Monday, 25 November 2013



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

NOVEMBER 25th  2013


Until the middle of the 19th century everybody believed that the earth was static and unchanging, interrupted by earthquakes, hurricanes and other disasters, caused, usually by Gods, but after which the earth returned to its original static state.

It was the developments of the science of geology by Hutton and Lyall that changed this picture. They showed that the earth is in a constant state of change. Many of the rocks are formed from deposits made in previous history. In addition they contain remains of organisms that had lived at the time they had been deposited,

Charles Darwin, who joined captain Robert Fitzroy in a voyage around the world in HMS Beagle in 1831, was an enthusiastic naturalist who had also studied the new geology. He took the first volume of Lyall’s “Principles of Geology” with him on the voyage and picked up the second volume at Valparaiso during the trip.

It became obvious to him that the remains of early living organisms in geological strata were often very different from those alive today, so there must be an evolutionary change over time.

The concept of “Climate Change” promoted by The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) denies the existence of evolution. They believe in the old Medieval concept of an unchanging static world, affected only by “Natural Variability”which can only be “changed" by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Evolution of living organisms means their ever changing interaction in every place at every level, This process was called “Ecology” by Ernst Haeckel.

Environmental “Ecologists” treat the whole world as a collection of static “ecosystems;” regions where the organisms are uniformly distributed. They believe that there is a moral virtue in their largest possible variety; in “biodiversity.” Both these concepts are unknown to evolutionary theory.

Evolution is also diametrically opposed to the concept of “sustainability”. Evolution happens, it cannot be stopped  or reversed. The only sensible policy is adaptation.

Darwin tried to find a cause for the changes in living organisms over time. He had noticed that  the offspring of  many organisms were often not identical with one another and also too numerous for all of them to survive. The next generation would consist of those who were more successful in coping with their current, changed circumstances; the “survival of the fittest”. Each generation would be different from the last one and over sufficient time would explain the observed changes.

Darwin was unable to explain how it worked. Now we know that the mechanism is controlled by genetic changes in the DNA of each organism.

The evidence that organisms evolve and that the mechanism is selection of favourable genes is overwhelming and most professional biologists purport to agree that this is so and routinely honour the memory and work of Charles Darwin. But very few are prepared to accept the full implications of these two theories.

Darwin himself was unwilling to accept some of them and his mistakes have been subsequently copied by many others.

Since the evolution of humans has occurred in the same way as all organisms humans cannot claim special privileges. There is thus no scientific basis for the existence of a superior being providing privileges to humans alone, not available to the others. There is no scientific basis for any religious belief.

Darwin had a degree in theology and had prepared for service as a country parson. His wife was an enthusiastic Christian who worried that her husband was losing his faith.

Darwin struggled all his life with this dilemma and it was only in his last work, his autobiography, that he tackled it head on and confessed that he was “agnostic”, which means that he was not sure, despite the certainty of his theories.

His confession so horrified his family that they censored his autobiography. His true opinions were only made known when the uncensored book was published by his granddaughter Nora Barlow as late as 1958.

A belief in some form of religion is part of the emotional apparatus which binds humans to their particular society. Even many scientists try to make the excuse that religion can be an explanation for that part of their knowledge of which they are ignorant. Thus preventing further research.

Darwin’s second mistake was to assume that humans were in some ways different from all other organisms. He expressed this difference by the very mechanism of evolution, of SELECTION. 

The process of selection from a set of offspring contending for survival can cover the spectrum of complete accident (such as the luck to survive a disaster) to deliberate measures to obtain an advantage. There is no need for a distinction between different organisms. Yet Darwin chose to make a distinction between NATURAL SELECTION and ARTIFICIAL Selection. Implying that Darwinian selection carried out by humans is different or superior to selection that occurs with non humans.

The Environmental Movement goes way beyond this departure from evolutionary science by claiming that humans are not only superior to other creatures but are also responsible for them.

