90 year old climate change expert calls global warming scare ‘absurdity’


As I approach my 90th birthday next week I thought I would provide a more personal newsletter which summarized the state of play on Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever is the current euphemism to cover up the failure of the theory that the climate is exclusively controlled by human emissions of “greenhouse gases”

The pressure to accept this absurdity is slowly subsiding as it is becoming more and more evident to more and more people that the climate is not controlled in this way, and we must hand the whole subject back to traditional meteorology which has found that the climate is far too complicated to be decided by only one cause, and “greenhouse gases” becomes less prominent all the time.

I have distributed 128 “Greenhouse Bulletins” and 284 “Climate Truth” Newsletters since 1991 by the Email service. I have dealt with every aspect of this problem by careful intellectual argument based on whatever reference material I could find. I have a huge library of books, reprints and Xeroxes of articles which has overloaded all available space.

I used to make reguar visits to Victoria University to read and copy articles. Now I have given up doing it. It is partly that almost everything is now available on the web, My network usually keeps me supplied, and research on the subject has ground to a standstill. The original pioneers are mostly gone and their stand-ins and replacements merely copy out and present the same old material.

I began believing it all and slowly reached my present position of total sceptic. There is hardly a single scientific, mathematical, or logical principle that they do not violate and they have done much to bring down the status and value of scientific research, together with the salaries and career prospects of scientists.

Today I was asked if I would buy a working website called CauseofGlobal Warming.com. They asked me because my first major publication was entitled “The Cause of Global Warming”. It was published in 2000 in a peer-reviewed Journal (Energy and Environment) yet my biography by Wikipedia, which has recently been improved, still claims that I have never published on the climate in a peer-reviewed journal.

I have never had a personal website as I do not want the continuous responsibility and there are too many of them. However, I am forced to admit that a small number of the current blogs are currently leading the quest for demolition or control of the “Climate Change” bandwagon. It has now got to the stage that unless I catch a current controversy immediately it happens I get there too late and I end up commenting several hundred items from the top. If you judge success by the number of comments they attract I would identify the websites :Wattsupwiththat, JoanneNova and Climate etc. which might indicate that at last there is a distinctive feminine influence, from the last two. I may say that my website climatescience contains a great deal of useful material but does not provide for public debate.

I have hoped that the depth of my own crtical writings has helped in current understanding. My most thorough recent ones are my Global Scam and Greenhouse and its Effects reports much of which have appeared in these newsletters. I would like to draw your attention to two recent contributions which make use of the unique facilities now available on the Internet.

The first is the hour-long video by Professor Murry Salby of McQuarrie University delivered to The Sdney Institute at


This is the first time we have had a full professor of Climate Science present a fully reasoned case against the carbon dioxide theory. He presents evidence that increases of carbon dioxide come from natural sources, mainly from a temperature increase. The weakness of this argument is that the temperature is not increasing and the carbon dioxide is still rising. But since I quaestion all the data he uses for their representativity and for their accuracy (which is almost never estimated) he may still be right. However, the disadvanrtage of a video is that you cannot examine the arguments closely and this lecture does not seem to have been published yet, The questions from the audience displayed a great deal of naivety.

Another compilation which takes full advantage of the illustrative advantage of the Intenet is the brilliant lecture recently given to the Institute of World Politics in Washington by David Archibald :”The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” . Parts 1 and 2 are at



I met David during our attendance at the Bali Climate Conferennce. He is an expert on solar influences on the climate. In these two compilations he displays a masterly knowledge of almost every challenge that faces the world that you could think of. They include the future of climate, oil, atomic energy, food, population nuclear weapons and several others. He gives predictions of possible futures, many of disaster. I have some difficulty in disagreeing with any of it, mainly on whether his data are correct and whether science and technology might save the day.

I suppose I ought to write another book, but there are already too many of them and it seems at present all you need to do is to be patient and just wait. “Global Warming” will go away, but with how much intervening disasters caused by human stupidity?

MARCH  18TH 2012


You may also like:


31 thoughts on “90 year old climate change expert calls global warming scare ‘absurdity’

  1. I thought Bob Wilson’s comment was very interesting, he made some loose points but some very important ones too (which his superior critics have chosen to ignore). Still, his comment is not as erroneous as HadCut 4. haha!! ;)

  2. Why is this so difficult for people, seriously?

    Why is it difficult for people to believe specious analogies that seek to hide the truth? Srsly?

