Why you must heed this pathetic climate emergency


Even the good Professor Renwick tells a story of emergency.


The outlandish declaration of a climate emergency is short on substance — there’s no evidence for it.

It’s no surprise that the sponsors of this charade try to intimidate us with abusive language. They’re hoping we won’t question their proclamation.

But this pitiful attempt to dredge up publicity for the lifeless subject of global warming is a good opportunity to question the evidence for it. I’ve asked James Renwick for evidence so when he replies I’ll let you know what it is.

The dictionary defines emergency as “a serious, unexpected and often dangerous situation requiring immediate action.

How does the climate qualify as an emergency? Short answer: it doesn’t.

First, the climate doesn’t exist as a separate entity. It’s an abstraction, created from decades or centuries of observations of sunshine, rain, temperature and all the other meteorological phenomena. Reality is weather, not climate. When you look out the window you don’t see the climate. So the climate, literally, does nothing. It’s a result, not a cause.

Climate arises over a long period of weather, somewhere around 30 years. If you’re told the climate has changed over the last five years, or ten, or fifteen, don’t believe it. Changes in the weather can’t be confirmed as changes to the climate in under 30 years, perhaps more. Shorter-lived changes are considered part of normal variability.

Second, the climate doesn’t kill or injure people, or destroy property. The weather does these things. Some activists claim that storms and hurricanes are increasing in number and violence, but the IPCC disagrees. It says no increases have occurred in about the last 70 years.

To be clear, though extreme weather events frequently kill, injure and destroy, they are not occurring any more often than before, nor are they stronger.

So this climate emergency is false because there’s no emergency — whether caused by an abstraction or anything else. Please continue mentioning this to newspaper editors, radio stations, other journalists and family and friends.

If you disagree, do please tell me why.

Update 30 July 2019

Dr Renwick disdained to reply. This was my mail to him on 19 July:

Hi James,

It’s a while now since I sent you a rough email that probably displeased you, but the new matter of a climate “emergency” has arisen and I’d like to ask for your help in understanding it.

Eventfinda are advertising your presentation in Nelson in August called “Climate Emergency”. What does it mean? What data does it rest on? What makes it an emergency?

If you’re not too busy I hope you can help.



We must conclude that he either no longer considers me a suitable pen pal or has no evidence of an emergency. Either way, his loss.

Leave a Reply

12 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Notify of

“There are human beings who are of remarkably agile intellect yet stupid, and others who are intellectually quite dull yet anything but stupid”. Dietrich Bonhoeffer seems to have identified the reason why “climate emergency” advocates are so hard to talk to. The stupidity of the blind acceptance of the CAGW/climate change/“Carbon Pollution” scam cannot be countered because… ‘Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed- in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self-satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack. For that… Read more »

Hmmm! Thank you for the thoughts on trying to fix ‘stupid’. I have tried for many, many years to fix ‘stupid’, alas to no avail. I have tried simple reasoning, facts, actual evidence, deep reasoning, logic, examples, talking through the consequences etc etc, all to no avail. I think one of the most simple tenants for humanity is “you can’t fix stupid’! However, you can mount arguments with evidence and facts that others watching the ‘discussion’ who are not yet or quite so stupid as the protagonist, the observers are able to grasp the factual/ evidenced based logic and rational of the argument, while acknowledging the crass stupidity of the counter argument. Good luck with analyzing the stupid affliction. A cure will be worth its weight in gold and winner of the Noble Prize in how to prevent stupidity. Unfortunately, the longer this nonsense (now climate emergency) continues to feature in our daily press the more of our populations are being afflicted by the ‘stupid bug’ . The writer is correct when stating ‘Against stupidity we are defenseless’, we need to find another way – more facts and evidence don’t seem to cut… Read more »

Alexander K

I spent the 2nd half of my working life teaching in high schools, primary schools and other institutions both in NZ and in the UK. Much of my time was spent in ‘attempting to fix stupid’ and this is largely successful with learners with an open mind who are prepared to learn, but does not work for those have developed an iron-clad belief system, no matter how many qualifications they are able to claim.

Sadly, Mr Renwick appears to belong to the latter group.


Are you serious? Take a look at Prof. Renwick’s CV:
He understands how the climate works far better than you or I.
The stupidity is this instance is your cognitive bias of illusory superiority.


According to Newshub, NZ will spend $1.9 billion a year giving our money away to someone else to solve this emergency. (sorry I can’t find the source article this morning) That’s $19 billion over 10 years to meet the demands of the Paris climate accord

They admit that all this money will flow offshore.

Remember that, when you can’t get treatment for that rare medical condition, or your tax bill seems very high, or your relatives are living in cars.

$1.9 billion a year urinated away on offshore carbon credits.

I really don’t know why we tolerate the retards in charge of this country

Brett Keane

Yes Andy, and folk are now dying worldwide from climatista criminality, while their local agents insult us. They have been clearly identified as marxist would-be destroyers of Western Civilisation.

However, I agree we also need our sense of humour, which our foes lack, along with common sense. It will get much worse. Watch the Futures markets. Brett


I did see a recent Newshub story that seemed quite critical of the amount of spend. The article stated that the information had been obtained via OIA and that the figure was $1.9 billion a year for 10 years.

Unfortunately I can’t find the article.

Brett Keane

RT, yes indeed. I remember when Winston was polling as most-desired for PM. Just kept his head down and worked as Treasurer until Jenny bumped Jim, and sacked Winston. Hence NZ 1st…. and now Jenny is known as a crook. Her Chinese 2nd hubby has been robbing our Swamp Kauri too, and jobs I helped create partly at my own expense for my fellow Northlanders were lost. PGF cost – about the same as one smallish Auckland tunnel to save them a few minutes.

Post Navigation