Open Letter from Dr Vincent Gray to Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor

Dear Professor Gluckman
I have been reading your letter to Dr. Doug Edmeades commenting on his presentation regarding climate science and I wonder whether you would be prepared to read my comments on your comments.
I should begin by introducing myself.
I would claim a distinguished and eventful scientific career.
I was a Major scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge, the holder of a First Class Honours Degree in Chemistry, an MA,  and a PhD in Chemistry, all rather long ago.
I decided against an academic career and have instead held senior research positions in a large number of industrial research organizations, some private, some public and some both, in a wide variety of topics, in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. I worked in two universities in China.
I came to New Zealand in 1970 as the first Director of the Building Research Association and I had a subsequent career in the DSIR Forensic Division and in the Coal Research Association.
I have published many scientific papers, including, recently, in climate science. My book "The Global Warming Delusion" is still in print. I made submissions to all three Select Committees on the Emissions Trading Bill,

I am a Fellow of the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry and I am a member of the Council of the New Zealand Association of Scientists. I am a member of the executive of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition
I have been an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change since its beginning and I would claim intimate knowledge of its operations and deficiencies. I began as a supporter but soon discovered serious deficiencies, which have escalated. I contributed 1,898 comments to the last report, 16% of the total.
I began with the belief that there was an important problem that needed attention, but soon found that important questions were evaded or not answered. I came to the view that they were honest but misguided.
It is only fairly recently that I have come to realise that there is fraud, not only locally, but throughout the organization, and from its inception.
I attach my recent paper, to be published in the journal "Energy and Environment", "The Triumph of Doublespeak", which gives details of how this has been achieved, but I might summarize some salient points.
The founding document was the Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992, where the term "Climate Change" was defined as follows:
“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”
This definition, which is legally binding on the 41 nations, including our own, which signed the Convention, immediately creates an ambiguity. The very use of the term "climate change" can be interpreted to mean support for this definition. By using it, you have thus permitted people to assume that you support it.
Then, note, there is no mention for the necessity for any evidence to support the proposition that climate change is exclusively human changes in atmospheric composition. All that is necessary for proof of this proposition is an "attribution", "directly or indirectly" The person or body making the attribution does not have to be a scientist or even a responsible citizen.
This definition is an invitation to fraud and I have given details in my paper how this has been done.
I will add just one further point. There is no actual evidence, scientific or otherwise, in any IPCC document, proving a relationship between human-induced changes in atmospheric gases and any changes in the climate. All you get is the opinions of the people who are paid to produce the models, and who have a conflict of interest. They tell us what they consider "likely" and they provide entirely spurious probabilities for the value of their opinions. There is no other evidence whatsoever.
It has taken me 20 years to appreciate the full significance of how this has happened and I do not expect somebody like yourself to appreciate all the intricacies, but I do ask you if you could please make it possible for myself, and others who have reached similar conclusion, to have an open voice.
I used to give lectures to the New Zealand Institute of Chemistry and the Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington Branch. I used to publish articles in "Chemistry in New Zealand" and in "The New Zealand Science Review".
I was recently invited to lecture in The Beijing Climate Centre in 2006, and to the first Sceptics Conference in New York in 2008. In New Zealand, I speak to Rotary Clubs, Probus Clubs and Federated Farmers. But I am not permitted to join the so-called "debates" which are so frequently organized. Frankly, they are scared of me.
The New Zealand Government and the universities regularly hold these brainwashing sessions of indoctrination with the IPCC gospel often with a panel of supporters.  I no longer attend, as I am either debarred from questions or I am automatically squashed.
If you believe in free scientific discussion I would like to ask you to use your influence to permit its restoration in the New Zealand science community. At present there is no "debate" at all
Yours sincerely
Vincent Gray