  3. @ Gary S, you are quoting a correlation between CO2 and temperature. I would also like to point out there is a correlation between the increase in Chocolate bars being eaten over the last 50 years and temperature increase. Also the increase in flushing toilets and temperature, and the list goes on. I am guessing you have never taken any science papers? The first thing you learn in science, even in social science is ‘correlation does not imply causation’.

    Again – “Correlation does not imply causation”. The rules doesn’t say “Correlation does not imply causation – unless it is about Man Made global warming, and then it does”.

    Why is this so difficult for people, seriously?

  4. RossN,

    You obviously only read people who make stuff up. It is your claims that have been thoroughly debunked.

  5. I know nothing of Mr. Gray’s ties to the coal industry. Such ties, even if true, do not affect the science involved even one iota.

  6. If global warming due to CO2 was real science, the promoters would not have to be secretive, destroy emails, tell lies, invent data, change data, suppress dissent in their ranks, keep repeating alarmist statements after they had been thoroughly debunked.

  7. “We don’t know what our impact on the planet is.” AND “We must be having some kind of an impact on the planet.” is mind numbing superstition.

  8. “Global warming is the greatest threat facing our planet today. A warming planet alters weather patterns, water supplies, seasonal growth for plants and a sustainable way of life for us, and the world’s wildlife. Climate change has already started, but it’s not too late to take action. There’s still time for us all to be part of the solution.” – Earth Hour
    This is just a climate coward’s death threat of the “greenhouse gas ovens” to billions of helpless children.

  9. I’ve never even heard – ” the theory that the climate is exclusively controlled by human emissions of “greenhouse gases””.

    Probably because such a statement is not just illogical, but completely lacks intelligence to suggest people “exclusively control” climate.

    My understanding of the theory is that over hundreds of years billions of people can have some percentage of impact. We do not now or ever will “exclusively control” climate. Be honest Vincent.

    I wont even discuss the logical fallacy of arguing an argument that does not exist. I’ll just say shame on Vincent for his social shenanigains.

  10. Why should this 90 year-old guy care about climate change and its effects on everyone in the future?

    He will be gone to his smog free nirvana soon enough.

  11. And if you just go back and look at 750,000 years of ice core data (not you bible folk), you’ll see the warming and cooling trends – DUH! There is much more going on than human influence and interests in various energy sectors.

  12. ” I believe that this has something to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

    Wow! And Bob Wilson thinks he is capable of understanding science when he starts with a statement like this, followed by even more ignorant speculation.

    I have not seen such ignorance expressed with a straight face for a long time, and it’s not even April Fool Day yet.

  13. Just because the “science” and “physics” remarks here show a lack of understanding of both topics does not disprove global warming. If someone does not understand how the atmosphere heats up from CO2, that does not mean it is not happening. It is amazing that several people of no special merit with no concrete experimental evidence are able to out-think leading scientists all over the world on a complex topic.

  14. So what, Luke? Beyond an ad hominem argument, what difference does Gray’s employment history make? It sure seems like advocates spend a lot of time looking for excuses to dismiss inconvenient critics, rather than honestly debating the points they raise.

  15. I believe we are in a period of Global Warming. I am skeptical of the idea that man is the major cause of this global warming due to the release of CO2. The earth has experienced repeated periods of Glaciation (Global Cooling) and periods of Global Warming — many many times before man existed on the planet in sufficient numbers to cause anything.

    The primary problem today is OVERPOPULATION. That is the real problem that needs to be solved. If we trimmed the earth’s population to a 1-3 billion, most of the Global Warming problem and a lot of resource issues just go away. The real issue is how do we significantly reduce the world population? If we don’t, then Global Warming will just be a sideshow to the bigger issues of dwindling resources (clean water, food, fossil fuels, metals and other minerals) that are likely to result in global conflict (and probably enforced population reduction through war!)

    While I am not convinced that man is fundamentally responsible for our current period of global warming, I do believe that it is probably a good idea to continue to pump huge amounts of methane (termites eating our cities, ants, ruminant mammals that we eats such as cows) and CO2 (burning fossil fuels and biomass) into the atmosphere although at one time all of that carbon in fossil fuels was actively in the atmosphere and ecosystem (growing plants) long before it became trapped and converted to coal and petroleum and long before apes branched off the evolutionary tree.

    When are we going to address the real issue – overpopulation???

    My personal feeling is that nature will create a super virus that will wipe a huge chunk of us right off the planet. I think AIDS was probably a first attempt by nature to restore the balance. It is just like computer viruses. You don’t write viruses for the minority operating systems, you write them for the largest populations. Natural selection will create a bug or two or three that the bulk of humanity will be susceptible to and we will get our population reduction.

