Vincent Gray – just as loony as the other loonies?

A couple of days ago in a fit of non-imagination, Mr Brown recently posted in his blog a piece written by one Vincent Gray which is designed to somehow give himself more credibility by distancing himself from the really loony deniers and position himself as a credible “Sceptic”. However, he does fall way short of the mark. 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.

                ““To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact”    Charles Darwin”

This is the quote either Mr Brown or Gray finishes with in this particular entry and the irony of that will become apparent because killing errors is what I intend to do. But first, let’s just have a quick look at Vincent Gray.

Vincent Gray is a chemist who has never published a peer reviewed paper on any of the subjects associated with human induced climate change.  He has published plenty of papers to do with coal research.  He has been associated with the polluter funded Cato Institute. He also refers to himself as an expert reviewer of the IPCC reports. This has prompted some people to go as far as referring to him as an IPCC scientist or a climate expert which he isn’t, even by his own admission which I will get to shortly. But is being an IPCC expert reviewer actually as impressive as it sounds? Well, no. Anyone can be an IPCC expert reviewer. All you need to do is fill in some paperwork and sign a declaration that you won’t divulge any of the information in the draft reports. It also doesn’t mean he was asked by the IPCC to review anything. He asked to see the reports, filled in the paperwork and shazaam!!!…expert reviewer.

Now, in this blog piece Gray states

“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….”

So, not only is Gray, not a climate expert,  he’s  not even a meteorologist yet he feels qualified to have a worthwhile opinion on the weather and more importantly on climate. So much so that he believes the weight of his ill-informed, non-professional opinion carries enough weight that if he shoots letters off to Prime Ministers they will take him seriously. Crikey I used to settle disputes between my older siblings for nearly a decade. Solving the problems between North and South Korea should be a breeze for me. Where’s my pen???

“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.”.

Right, well, here are the fundamental principles of physics and I am very keen to see a breakdown of how every one of them has been violated. Perhaps Geoff, you would be so kind. After all, you posted this nonsense in its entirety no doubt without bothering to try and understand any of it. Here they are.

  1. Every effect has an antecedent, proximate cause
  2. No time reversal
  3. No true action at a distance
  4. No creation ex nihilo
  5. No demise ad nihil
  6. The finite cannot become infinite
  7. Tangible, material entities cannot occupy the same space at the same time

And that’s just physics. I’ll spare you Geoff from describing how every possible principle of mathematics has been violated. To see logic violated, one only has to read any denier blog.

But then come the straw men. Because they are straw men I’m not going to bother dissecting them because to recognise them as straw men is criticism enough. I will just say though that the origin of a straw man argument is based in deliberate deception, misinterpretation or plain ignorance. So without too much fanfare, here they are.

“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 have been attracted by the money, travel experiences and promotion, even a Nobel Prize.”

“…It is a belief that is similar to a religion…”

“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.”

“The claim that the earth is flat is actually one of the assumptions of the IPCC theory.”

The rest of the post pretty much goes on with distancing himself from the other loonies who claim the greenhouse theory is wrong because of a supposed violation of Newton’s second law of thermodynamics. To me it’s just two people in a mental asylum arguing about who is crazier. Finally, another question for Geoff, do you agree with everything Vincent Gray said in this post, which you in turn posted in its entirety? One can only assume you do as you haven’t critiqued it. It won’t be long before your mate popular technology sticks it in his list of “peer reviewed papers”.

About these ads

1 Comment

Filed under Rogue's Gallery

One response to “Vincent Gray – just as loony as the other loonies?

  1. Geoff replied on his blog.

    “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.”

    My response is….

    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?