Darwin went to a great deal of trouble to explain that the hierarchical classification system which is used to classify organisms, is arbitrary, based on personal opinions of taxonomists.

In his most influential book “The Origin of Species” he showed that the particular classification level “species” is not the sacred unchanging category believed by the originator of the term Carl Linnaeus but it depends entirely on what characteristics are chosen to distinguish one species from another. The choice may be different for different groups of organism in different periods and places and it can even depend on similarities  of DNA instead of physical characteristics.

Environmentalists regard every organism that at one time or another has been given a species name by a taxonomist as sacred. It must never be permitted to evolve or become extinct, but must often be considered as “endangered”, preserved forever, or “conserved”.

The IPCC Climate Models and the Environmental Delusions that inspired it not only contravene basic principles of physics and mathematics, They are also at odds with the basic principles of biological science.

Vincent Gray
New Zealand

Typhoons & Carbon Taxes; Tragic, but not our fault.

Typhoons & Carbon Taxes

(Tragic, but not our fault.)

by Viv Forbes & Helpers
The Carbon Sense Coalition
25 November 2013

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense"
. Please pass on.
A print friendly pdf of this newsletter can be found at:

Typhoons and Carbon Taxes

The Carbon Sense Coalition today accused the UN Warsaw climate conference and some world media of callous exploitation of human suffering in the recent typhoon in order to promote their international carbon tax levelling plans.

The Chairman of Carbon Sense, Mr Viv Forbes, said that the leaders of the global warming scare campaign who are blaming the use of carbon fuels for Typhoon Haiyan should read their own IPCC scientific report which makes no such claim.

Damaging typhoons have been a fact of life in the Eastern Pacific for all of recorded history. In 1274, Japan was saved from invasion by Kublai Khan when a typhoon destroyed a huge Mongol invasion fleet. A second bigger fleet in 1281 was destroyed by another typhoon which was named Kamikaze or “divine wind” by the grateful Japanese. Typhoons were also frequent and severe during the Little Ice Age around 1670.

Living on the flood plains and beaches around the huge Pacific Ocean is pleasant and productive for billions of humans for most of the time – generally the climate is mild, the rains are regular, the soils are fertile and food is abundant from land and sea. But every sea-side settlement must expect to suffer huge damage or destruction some time from a rogue cyclone, typhoon, hurricane or tsunami. Moreover, as a “Ring of Fire” also circles the Pacific, they can also expect the occasional severe earthquake or volcanic eruption.

To promote the belief that carbon taxes and related handouts will change the natural reality of cyclones and typhoons is no better than modern witchcraft in which western consumers are to be sacrificed on the climate scare altar.

The UN/IPCC frequent flyers attending the Warsaw gabfest should have stayed home and donated their time, energy, air fares, hotel bills, croissants and expense accounts to helping the real victims.

Nowhere in the world are cyclones, hurricanes, typhoons or tornadoes powered by the tiny trace of well-dispersed, invisible carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Anyone who studies storms can observe that the energy of tropical storms comes from localised heat and moisture. Thunderheads are not composed of carbon dioxide – they are composed of water in its various forms. Water is unique in the atmosphere in that it can change phase from a gas, to a liquid, or a solid all within the temperature ranges found on Earth’s surface. Every phase change generates or absorbs considerable energy. It is these latent energies of evaporation and condensation that sustain storms. All such processes are driven by the energy of the sun.

Storms form in areas of sun-heated low pressure where there is a plentiful supply of warm moist air over the sea and masses of cooler high-pressure air over the nearby land. A mega-storm grows as air rushes from areas of high pressure to areas of low pressure. It starts spinning because of the rotation of the earth. This low-pressure vortex is then maintained by the release of latent heat as moisture in the rising air condenses into rain and hail.

Mega-storms are common in warm tropical waters which supply solar heat and abundant moisture. They tend to die over land, often bringing welcome rain.