    In any case, it is my opinion that significant population reduction is likely to occur within the next decade or so due to natural biological reasons, War (conventional, nuclear, chemical or biological) and/or dwindling resources such as water and food.

  16. Sorry but being associated with any industry does not alter the laws of of physics.
    Luke, it should be noted that we do not know what industry you are associated with.
    It must also be noted that he was at first a believer in this voodoo science and now wishes we would use true scientific methods to arrive a meaningful solutions.
    The fact I come from a Paper Mill family does not alter the sad fact far to many people have accepted the save a tree propaganda, when the truth is our paper industry has planted 2 trees for every one harvested for so long (1930’s), the mills are now selling off timber lands because of the surplus. Real tree loss is from housing and urban growth. This growth may in fact be influenced by government manipulation of markets via mortgage and interest rates.
    That coal came from some where and that was the air! Plants were the medium nature used to sequester it in the ground as a cycle as all of nature is one vast series of cycles we have no control over. Global Warming is just another grab at power, it is the nature of government.

  17. Bob,

    Without greenhouse gases we would not have the climate conditions we have today.

    Light energy from the sun hits the earth, polar regions / deserts reflect lots of light straight back into space without heating anything up, whereas oceans and rain forests etc,,, absorb light radiation and then emit black body radiation.

    Greenhouse gases reflect some of this radiation back and let some out into space. This keeps on happening until the planet reaches an equilibrium temperature. This is why we don’t see massive swings in temperature between night and day (and even seasons) (night time would be the same temperature as the dark side of the moon without greenhouses gases).

    If we change anything, like the amounts of greenhouse gases, the amount of solar radiation or the reflectivity of the earth surface then the earth reaches a new equilibrium temperature.

    The Sun does what it does, brighting and dimming in interlocking cycles and this has been the primary cause of climate change in the past. However the amount of energy change from the Sun has never been enough on its own to explain the amount of climate change, this is because changes in the Suns energy cause feedback loops like melting polar regions, the sea turning into algae soup (consuming CO2), massive vegetation growth, absorption and gassing of CO2 from oceans etc.. it is these together with the Suns energy changes that have caused all past climate change.

    So what’s different now?
    There are two carbon cycles, the first is short term – plants consume CO2, Animals Release CO2, and long term (100’s – 1000 of years) in which rock weathering removes carbon into long term stores in the Earths crust and volcanoes gas this CO2 out again.

    In just over 100 years we have altered these CO2 cycles, by interrupting the long term CO2 cycle and releasing CO2 from the long term into the short term cycle. There has never before been such a rapid change in greenhouses gases (even as a result of changes in the Suns energy).

    The Earth can cope with this amount of CO2, it has done in the past. It should take about 800 years for it to be re-absorbed into the long term cycle, in the meanwhile the Earth will reach a new equilibrium temperature.

    No-one knows for sure what this temperature will be, but we can make a very good guess. To know for sure we need to see how much Ice melts, how much greenhouse gas is released from frozen soil, how higher concentrations of CO2 impact equilibrium temp etc…

    Whilst the planet will be okay in the end, the speed of change will of course be disastrous for humans and many species that have adapted to the climate as it is, and will not be able to adapt in time in respond to the rapid change.

  18. Too bad this 90 year old will not be around to see his folly. Oh well, sorry kids, it hard to change and see the truth in front of your own eyes as we get set in our ways (and making a lot of money at it to boot!). The proof is already here and it’s basic physics and chemistry, perhaps this 90 year should go back to school.

  19. “This is the first time we have had a full professor of Climate Science present a fully reasoned case against the carbon dioxide theory. He presents evidence that increases of carbon dioxide come from natural sources, mainly from a temperature increase.”


    That is just plain incompetent. Demonstrating that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 is a high-school math exercise! Economic data showing how much coal/oil/etc. are burned each year are readily available. Calculating the amount of CO2 produced from the combustion of those fossil fuels is a straightforward accounting exercise; converting that result to PPM in the atmosphere is something that a high-schooler should be able to do.


  20. Just a short comment on Luke’s comment. When you are not capable of answering a logical argument with a more compelling intellectual argument fall back on the Rush Limbaugh method: question their integrity without including anything substantive; when in doubt, clould, don’t discuss.

  21. Yes Luke, but you should also know that all of the fossil fuel folk have large holdings in renewables too.

    Having said that it seems Mr Gray has a good grip of the situation as does Mr Wilson who’s only error is regarding the formation of glaciers.

