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).


Views: 261

12 Thoughts on “Royal Society must explain refusal to justify climate policy

  1. Brett Keane on 26/09/2018 at 5:34 am said:

    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……

  2. Alexander K on 26/09/2018 at 3:20 pm said:

    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.

  3. Simon on 02/10/2018 at 9:25 am said:

    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.

  4. Richard Treadgold on 02/10/2018 at 11:31 am said:


    Your first statement is correct, your second almost so, but kindly refrain from dissembling. The theme of my complaint, and the ethics complaint brought by the NZCSC, was that Naish and Renwick, on their 2016 public programme of lectures throughout the country entitled “Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Climate Change”, made alarming claims about dangerous climate change but presented no evidence for those claims. So, regrettably, I cannot agree that they “explained” anthropogenic global warming to the public.

    If those two “knowledgeable” scientists had explained the evidence they say is overwhelming I would have been an attentive listener. Sadly, the Society brushed off our complaint as insignificant. It seems scientists working on climate change need no evidence.

  5. Brett Keane on 02/10/2018 at 9:39 pm said:

    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 has a fuzziness of 4-5 percent. Modern Engineer-Scientists, eg Herr Allmendinger, have found that the inert or noble gases like N and Argon, do absorb and thus emit solar radiation in the NIR for instance. This helps explain why sharp observers find that for all atmospheres anywhere measured of more substance than one tenth Bar, the fullness of solar energy is used within it. Then emitted as above. This covers all our solar system so far measured including Titan, with its methane seas and raining/snowing clouds of same. The lapse rates tell the story everywhere, for those with eyes and ears that function as intended ie to inform the mind. The necessity of water or otherwise is still an open question, especially for retention of gaseous atmospheres. We have much to learn there, even for Earth, and Nikolov and Zeller are working on this.
    It is a beautiful thing, such a gift to us, and I can only pity those who will not see it.
    When we learn to visualise what the air, weather, clouds etc. tell us through Physics, it does get simpler. But a lot of time in the open air and at sea really helps. Brett

  6. Richard Treadgold on 02/10/2018 at 9:47 pm said:


    I’ve been reflecting on the lack of a response from you. I wager that you, too, have no evidence. That is particularly strange, considering your long history of hectoring us that we have it all wrong. What was it you said of me? Under the spell of the Dunning-Kruger effect? So prove it with evidence.

  7. Richard Treadgold on 02/10/2018 at 9:55 pm said:


    That’s a hell of a lot of physics to take in, but I think you’ve just destroyed any possibility that radiative forcing as cited by IPCC has any significant effect whatsoever on GMST. Would you agree?

  8. Barry Brill on 02/10/2018 at 11:27 pm said:

    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

  9. Brett Keane on 02/10/2018 at 11:41 pm said:

    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 the work of Maxwell onwards, informed before by Poisson and Tyndall etc..Even Arhennius saw it thanks to Robert Wood the great Optical Physicist, and moved on to other more successful work as befitted him.
    It was proven by the Voyagers and others ( amazing what Kiwi Electrical Engineers can do, aye?) who sent those brave little craft into so many atmospheres. As Einstein said, “God integrates Empirically”, a brilliant deduction for those with eyes to see……

    Yes, we have no radiative forcing. because radiation is a weakish effect of KE movement of molecules/matter in force fields emanating from fusion energy, real power that stops the sun becoming a black hole, and refracted/reflected to the cold void via various surfaces and gaseous interactions. Pressure not radiation is the effect that maintains atmospheres as gases, and it is kinetic not radiative force that maintains it. Physical vibration of matter, not its negative 4th power emf.

  10. Brett Keane on 03/10/2018 at 10:25 am said:

    Barry, good list of talking points. Thanks, Brett

  11. Maggy Wassilieff on 26/05/2019 at 9:45 am said:

    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?

  12. Richard Treadgold on 26/05/2019 at 2:37 pm said:


    Not a bit (thanks for the link!). But I see this blog as compensating a little for the failure of our prime media to keep an eye on things. If this post comes as a shock to some, then future pronouncements by the RSNZ or its climate scientists might not be swallowed with quite the brisk and cheerful readiness of before.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation