Thursday, 26 June 2014



by IPCC Expert Reviewer Dr Vincent Gray

JUNE 26th 2014

We all know that the climate is always changing. We rely on the weather forecasters to give us a good idea of what is going to happen for the next week or so, but beyond that the seasons are the best guide.

Yet, suddenly, only a few years ago, Climate Change is something we are supposed to worry about. It is even considered to be a menace.

Take these examples
“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”   Barack Obama 
Climate change is a terrible problem, and it absolutely needs to be solved. It deserves to be a huge priority” Bill Gates
We have to face the reality of climate change. It is arguably the biggest threat we are facing today” William Hague
“Climate Change is the greatest moral economic and social challenge of our time” Kevin Rudd

“Climate change is the major challenge facing the world”: David Attenborough 
 “Ellis Island, Jamestown and other U.S. landmarks' long-term future are at risk because of the consequences of climate change, a new report says”Time   Magazine May 20 2014

How could this be?

The astonishing answer is that the environmentalist movement has succeeded in persuading many people, even political leaders and prominent scientists, that the scientific knowledge of the climate that has accumulated over hundreds of years should be replaced by an environmental religious slogan blaming human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases for everything that happens
This scam was launched at the 1992 United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero. By the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which has been signed by representatives of 43 countries including the European Union.

The FCCC defined Climate Change1 as
“a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” 
They had followed the advice of Humpty Dumpty in ”Alice Through the Looking Glass”
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

Besides being a completely different definition for what was previously just an obvious fact this is a legally binding definition; an acceptance of the scam by the signatories. .

They immediately admit that human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere is only ONE possible change of climate. There is also natural climate variability which is ANOTHER possible change of climate.

But then, they play the trick of suggesting that natural changes in the climate are not changes at all, but merely variable. This falsehood permits them to assume that aby change which is unprecedented, because it cannot be shown to be variable, must be caused by their chosen religious dogma.

This CLIMATE CHANGE which is the alteration of the composition of the global activity by human activity is a religious slogan, and as such it is an article of faith. No evidence or proof is needed; indeed it is better absent as this is  a test of religious zeal.

Proof, is, anyway, unnecessary. All that is needed is for the proposition to  be attributed directly, or even indirectly. It is true even by an attribution by one single lunatic.

But to put a scam like this over on the public there must be attribution, not only by the devotees of the environmentalist faith, whose support is guaranteed, but also by a collection of pundits who could influence politicians. You must have celebrities, film stars sports heroes and scientists., Better still,.set up political parties devoted to the promotion of this scam.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was set up to pay scientists to support the scam. Science jobs were scarce, money was no object. A profitable career was offered with foreign travel, guaranteed publications supported by reliable editors and peer reviewers and even a possible Nobel Prize.

The only condition was that they would all attribute almost everything about the climate to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere to a level satisfactory to the Government Representatives that controlled the IPCC; the signatories of the FCCC., on pain of dismissal and loss of career if they failed to do so. A suitable system of justification for this process was built up using the latest principles of public relations and political and verbal spin.

In order to confuse everybody the IPCC then proposed yet another definition of “Climate Change: for their use.

This reads as follows2

Climate change
Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to Human activity, that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

They do not provide a definition of climate change at all, this time. All we get is something that refers to it.

They point out that the FCCC restricts the term Climate Change to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and regards climate variability as not part of it whereas the IPCC includes climate variability attributable to natural part of climate change. They also emphasize that the only persistent influence on the climate is their precious human activity. Natural effects are, apparently not persistent.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
This excuse for a definition seems to include all influences, almost a reversion to the obvious and previous meaning of climate change, which includes everything.. The only difference is here only the human effects are persistent, the others are ephemeral.

We thus now have three different definitions of the term climate change.

The first is the definition used by the meteorologists who include all influences on the climate, whether natural or not, whether persistent or not. They also regard many  of them as unpredictable. not just variable

The second is the FCCC where climate change is only that part attributable to humans.

The third is the definition referred to by the IPCC which seems to be similar to the first, including all influences on the climate, but only the human effects are persistent.

However the IPCC treats natural effects differently in order to suit the purposes of the scam. For the models the natural effects are considered constant except when they are needed to explain discrepancies from model results. They even try to argues that such natural effects are themselves caused by humans.

