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

7
Leave a Reply

avatar
6 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
3 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
TerryBarry BrillRichard TreadgoldGeorge QuietLyapunov Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Carl Bromley
Guest
Carl Bromley

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. https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/ My Letter to Climatefeedback.org “Message Sent (go back) Name: Carl Bromley Email: carlbromley@gmail.com 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… Read more »

trackback

[…] So you say the science is settled, you trust 97% of climate scientists and you call me a denier, writes Richard Treadgold @ Climate Conversation. […]

Lyapunov
Guest
Lyapunov

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.

George Quiet
Guest
George Quiet

Thanks for this.
Exactly what question did you ask?

Barry Brill
Guest
Barry Brill

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:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/10/human-influence-is-unquantifiable

It is ironic that 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.

Terry
Guest
Terry

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.

Post Navigation