Tuesday, 27 November 2012

The Real Climate


by Dr Vincent Gray



In several recent newsletters I have attacked the plausibility of the basic climate model promoted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC.)

Its assumptions include the following:
  • The Earth is flat;
  • The sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity;
  • Energy interchange in the climate is almost entirely by radiation;
  • Energy flow parameters are constants with no variability;
  • Energy flow is "balanced" with input equal to output;
  • Change in this system is entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in the atmosphere.

These assumptions are completely at odds with meteorological science.......

Read more HERE


  1. Just posting this in another place, too. Well, it's my point of view so do feel welcome to agree. or disagree! :-)

    As the mercury creeps towards 40 here (don't laugh, Sydney, your turn tomorrow :-) I have been listening / watching the last Question Time session in the House for the year. I thought Great when the PM immediately challenged Tony A to a 15 min each way debate on her malfeasance. I thought he got off to a low key approach (I wouldn't have, but thought, maybe a good tactic), and built strongly on that, leaving no viewer in doubt that he was saying JG was (or had been) a crook.

    So, she rolled over, lost it and blubbered, right? Come on! - we have all been watching her long enough now to know that whatever else she may be, she is one tough cookie / ditch fighter.

    So in the end, who won? For me, TA (supported as usual by Bishop and Pyne - the latter with points of order), but Gillard did enough to ensure that the water remains muddied. Why didn't TA call her a crook outright, as she kept baiting him? Maybe you know, and can enlighten me, even if it would just have got him suspended.

    And now, here's the link to The Climate Debate. Just as it's sooo easy for people to accuse the PM of really damaging stuff, and shout about it, yet she doesn't roll over as demanded, it's the same with the Anthropogenic CO2 Climate Change prosletysers. And some of us, their opponents, make it easier for them by occasionally forgetting that we are talking about Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas caused significant Climate Change, not CC (or Global Warming) per se. So if you are one of the sceptics who just believes that Climate Change in toto, or even global warming over the past 150 years or more is a croc / lie, please stop reading now. Because it is. If you want to deny that we genuinely do seem to be going through a period of some instability (like 40C in Melb while we are still in Nov), please stop reading now. We (sceptics) can quote all the statistics, and extrapolate all the graphs we like, but the punters out there (ranging from homeless uneducated to PhDs) will still believe what they see and feel. So none of that is the real argument, which in a nutshell is, "Are anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and particularly the very easily taxed CO2, significantly driving climate change?"

    So far as I, and many much more learned experts are concerned, the answer is a resounding No. As in just hypothesised about, based on very dodgy modelling, not substantiated. Well folks, that's how I see the state of play, and it's vital to keep addressing the right issue, and not giving away any free shots.

    Cheers al

  2. Saturday am (11/5/2013) had interview with John Cannon CEO Climate Institute: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2013/s3756914.htm

    Subject : Carbon dioxide levels reach 400ppm in Hawaii


Welcome to a place that has a focus (but not exclusively) on regional and rural Australia open for anyone living anywhere to read, learn and interact. Please feel free to make a comment.

You can use some HTML codes such as, a for active; b for bold; i for italics

Active code - substitute a for @
<@ href="web address">linked words

[Click Here] for a link to another site where there is a very good simple explanation.