Yes, it IS hard to believe there’s no evidence — so ask the IPCC yourself

Email addresses below

The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant. – Dr Richard Lindzen

It’s true. They have no proof.

So you say the science is settled, you trust 97% of climate scientists and you call me a denier. It’s hardly surprising and I sympathise with that view—we’ve been badgered over it for years.

But all we sceptics do is ask you, “What’s the evidence?” There’s no denial in that, so what’s your answer? If the science really is settled, what evidence is it based on? There’s been a tide of global warming propaganda for the last few decades, so if there was any proof we are causing dangerous warming, do you think they’d let us forget it? The fact that we don’t know what it is shows they don’t have any proof.

New Zealanders are generally level-headed and straight talking and they know the climate isn’t falling apart like the IPCC claim it is. They just don’t believe the warmster narrative.

A globe-encircling scandal

Regrettably, nobody has evidence for dangerous man-made global warming. If anyone tells you there is, ask them what it is—how does it happen, what’s the mechanism? Then please tell me.

I’ve asked the Royal Society to give me evidence and they gave me nothing.

They suggested I ask the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so I did. They’ve no evidence either.

You’ve heard that 97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming. But it was a fraudulent study. It showed the consensus consisted of only 3% of climate scientists.

I’m not the denier here. Our foremost climate authority, the IPCC, has no proof of dangerous man-made warming. It’s a globe-encircling scandal.

The climate emergency is a fantasy, but the money it’s costing you is real

Don’t believe me, ask them yourself. Below you can get contact details for the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva, the RSNZ, the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and the NZ Climate Change Research Institute. Or you might trust the Ministry for the Environment, though they gave me nothing and told me to ask the IPCC. So did their Minister, James Shaw—also the Minister for Climate Change.

If you’re keen to know the truth, you should do something, don’t you think? Check what I say with someone you trust. If you need a hand understanding their answer—whether you think it’s proof of the alarmist narrative or not—I’m happy to help, or I can put you in touch with knowledgeable and helpful scientists with the NZ Climate Science Coalition.

But don’t just forget it again. It’s costing you money already and it’s soon to cost you a whole lot more. To start with, about $3000 per household per year for the completely unnecessary Zero Carbon Bill.

But if our politicians get wind that we know there’s no good reason behind it, they will reconsider. We voters are the only ones who can achieve this.

Contact information

IPCC Secretariat, Geneva Email
Royal Society of New Zealand Contact page
NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre Email
NZ Climate Change Research Institute General Inquiries
Ministry for the Environment Email
James Shaw, Minister for the Environment Email

Visits: 518

11 Thoughts on “Yes, it IS hard to believe there’s no evidence — so ask the IPCC yourself

  1. Carl Bromley on 08/11/2019 at 11:07 am said:

    Gidday. Thanks for all the great work. I wonder if you would care to comment on this rebuttal, please. Thoughts and points welcomed. I have sent the sight my own feedback and rebuttal and would be happy to share my humble offering…which I might leave below. Regards, and respect. Carl Bromley.

    My Letter to

    “Message Sent (go back)
    Name: Carl Bromley


    Comment: I read your rebuttal to the Letter to the UN Clintel.

    A rebuttal was to be expected…and of course a rebuttal to your rebuttal and so on, which constitutes the reality that Climate change is a Scientific debate and not “Settled” across the broad spectrum of the Scientific communities although ‘Settled’ in the minds of each respective party I am sure to an extent, though science be never 100% settled in any area one would think if minds are open to new findings, data and discovery.

    The selected so-called ‘Fact finder’ along with the New Paper reviewers promoted on your article in my view are selected according to presupposed bias on the Climate change debate and hold little credibility when one draws on biased media to support one’s position.

    With all this ‘Tick for Tack’, back and forth communication, the big question remains “Will there be the requested and I would add, openly publicised meeting with the World-class Scientists on both sides of the argument in 2020 as requested? And if not, why not?

    One thing is glaringly clear is that the ‘Science is NOT clearly settled’ among the Scientific community. That repeated assertive statement is blatantly dishonest and does not lend credibility to the Climate Crisis position at all.