For the current temperature pause or hiatus they have tried to blame it on 37 different kinds of natural variability change.3

The three different definitions help to confuse the public who can be persuaded that all the definitions prove that humans are controlling the climate.

On every Report I proposed that the title should be changed to Climate Science, but they are not interested in the climate itself, only in its changes, which must always be attributed to humans.

Their definition of Climate is as follows is as follows2

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.
The Classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization..The Relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, Precipitation and wind. 
Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description of the climate system.

Nowhere in any part of the IPCC Reports are there any actual figures for statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities for any locality, even for the recommended period of  30 years.

Since, every local climate is different, global climate consists of an amalgamation of every local climate. An attempt to provide means and variability globally is an almost impossible task, but the IPCC does not attempt it.

Their claim that they are able to provide a plausible statistical description of the climate system is simply false.

It is particularly impossible to obtain an overall statistical description of radiation to and from the earth, since this is different every instant in every place. Almost the same sun arrives instantaneously above each locality but everything else is constantly changing. The IPCC climate models fail miserably to imitate a real climate.

This strange static picture of a pseudoclimate with a flat earth, constant sunshine  no wind and vertical radiation is even shown in the IPCC diagrams such as the following4


1.    United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

2.    IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 1535 pp.

4.    Solomon, S., D Qin, M. R. Manning,  M.  Marquis, K.  Averyt, M. H Tignor, H. L. Miller, and Z. Chin.  (Eds.). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (IPCC), Cambridge University Press.

Vincent Gray
Wellington 6035
New Zealand

The Phony Consensus

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes andThe Carbon Sense Coalition

27 June 2014

Evidence Trumps the Phony Consensus.

We are lectured monotonously about the “consensus” that carbon dioxide produced by human activities is “highly likely to cause dangerous global warming”. The alarmist computer models are all based on this assumption, with predicted warming multiplied by also assuming strong positive feedbacks.

A consensus of opinion never determines a scientific question – real proof depends on evidence and logic. Consensus is a tool of politics and a guidepost for lemmings.

If this image is missing, download it by clicking the following link:
We and the cartoon creator, Steve Hunter, have full rights to this cartoon,
and grant permission for anyone to reproduce it in any media
 as long as the Steve Hunter signature remains on it.
 For electronic media, the source link should also be displayed
The so-called “Greenhouse Effect” depends entirely on the known property of carbon dioxide gas to intercept radiant heat in certain wavelengths. This process starts operating as soon as the extra gas enters the atmosphere.

If this influence is strong enough to drive “dangerous global warming”, its effect should be noticeable even in the short term, with Earth’s surface temperature increasing in step with increasing carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing for over a century, but global temperatures have fluctuated in broad cycles decades long, and the temperature trend has been flat for the last 17 years.

This evidence suggests that increasing carbon dioxide is not a major driver for dangerous global warming, no matter what the consensus says – even if a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.

We may still get natural global warming, as the vast restless oceans roll over or the solar cycles change, but man-made carbon dioxide is not driving these processes. Moreover, a bit of warming is not our greatest risk – history shows that ice ages extinguish more species and habitats than warm eras.

The consensus of alarmists is trying to lynch an innocent party.

If you would like to see what others have said about this article, or have a say yourself, see:

Viv Forbes, 11/6/14

For those who wish to read more:

No consensus on the Climate Consensus:

Has the Climate Crusade reached its Waterloo?

No Consensus in the Australian Geological Society:

Retrospective Global Warming hits Rosevale
We live at Rosevale, just over the hills from the Amberley air base. We have just been subjected to retrospective global warming by the keepers of the Amberley temperature record - Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology.

Until 2012, our official temperature records showed we had been in a cooling trend since records started in 1941. In 2012, BOM “adjusted” the original records and, lo, now we are suffering a global warming trend.

See the story on:

Ministry of Truth orders Crackdown on Climate Sceptics.

The BBC should give less airtime to climate sceptics
and its editors should seek special clearance to interview them.
Such interviews should be accompanied by health warnings.
Sea Levels are Never Still.

Sea levels have been rising and falling without any help from humans for as long as Earth’s oceans have existed.

