Hunt continued:
What we propose, what Tony Abbott proposes, what I believe in, is this a idea of direct action, reduce emissions, clean up our farms, work on our power stations, clean up the coalmine gas, rather than cycle the money through the big polluters and leave 4.2 million Australian families worse off.

In April this year Andrew Bolt asks Greg Hunt the question: (link)
Well talking about figures, I’m still wondering what it’s all for. Professor Roger Jones, right, he’s an Australian and he’s a warmist, he reckons the cut in emissions that you and Labor both plan work out best at a cut in temperature of four thousandth of one degree by 2100, four thousandth of one degree, he is right isn’t he?
Greg Hunt gave several evasive non-answers and so Andrew tried for a fourth time noting that Hunt’s plan was 
“three billion over four years, you must have thought what am I getting as a consequence of that about four thousandth of one degree?”
Another non answer.

Can you explain to me why, and I always ask the question of you whenever I see you as you know…

You do.

And I always try to ask that of the Government when they don’t come into the studio anyway. But why is that I don’t get an answer anyway on that? I mean it’s quite a, scientists have got the figure, and they put it out there, this is the difference you will make and you guys never tell us, yes or no.

The answer is we will make a difference of 155 million tonnes…

No in temperature.

Acting alone the difference is minimal but…

Everyone watching us now has just seen me asking you the question a couple of times and everyone watching this now has seen you dodge it and they will say he’s not answering it.

That’s what really strikes me, why do politicians never answer the very basic question. For all this pain what is the gain in temperature?

And the cost of the oppositions' "climate change" policies? Well, according to Malcolm Turnbull, it would cost $18 million: (link)
MALCOLM Turnbull says Tony Abbott's direct action plan could cost taxpayers $18 billion a year by 2050, declaring it's only "fair dinkum" to admit the scheme will be funded by the budget.  

Costing the opposition's policy at a carbon price of $15 a tonne, a figure supplied by Coalition environment spokesman Greg Hunt, Mr Turnbull said the plan would cost $2.1 billion a year to achieve a 5 per cent cut in emissions by 2020.
Cutting emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, as urged by scientists, would be a “formidable” objective, he said.

“If that were to be achieved by the government buying offsets or otherwise directly paying for abatement the cost would be enormous - at $15 a tonne it would amount to an $18 billion annual cost to the budget,” Mr Turnbull said.
Keep BOTH the bastards honest.  

Vote against this Green Insanity.

In the Senate Vote 1 for the 

NO CARBON TAX Climate Sceptics.