Carbon dioxide plays no part in any of these storm processes. Even if it were to cause some global warming, it would tend to warm the poles, reducing the temperature contrasts that power major storms. However, average land and sea temperature has not risen for 16 years; nor has the frequency or intensity of destructive storms.

Clearly, typhoons and cyclones have not been stopped by Australia’s carbon tax. They are tragic, but not our fault. Arguing that a carbon tax and global wealth redistribution are required to prevent typhoons and cyclones is just nonsense. Using this mad logic, it would make more sense to have a “hydrogen tax” on emissions of steam and water vapour (H2O) in an equally futile attempt to remove the real driving energy from tropical mega-storms.

For those who would like to read more:

Intense Typhoons On The Decline:

Cyclone landfalls in Philippines at low level:

Big storms compared: Typhoon Haiyan v The Rest:

Kamikaze saves Japan:

Haiyan is 58th Super Typhoon since 1950 to reach central pressure of 900 mb or lower:

Global Warming not to blame for Typhoon Haiyan:

No significant trends in cyclone frequency or intensity. Increasing damage is due to increasing population and development:

UN Warsaw conference rejects even IPCC science and resorts to stunts, scares and lies:

Tragic, but not our fault:

The Climate See-saw.

Anyone who looks carefully at radiation science and the thermodynamics of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will come to the conclusion that carbon dioxide alone cannot cause a global warming crisis. Even sensible warmists know this. There is a warming effect, but it is tiny and getting smaller as carbon dioxide increases.

So warmists invoke “positive feedbacks” or multipliers, which they say will tip earth into runaway global warming.

Their theory is that an initial small warming will increase evaporation of water from the oceans and methane from the tundra. These two “greenhouse gases” will then cause more atmospheric warming, progressively expelling more carbon dioxide from the warming oceans. “Oceans will boil” claimed warmist leader James Hansen. They also claim that after a postulated “tipping point”, Earth will never recover its balmy equilibrium.

However, they ignore substantial negative feedbacks that act to moderate any tendency to excessive global warming. For example, evaporation cools water bodies and carries surface heat into the upper atmosphere where it dissipates to space. Extra evaporation also produces more clouds that reflect heat and cool the surface. Also methane oxidises and extra plant growth absorbs more solar energy, water vapour and carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Moreover, the long history of the Earth reveals periods when temperatures and carbon dioxide levels were far higher than today but life flourished and Earth always returned to cooler times – sometimes an ice age. Earth’s climate oscillates like a see-saw, with periodic changes in cycles in the sun and the solar system keeping the see-saw slowly oscillating.

There is no evidence supporting the theory of a global warming tipping point.

Today we live in a comfortably warm climate cycle but in the grand climate cycles, the barren hungry ice is always waiting its turn. Global cooling is a far greater danger to life on Earth than global warming.

Every human alive today is descended from a long line of smart and adaptable ancestors. Those who stay smart and adaptable will survive future see-saws of the climate.

For those who would like to read more:

James Hansen claims oceans will boil:

Here’s some alarming forecasts, bravely also specifying dates:

But a well-known Australian global warmist rejects the tipping point scares:

Climate Forcings and Feedbacks. It is a well buffered and balanced system:

Quiet sun, and increasing ice:

Even the BBC feels the chill:

Finally, modern man (and woman) practicing how to cope with the ice:

Coal Consumption and Global Warming:

Global temperature (red & olive) compared to global coal consumption (black).


Don’t forget this petition. Please sign and help it along:

The Consensus Fractures, and it’s now all about Money and Power

The Global Warming Scare started when some rich western elites in their deep green bunkers saw it as a way of curbing what they saw as the wasteful and unsustainable life-style of western consumer society (that is, those other people). If they managed this “crisis” properly, they could make great strides in their long-held goals of controlling national and local governments, destroying private property and introducing an unelected elite with access to a world system of taxation and redistribution.

