Any evidence yet, James?

My last communication to James Renwick was July last year. I said this:

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.

He didn’t have anything to tell me then, but now we see a tantalizing teaser in the RSNZ newsletter (in purple). Might be connected.

You’re welcome, James. Hope it flies.

Leave a Reply

4 Comment threads
35 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
Notify of

Why didn’t you go to one of his community lectures? I have, they are very good.
James won the Prime Minister’s Science Communication Prize in 2018.


No, Simon I don’t think RT would go to one of the community lectures by NZ’s high priest of Global Warming…. James Duvet Atmosphere Renwick, without getting very angry and possibly throwing up.
For instance, of the hysterical, fearmongering, “scientific” hyperbole of this piece of tripe put out by the NZ media…. “South Pole could “disintergrate” if Antarctic record breaking warmth keeps up – experts”….. he says … “Yes, all the Antarctic ice could melt if we try hard enough, but it would take 10,000 years”
Read that again , the guy is completely unhinged. … iiving in some crazed cloud-cuckoo land. … just throws in 10,000 years to sound scientific and put it well out of human reach. Just imaginary, insane garbage.
I love the verbage of the Renwick guru… things like…
..”the atmosphere acts like a duvet.
…we need to act now.
…the warming is already baked in.
… the science is clear/ unambigious.”
and one of my favourites…. “…makes for sobering reading”
…sobering reading…sobering reading.
The only person needing the “sobering” is this climate clown who needs to knock off the Koolaid.


@Richard Treadgold

What The Science Says:
An enhanced greenhouse effect from CO2 has been confirmed by multiple lines of empirical evidence. Satellite measurements of infrared spectra over the past 40 years observe less energy escaping to space at the wavelengths associated with CO2. Surface measurements find more downward infrared radiation warming the planet’s surface. This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.



I cannot follow your train of thought about 20 ppm. Is it like Zeno’s Paradox, where you never arrive anywhere? (I think you might just have got nowhere!)

1. Joanne Nova is not an expert so why do you waste time when you can look at science sites? You look, because you find her nonsense irresistible.

2. CO2 accumulates, and even if we stopped adding CO2 now Earth would continue to warm.

3. You don’t understand the consequences of adding enormous amounts of heat to the climate system: ice lost and worse weather.

4. You don’t understand the concept of tipping points.


Human activity has increased the atmospheric level of CO2 from 280 to 410ppm: 45%. The global mean surface temperature has risen 1.1C, and more warming is on its way. Of course the mean temperature has risen more than 1.1C in some places, as predicted.

Worse weather? We’ll see how many Australians deny AGW when they’ve had more “unprecedented” ie catastrophic bushfires.

You have no grasp of the science at all. What has water’s change of phase got to do with the energy balance? Nothing.

Nor for that matter has water vapour. The energy out is determined by the non-condensable GHGs, principally CO2, high on the troposphere – where there is no water vapour.

This is all normal or orthodox science. If you stopped looking at the crank sites like Joanne Nova and paid attention to the experts you might stumble on the truth.

You may not have understood the allusion to Zeno, but It’s apt. You’re trying to argue that if you just add CO2 in say 20ppm increments it’s inconsequential. So you know the equilibrium climate sensitivity, do you? Nobel Prize in the mail…

Harry Cummings

Just past the 30yr first 10 year we all go a die anniversary
500 million refugees where are they
2 meter sea level rise what happened
Ice free Arctic ?
All pacific island should have all disappeared by now
97% scientists agree yeah right
The great hockey stick debacle …… Mann lost his court case against a retired pensioner
Polar bear are now extinct some one should have told the polar bears
Last year over 400 per review papers calling out the whole CO2 scam
Australian forest fires around mid 70’s made the last look rather small
James Renwick an also ran professor and bit of a conman
Only human activity has increased CO2 from 280ppm to 410ppm good grief what a dumb thing to say that’s been debunked about a trillion times
Etc etc etc etc I could go on an on

I think the wheels are starting to fall off the old gravy man made climate change train an panic is starting to setting in

Blame everything on the old age pensioners or if you are so convinced about man made climate change pop up to China an have a word with the Chinese governments and stop buying “made in China” stuff


Brett Keane

Harry, add in the deadly ocean acidification…… Not happening anyway, but incapable of harming except maybe after a huge asteroid oceanic strike. We would then have more pressing problems. “Flaming Mountains” falling are predicted by the highest authority, by the way, but not of CO2. Brett Keane


First you tell us that 400 ppm of CO2 is insufficient to affect the climate. Now you are telling us that the first 20 ppm is responsible for almost all of the observed warming.
How do you reconcile these mutually contradictory opinions?


The first 20 ppm is apparently responsible for 2.5 degrees of warming.
Their logistic function is probably incorrect, but the gist of it is OK.
Remember, Earth’s blackbody radiation is -18C, and the global average temperature is now about 15C. Water vapour accounts for about half of the difference.


All these years of running a climate blog and you still don’t understand how radiation works. Let me try and explain simply, at the risk of being inaccurate.

Solar radiation increases the Earth’s temperature from above absolute zero to around -18°C. In the process, it absorbs ultra-violet and emits infra-red, which we typically think of as “heat”. Polar molecules,i.e. those with a magnetic field, absorb infra-red. N2 and O2 are not polar, but CO2, H2O, CH4, NO2, etc are. There is very little water vapour at -18°C, but there is sufficient quantities of other greenhouse gases to raise the temperature to the point where H2O becomes a significant greenhouse gas. This is the greenhouse effect which lifts the ambient temperature from around -18°C to +15°C.

Climate science deniers try to simultaneous argue that the amount of CO2 is insufficient to affect the climate and that CO2 saturation has already been reached, i.e. all of the outgoing IR spectra that CO2 affects are now blocked. These opinions are mutually exclusive and both are incorrect.


Reply to Simon, The theory of greenhouse warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 and other very minor trace gasses is a sham. I will explain this in very simple terms Simon. For a start the warming affect of CO2 is logarithmic and that means that the first 10 parts per million has the greatest effect and the next 10 parts per million has only half the effect of the first 10 parts . From 250 parts per million to 400 parts per million the effects are quite mild and from 400 to 420 ppm the effect are negligible . Now are you comprehending Simon ? Scientists worked out over 100 years ago that the doubling of CO2 can only increase the earths temperature by .6 C .that is 6 tenths of one degree Celsius, The only way that the earths temperature can or would rise higher is through the tropical hot spot and positive water vapour feed back. Positive water vapour feed back and the tropical hotspot have not been proven despite frantic searching by activist climate scientists. A warmer atmosphere will hold more water vapour but the earth has been warmer… Read more »


You are contradicting 130 years of scientific literature. I can’t help you.


That makes no sense and you are contradicting JoNova who is claiming that the first 20 ppm of CO2 in that atmosphere adds 2.5°C of warming. Different greenhouse gases absorb different IR spectra.


and yet 20 parts per million is alleged capable of causing 2.5 °C of warming.
Climate science denial requires simultaneous acknowledgement of multiple mutually incompatible theories. I have no idea how you internalise those contradictions.


Put forward some rebuttal of what I have written .
The scientific literature on the greenhouse effect is very clear that CO2 by itself will not cause CAGW .
The theory states that there has to be positive water vapour feedback and also the tropical hotspot .
Without these two essential items dangerous global warming will not happen.
I would not want your help ,maybe you need help to understand how the world has been duped in the name of science .
Fast loosing patience.


The scientific literature on the greenhouse effect is very clear that CO2 by itself will not cause CAGW .

Agree. Please read above.

The theory states that there has to be positive water vapour feedback…

Agree. Please read above.

and also the tropical hotspot .

The troposphere is warming, and it is warming faster at the tropics because there is more moisture in the air.


“…because there is more moisture in the air”

more moisture? … more than what? more than by how much? over what time is there more moisture? ….no figures…no measurement… just hypothetical, presumptive, speculative, handwaving garbage.
It’s called climate science.
There are two phases of the climate loon..
Hotter temperature= more dryness, more drought.
Hotter temperature= more moisture, more rain. (floods)
The climate loon oscillates between these two, according to the weather pattern occurring on either occasion.


Simon, “Solar radiation increases the Earth’s temperature from above absolute zero….” You are saying that the Earth doesn’t exist… because not much above that absolute 0 deg.K is what they think is the temperature of void space. Unfortunately for the believers of the “greenhouse” theory… the Earth DOES EXIST and gets in the road of all that radiation emitted from the Sun….that’s REALITY. Another small thing…. the ATMOSPHERE of the Earth also EXISTS and that is also REALITY. You “greenhouse” wackos are mucking round with a thought experiment whereby the Earth has NO ATMOSPHERE! This is sort of colouring book, sciencey doodlings on the blackboard with no basis in reality. Earth with no atmosphere.!!!..and then they start calculating what they think should be the REAL ATMOSPHERIC average temperature of this Earth as measured about 5ft off the Earth’s surface in Stevenson screens. The big mistake in all this UNREAL segregation of the, 70% coverage of the planet, as the OCEANS from the atmosphere.. is that the ocean has reached a certain level of temperature over the millennia and that in REALITY determines what the temperature of the ATMOSPHERE is directly about 5ft… Read more »


More evidence-free assertion from Nick, I see. “This provides a direct, empirical causal link between CO2 and global warming.” No, it doesn’t. The only direct, empirical, causal link that it provides is the one between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the amount of radiation that it is absorbing – which we already knew from laboratory studies of CO2 dating back to the first half of the 19th century. The greenhouse effect is produced by all the greenhouse substances in the atmosphere together, not just by CO2, and the concentrations of these other substances may vary independently of CO2. There is no empirically proven causal link between atmospheric CO2-concentration and the magnitude of the greenhouse effect, which there would have to be if the theory of CO2-caused global warming was correct. Furthermore, the magnitude of the greenhouse effect is not the sole determinant of the global mean surface radiance, nor of the global mean surface temperature, which again it would have to be if the theory of CO2-caused global warming was correct. Other determining factors include insolation, energy from storage (principally, the oceans), gravitational and electromagnetic interactions with other heavenly bodies… Read more »


By your personal standards of evidence there’s no direct link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer either but very few scientists deny it. Interestingly, the scientists who did worked for the climate science denial industry.

The present warming is caused by human activity: CO2 and CH4. It is not the Sun, “gravitational [or] electromagnetic interactions” or angry gods on heavenly bodies.

Your personal incredulity has has had no impact on the global community of climate scientists or any scientific institution or society. The problem with the science is yours, not theirs — because consensus counts in science. It’s what goes into synthesis reports and textbooks.

Not the tripe you write.


Yet more dogmatic, desultory, evidence-free assertion from Nick, I see.

I don’t know why he bothers to write such mindless tripe… unless his intention is to bore us all into submission through the ceaseless repetition of it, of course.

Still, I suppose things could have been worse. He could have read us some of his poetry!


I don’t think that scientists denied direct links between smoking and cancer. The dispute was around second hand smoking and cancer, which seems to be a more tenuous link.

Anyway, where in the world is the “climate denial industry” and where can I get a job?


Nick and Simon, James Renwick has been pushing CAGW before it was even global warming . He admits that the MWP and other climate optimums are very inconvenient facts and then he and his mates try to change history and then state that the MWP was only in the northern hemisphere . His old mate Jim Salinger has done research in the Waitomo caves that proved that New Zealand experienced the MWP, Just because the global temperature and CO2 levels have gone up in lockstep in the last 30 years that proves nothing . There is no proof that the mild warming that the world has experienced since 1980 is not natural climate variability. There is ample proof that the three climate optimums in the last 8000 year were warmer than present and also that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot warm the planet by more than .6 of one degree Celsius without positive water vapour feed backs which have never been identified. I know that the whole CAGW is a scam pushed by activists and people like James Renwick. Not one scientist has ever challenged my statement that biogenic methane… Read more »

Post Navigation