A goal breathtakingly scant


2 July, 2018

Dear Prime Minister,

I wish to register my disagreement with your decision to make us reduce our so-called “carbon” emissions to zero by 2050. You commit the nation to this significant goal without knowing, as your joint statement makes quite plain, what it means, how to achieve it or, extending by simple logic, what it might cause. That is unreasonable.

Attached is a pdf of a brief article I posted today at the Climate Conversation Group giving some reasons to question the wisdom of “fighting climate change” and obliging the nation to reach for an objective so breathtakingly scant.

The lack of science in your announcement and its fulsome references to mutual trust raises the distinct possibility of mistaking it for a decision of the Anglican synod.

You should know that the Royal Society recently refused to provide evidence of dangerous global warming caused by human activity. We must now ask what you know that they apparently do not.

You cannot, indeed, you must not tell Kiwis to do things without reason — you would bridle at that.

You should be aware that the CCG blog I operate receives considerable attention. It’s been visited in the last six months over 280,000 times by over 130,000 visitors — at least 50% of those visits originated in New Zealand. That’s over 1500 visits per day (by over 700 different people).

There is much opposition here to the notion that either carbon dioxide or human activities control the climate. People laugh.

With great respect,

Richard Treadgold


The PM’s PA advised me the very next day that the responsible minister is James Shaw, whose PA in turn told me my letter had “been placed with” the great man himself. I am agog.


Tēnā koe Richard

Thank you for your email. On behalf of Hon James Shaw, I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 2 July regarding the science behind reducing carbon emissions to zero by 2050 .  Your correspondence is acknowledged and has been placed with the Minister for his consideration.

You may be interested in the ongoing consultation on how New Zealand responds to climate change. You can find further information on the Ministry for the Environment’s website –   https://www.mfe.govt.nz/have-your-say-zero-carbon).

Ngā mihi



Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of

The Royal Society did provide you with information but you couldn’t or wouldn’t understand it. They gave up on your second request when it was evident that you had ignored what they previously sent you.
The UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited to below 2.0 °C relative to the pre-industrial level. The Paris Agreement set a target to keep warming below 1.5 °C. To do that, global carbon neutrality must be achieved within 20 years at current emission rates. The faster the reduction, the more time we have.


The UNFCCC and the IPCC can’t even agree with each other on what the definition of “climate change” is

Stephanie Hawking

@Richard Treadgold. Is it just climate science that you think can be evaluated without the relevant expertise? What about theories in quantum mechanics, relativity, nuclear physics, plate tectonics, evolution…

Almost without exception experts regard the evidence for disruptive anthropogenic global warming as overwhelming, and, insist we must reduce emissions as soon as practicable.

Rational informed people accept this is true.

The something like 1.3C mean global land surface warming is over and above natural variation. Until man started burning large quantities of fossil carbon Earth had been slowly cooling.

Why do you think New Zealanders should be excused from doing their share to leave a planet fit for humans?


So we just need to “accept the science” and destroy our economy for no gain whatsoever. Makes a lot of sense.

Brett Keane

Quantum Mechanics is involved because quantum oscillators are where radiative energy can interact with molecules. Downwelling photons, CAGW’s motive force, are not accepted by the oscillators if they have less energy than they do. Any more than you can push a speeding Ferrari with your hand. Folk who can copy long words are common in alarmist-space. Those who understand them and are also honest, are not found there.


Indeed Brett. Freeman Dyson is somewhat critical of climate science and has, I believe, been labelled a “denier”, yet he is a pioneer in Quantum Electrodynamics and related fields

Stephanie Hawking

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/06/britain-heatwave-worse-to-come-water-climate-change This heatwave is just the start. Britain has to adapt to climate change, fast. Simon Lewis. Fri 6 Jul 2018 Water, housing, farming … almost every aspect of public life needs to change. Why isn’t this top of the political agenda? Much of the world is in the grip of a heatwave. Britain is so hot and dry that we have Indonesia-style peat fires raging across our moorlands. Montreal posted its highest temperature ever, with the deaths of 33 people in Quebec attributed to the scorching heat. And if you think that’s hot and dangerous, the town of Quriyat in Oman never went below a frightening 42.6C for a full 24 hours in June, almost certainly a global record. While many people love a bit of sun, extreme heat is deadly. But are these sweltering temperatures just a freak event, or part of an ominous trend we need to prepare for? Earth’s climate system has always produced occasional extreme weather events, both warm and cold. What is different about now is that extra short-term warmth – from the jet stream being further north than usual – is adding to the long-term trend… Read more »

Brett Keane

And the weather next week will be……


Its cool and cloudy today in the UK, must be global cooling.

Post Navigation