Royal Society must explain refusal to justify climate policy

This open letter was emailed to party leaders and a select group of journalists. Following poor advice from the MfE and an error-ridden report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, the Climate Change Minister, James Shaw, has misconstrued the science and proposes inept policy. Mr Shaw should demand an urgent explanation from the Royal Society for their refusal to reveal evidence for a human cause of dangerous global warming and then he should realign national climate policy with a proper understanding of climate science. – RT


To Party Leaders


To get the pdf with working links, download it here (pdf, 66 KB).


Leave a Reply

12 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of
Brett Keane

Just a note of support for your lines of attack in this struggle. Next year Parliament should have Select Committees studying CAGW/CC Legislation and we have to get them to study the bare roots of their beliefs. Meanwhile my Council, Kaipara, is being led down the path again on the basis of Models. It will be more practice for me towards the bigger moves in Wellington.
Seems like our children still know what snow looks like, and can enjoy it these coming holidays. Warming???? So Simon now claims NZ us anomolous in cooling? Half an admission of defeat is a start……

Alexander K

This is all so familiar. Deceived politicians (I suspect willfully deceived in this case) write ill-conceived policy which they will employ as a basis for legislation designed to take money from the ‘rich’ aka those who are or have been employed.
Income tax was brought in as a ‘temporary’ measure to pay for WWI!
The parent of our NZ Royal Society has a very long tradition of devious actions based on dodgy science. Those who read history are very wary of trusting such august (in their own view) bodies. Our RS are just another arrogant and insular Old Boys club.
Good stuff, Richard.


You claim that the Royal Society is refusing to give evidence that global warming is man-made.
Then you complain about the Royal Society sponsoring a nationwide roadshow where the two scientists most knowledgeable about the subject explain anthropogenic global warming to the public.

Brett Keane

Yes, from memory R and W were using modelled answers as their data, where not otherwise fluffing, to be polite. With Geographers and (semi)-Mathematicians making up the ‘97%”, the Elect, and such not having any real Physics, no surprises there. The nature of gases, widely-separated molecules eg c. 2 angstrom sizes in c.12 angstrom spaces, the Equipartition of Energetics, and the expansion reaction at up to 5km/sec and 600-32000 times faster for KE than radiative emittances; Means that radiation does not hardly get a look-in further than one Optical Depth from the point where more than half can get out as EMF. Water Vapour’s buoyancy being only half that of air, it can expedite up to FIVE times the load asked by Earth for lifting of radiating KE to that midpoint and far further. Yes, that much Latent Heat. This is what the satellites and balloons record. Because of the Ideal Gas Laws described above via the Poisson Relation, also by James Clerk Maxwell (check Hockeyschtick). Though mistakes are made nowadays with attribution of some of water’s load to CO2, of necessity I suppose…..when on a wrong track. The given absorption of sunlight… Read more »

Barry Brill

At, Paul Driessen has a useful list of simple questions – that most non-scientists assume could easily be answered by the Royal Society:

“What actual, replicable, real-world evidence do you have that convincingly demonstrates that:

· You can now distinguish relatively small human influences from the many powerful natural forces that have always driven climate change?

· Greenhouse gases now control the climate, and the sun and other forces play only minor roles?

· Earth is now experiencing significant and unprecedented changes in temperature, icecaps, sea levels, hurricanes, tornadoes and droughts?

· These changes will be catastrophic and are due to humanity’s fossil fuel use?

· Your computer models have accurately predicted the real-world conditions we are measuring today?

· Wind, solar and biofuels can replace fossil fuels in powering modern industrial economies and living standards; can be manufactured, transported and installed without fossil fuels.”

No such luck.

Wow. – RT

Brett Keane

Maxwell laid it out in his Theory of Heat for us to follow. He could set up experiments eg for class demos in brilliant fashion to help students understand, as my Profs and Lab tutors could in his footsteps at Massey. It was being made harder for them 20yrs ago as corners had to be cut, and we see what it has now come to….. but with some years of work with internet scientists from Tallbloke to Hockeyschtick and all their correspondents, brilliant folk among them, I think we have what it takes. Unvalidated models do not, the Quiet Sun proceedeth, Alarmist blogs are moribund, IPCC funding is vanishing though they are divvying up the last 3billion….. However they do have huge backers still privately, and much bile, so as it took our SAS much time to winkle out the chicoms in malaya/borneo and we are still dealing with their Middle East successors, so the end may not be hurried. Who knows? I just hope to see us redirect our efforts to real problems and capacity-building because those will never end, that is life. To finish with your question, the answer lay in… Read more »

Brett Keane

Barry, good list of talking points. Thanks, Brett

Maggy Wassilieff

Did you really expect the RSNZ to be any different to the other Professional Societies that have been taken over by Left-leaning activists and Social Scientists?

Post Navigation