The fastest and most alarming sea changes to affect mankind occurred at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age. Seas rose about 130m about 12,000 years ago, at times rising at five metres per century. Sea levels then fell as ice sheet and glaciers grew in the recent Little Ice Age – some Roman ports used during the Roman Warm Era are now far from the sea even though sea levels have recovered somewhat during the Modern Warm Era.

Many natural factors cause sea levels to rise - melting of land-based glaciers and ice sheets; warming and expansion in volume of the oceans; extraction of groundwater which ends up in the oceans; and sediments, sewerage, plant debris and volcanic ash washed into the oceans by rivers, storms and glaciers. In addition, tectonic forces cause some blocks of land to rise while others fall, hence the paradox of sea levels appearing to rise on one coastline while falling on another.

Currently the world’s oceans are rising at somewhere between zero and 3 mm per year, which has not changed much with the great industrialisation since 1945. Amongst all the factors moving the restless sea, man’s production of carbon dioxide is obviously an insignificant player.

Sea levels are always changing, at times very destructively. Waves move sea levels by a few metres and at places like Derby, WA, king tides can move sea levels by eleven metres. Then there are rogue waves up to 30 metres high which have sunk oil tankers, and tsunamis which can smash coastlines with a ten metre wall of water moving at over 800 km per hour.

Despite coping with all of the above, climate alarmists say we should be scared to death by the threat of seas rising gently at maybe a couple of mm PER YEAR. Even a slow-moving sloth could escape water rising at that rate.

King Canute showed his nobles that no man can hold back the rising sea. It’s time the climate alarmists learned Canute’s lesson and focussed on real world problems.

Even if we ceased using all carbon fuels for electricity and transport, no one could measure the effect of that huge sacrifice on global sea levels.

To see comments on this article (or make a comment yourself) see:

For those who wish to read more:

Sea Levels are not Rising:

Rising Seas are Nothing New:

History falsifies climate alarmist sea level claims:

The Ocean Thermometer:

Global Mean Sea Levels:

Tide Gauges show that Average Sea level rise is 0.9m per year:

Rogue Waves – the real sea monsters:

High Tides at Derby, Western Australia:

Viv Forbes,18/6/14

Hollywood seeks Arab Oil Money to Attack US Shale Oil

Whenever climatists cannot answer a logical argument or a scientific fact they attack the messenger as being “in the pay of Big Coal or Big Oil”.

But Hollywood greens have been caught red handed preparing to accept millions of Arab Oil money to attack the big competitor of Arab oil – shale oil (and gas). Listen to them here:

Farewell and a Tribute to Ray Evans.

Ray Evans has been my good friend, ally and adviser in many matters of public concern for about forty years. Ray was always generous with his time and sound in his advice and philosophies. We never had a disagreement in all of those years. Thank you Ray.

Ray was a founder and chief mover of the Lavoisier Society, and one of the first Australians to oppose Al Gore’s Global warming alarmism. His booklet “Nine Facts about Climate Change” is as true now as when he wrote it eight years ago.

Read it here:

The Last Word – Take a Trip to Las Vegas

If you are not already registered to attend the ninth International Climate Change Conference (ICCC-9) starting two weeks from tomorrow in Las Vegas, I suggest you check it out at:

At the conference you will have an opportunity to hear from, and meet, many of the world’s leading climate realists, scientists from around the world who question, not just the causes of climate change, but whether ‘man-made global warming’, if it occurs, will be harmful to plants, animals, or human welfare. You can also learn from top economists and policy experts about the real costs and futility of trying to stop climate change.

Prepared by Viv Forbes and Helpers from:
The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosewood    Qld   Australia

“Carbon Sense” is an independent newsletter produced for the Carbon Sense Coalition, an Australian based organisation which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational use of all energy resources including carbon energy.

Literary, financial or other contributions to help our cause are welcomed.
We get no government grants and unlike many of our opponents, we do not pose as a charity and in fact pay GST and income tax on our operations. We live on subscriptions alone.

For more information visit our web site at
If you would like to keep Carbon Sense operating, send subscriptions to
Carbon Sense Pty Ltd, by post to the address below, or direct deposit to:
Acct No: 553 077 331
BSB: 334-040
Please spread “Carbon Sense” around.
Authorised by: Viv Forbes, Chairman, MS 23, Rosewood   Qld   4340   A