    Man made CO2 is not causing a catastrophe. Even more there is no catastrophe showing up in the data as the sea level numbers will show.

  22. Was climate change an impending cataclysmic event or an exciting research opportunity?
    Q-How many climate change scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    A-None, but they DO have full consensus that it WILL change.
    Almost all research money for climate change was into effects and almost never spent studying causes and so it wasn’t a question of honesty as to whether someone was lying or not, because they were studying the effects of a worst case scenario. The “crisis” was assumed. Would you say climate change isn’t real when you are paid to study the effects of climate change? Not only that but get this; all research money for studying effects was funded publicly and all research money into causal and denial climate change science was privately funded or more accurately, independently. Ice cores were the nails in climate change’s coffin because it turns out that there are too many ways to read them and it turns out that ice cores are not temperature dipsticks like in some Harry Potter movie. And nobody can explain the tropical fossils under the melting ice when this climate of today has never happened like this before. Dah!
    Here is further evidence that climate change science was a consultant’s wet dream and immune to the words “hoax” or “lie”;
    -It couldn’t be proven or disproven.
    -Every single scientist had his or hers personal definition of the effects of climate change.
    -There were millions of people in the global scientific community with doomed children as well and despite calling for catastrophic climate crisis, millions choose not to march to save their own children.
    -How is it that there were hundreds of thousands of consensus scientists and only a dozen climate change protesters?
    -These exploitive lab coat consultant’s we foolishly called saintly scientists for 26 years of needless CO2 panic, made environmentalism necessary in the first place with their pesticides that they denied for decades as being toxic.
    Climate change scientists have done to science what nasty priests did for the church.

  23. Bob, your mastery of physics is astonishing. The author must be thrilled your on his side.
    Please try out for “Are you smarter than a 5th grader” I think you’ve got a real shot.

  24. Almost forgot to mention this.

    The AGW theorists argue that increasing CO2 causes increased temperatures. However, this is a correlation, not a causation. In fact, it is the other way around: when temperatures rise, atmospheric CO2 increases. This is because the oceans absorb CO2. When water temps rise, the oceans release the stored CO2. Warmer waters expel CO2, colder waters retain it.

    Try this simple experiment. Jostle a warm bottle of soda pop or champagne, and open it. Perform the same experiment with cold bottles of pop or champagne. Guess what happens?

  25. I have often wondered how many of these climate scientists are physicists, as it seems to me that AGW theory violates the laws of physics.

    As an example, a hot cup of tea cools if left alone. A cold cup of tea does not get hot, all by itself. So atmospheric heat should dissipate into the colder regions of outer space; it should not “radiate” back toward earth’s surface. I believe that this has something to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    Secondly, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas—oxygen is a greenhouse gas: plants absorb CO2 and give off oxygen. Further, it is my understanding that CO2 is a “trace gas,” comprising a mere 1/2700 of all atmospheric gases, and that man-made CO2 comprises even less…1/86,000 of all atmospheric gases.

    Thirdly, CO2 gas is considerably heavier than air. This makes it difficult for it to rise above the lower atmosphere to block heat radiation into outer space. (The CO2 heat blanket theory needs some work here. Recall that in the 1980s two lakes in Africa burped a considerable amount of CO2. The CO2 did not rise up into the atmosphere, but rather hugged the earth and suffocated several thousand villagers and a like amount of livestock. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_nyos and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4285878.stm.

    There is also a problem with CO2 acting as an insulator and causing feedback loop issues, i.e., the argument that high altitude CO2 radiates heat back toward earth, causing increasing temperatures at the surface.
    How Owens-Corning could have missed this business opportunity will forever remain one of the great mysteries of the Cosmos. Rather than spend enormous resources producing millions of tons of fiberglass insulation for buildings and homes, the company could have much more cheaply just produced panels of bubble wrap filled with CO2 gas. This would have been a much more effective way of trapping heat between walls, and radiating it back into the building or home. But the feedback loop theory–if true–would mean that eventually the heat being produced in such an insulated building, coupled with feedback heat, would inevitably cause the structure to spontaneously self-combust.

    Lastly, I’ve seen the AGW crowd show before-and-after photos of glaciers that have turned to rivers or lakes all, ostensibly, as the result of AGW. There is never an explanation of how the glaciers got there in the first place. Clearly, many thousands of years ago, the climate had to be much warmer in order for the glaciers to have been formed by flowing water in the first place. Presumably, this occurred prior to the industrial revolution.

Comments are closed.