But, voters, consumers and scientists are destroying this green dream:
  • The 97% science consensus is busted. A survey of American Meteorological Society members found that “48% either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause”.
  • A recent Australian election was won decisively by Tony Abbott on the clear promise to repeal the carbon tax.
  • Japan decided their emission targets were unsustainable and unilaterally increased them. Japan has also decided they would not sign any new Kyoto targets.
  • Canada upset the Warsaw climate claimants by refusing to support a massive climate compensation fund. Canada also withdrew from further Kyoto liabilities.
  • The US admitted there was no chance that their Senate would agree to fund “compensation” for past emissions.
  • UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, who once boasted that he led the greenest ever government, made a huge U-turn by ordering aides to “get rid of all the green crap” which is pushing up energy costs for consumers.
  • Carbon trading, once seen as a burgeoning industry, is evaporating in Europe with at least 10 banks in London alone scaling back or closing their trading desks.
  • Germany, the heart of green Europe, has signalled it will slash the green energy subsidies and is proceeding to open 10 new coal fired power stations.
  • Russia, having milked the gullible west for carbon credits for closing the obsolete Soviet era industrial infrastructure, is no longer interested in emissions targets.
  • Poland sacked its minister in charge of the Warsaw climate gabfest, and intends to push ahead as quickly as possible on developing shale gas resources.
  • China led a block of 132 nations in a walkout from the Warsaw conference over "loss and damage” an ambit claim that developed nations should be legally liable for compensation when natural disasters strike developing poor nations. No one cared much.
  • Even the BBC was moved to comment that the sun’s behaviour may presage another cooling era.
  • Finally, Al Gore has sold most of his green investments because they were all losing money.
The climate scare is no longer about the realities of the climate, but about money – continuing subsidies for green energy, more funds for climate research and conferences, international compensation for natural disasters, the soaring costs of electricity, and the collapse of carbon trading.

The community savings being spent or demanded by governments on the climate industry is staggering –
  • EU plans to spend €180 billion domestically plus €15 billion in overseas climate aid in the next 6 years.
  • USA has spent $6 billion overseas on “climate finance” over the last 2 years and more is committed.
  • USA has spent $107 billion domestically on climate change since 2003 and spending is now running at about $9 billion per year.
  • Africa is claiming $15 billion by 2020 to adapt infrastructure to cope with global warming.
  • “Poor” countries like China, India, Brazil and South Africa are heading a claimant coalition of 190 nations demanding climate-aid guilt money of $100 billion per year.
  • The Australian federal government has no idea how much is being spent in dozens of un-coordinated federal, state and local government climate programs, overseas climate aid and spending on overseas carbon credits but a figure of $20 billion has been mentioned.
  • And all over the western world, consumers are being impoverished by soaring electricity charges, as green energy costs get passed on.

All we have to show for this spending are massive computers producing worthless forecasts, thousands of wind and solar plants producing trickle-power intermittently, millions of green jobs producing propaganda, many overseas trips for the climate bureaucracy and not much else.

Imagine if this deluge of money had been spent on flood-proof railways, roads and bridges, cyclone-proof power supplies, drought-proof water supplies, fire-fighting equipment, community shelters for fires, floods and cyclones, emergency helicopters and helipads and so on.

Instead, this money has been frittered away so that all western governments are in now financial distress, and soon will be unable to help even their own people.

At the same time, the same people behind the climate scare are manning Shut-the-gate movements all over the western world. Their prime target has been exploration for oil, coal, shale gas, coal seam gas and uranium, but they have also denied access to vast tracts on land and sea for exploration, mining, farming, forestry, fishing, water supply, railways, ports and pipelines.

Not since the days of the Aztecs has a priesthood inflicted such lethal sacrifice on its own people. They have vastly increased the costs to be borne by taxpayers and consumers, while at the same time crippling those industries that are the primary generators of real wealth.

Maybe some future historian will write a massive tome titled “The Decline and Fall of Western Civilisation – how a green-robed priesthood sapped a vibrant society of its desire and ability to feed and defend itself”.

Viv Forbes
November 2013