    Furthermore demeaning Scientist and experts from other fields appear a weak defence as ‘knowledge’, understanding, and insight is not sanctioned or limited to ‘Experts in a field’. In my field of expertise, I have come across much incompetence and ineptness from many with PHDs and those with superior qualifications academically than myself. Academics do not guarantee accuracy or competence.

    The point is, any intelligent person can consider information, research and draw conclusions despite variations in their specific fields. Diverse fields do not exclude accurate conclusion, in fact, their diverse qualifications of such accomplished levels of Accademia assert their ability to sift and evaluate information.

    Climate change ideology is cleary highly political and it is extremely concerning how the use of emotional thinking that shuts down, shuts out and demeans equitable discussion and debate is used, if not outright promoted to gain leverage and traction to support of climate change assertion. It is difficult to trust anyone who is ok with using such unethical tactics to ‘Win’ a debate.

    It would be very much encouraging to see the request for an open, and even publicised meeting between world-class scientist on both sides of the debate happen as requested by Clintel.


    Carl Bromley.”

  2. Pingback: Yes, it IS hard to believe there’s no evidence — so ask the IPCC yourself | Tallbloke's Talkshop

  3. Lyapunov on 10/11/2019 at 11:47 pm said:

    Hello, thanks for your information. I would love to know what was the full answer of the IPCC to your question about evidence. Best, L.

  4. George Quiet on 13/11/2019 at 8:40 pm said:

    Thanks for this.
    Exactly what question did you ask?

    • Richard Treadgold on 16/11/2019 at 12:23 pm said:

      Hi George,

      Thanks for asking. I said to them:

      • We have not previously corresponded. Please ensure that this enquiry reaches the most suitable officer.
      • The Climate Conversation Group have searched assiduously but without success for a scientific answer to the question: “what is the evidence that human activity dangerously raises the global mean surface temperature?”
      • We have made enquiries of the Royal Society of New Zealand, NZ government ministers, various institutions around the world and numerous scientists everywhere. All of their answers in some way, at some point, state a firm belief in the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but none describe that evidence.
      • Since nobody can know the reasoning and conclusions of the IPCC as well as the IPCC itself, we would very much like to know where we can view the evidence and would be most grateful to hear from you as soon as possible a brief description of the evidence and the name and page number of the report in which it is described.
      • With deep gratitude in advance,
      • And my very warmest regards,

      Mr Mloxisi Shongwe replied:

      • Thank you very much for your email and your interest in the work of the IPCC.
      • I recommend that you take a look at pages 13 – 14 of this report, which present the relevant headline statements. If you are interested in the detailed science, you may take a look at Chapter 8 of Working Group I Fifth Assessment Report.

      Knowing there was no proof in Chapter 8, I wrote again, and Mr Shongwe repeated his first reply. After my third attempt for something substantial, at least a page number, there has been silence.

      I haven’t written this up properly for the blog, but I should. I’ll start by posting the press release I distributed. People should hear about this failure at the highest level.

  5. Barry Brill on 18/11/2019 at 7:05 pm said:

    In Chapter 10 of the WG1 report (“the Physical Science”) in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is found the IPCC’s explanation for its signature opinion that “more than half of observed warming” was caused by human activities.

    The reasoning begins and ends with the assumption that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3°C (an assumption adopted in 1979). Once that ECS figure is adopted for Figure 10.4(b) (p. 110) all the rest is simple circular reasoning – as I tried to point out last year in this post:

    It is ironic that the very same WG1 report was unable to put forward a “most likely” figure for ECS, because there was too much disagreement between model outputs and observations.

  6. Terry on 05/12/2019 at 7:36 am said:

    I agree, we are being had by perverted science.
    A whole generation of young idealistic kids with undeveloped processes are being lied to, and this is a crime of global proportions.
    The IPCC, Is sponsored by the UN.
    The UN needs pulling apart with a wrecking ball.

  7. There is no proof for human caused global warming, but there is plenty of evidence against it. Just check out Ben Davidson’s research on the subject and you will find that science is already way ahead of the the mainstream media.
    You can find a wealth of evidence against human caused global warming on this YT channel (I hope it won’t be closed down before you see it!)

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation