A letter ignored

This letter was sent on 24 April. It asks an important question. Professor Stephenson’s intellectual steel feels like marshmallow.

Dear Professor Stephenson,

You said on Newsroom yesterday that our economy “threatens life on this planet.”

Perhaps you’ve made a careful examination and you’ve actually found reasons to justify that alarming statement. I should assume that’s the case, though about half the country appears to disagree with you, which to my mind suggests you explain exactly why we’re so dangerous. Regrettably, your article overlooked that part.

The fact is, though you are probably unaware of this, neither the IPCC, the Royal Society of NZ, the Royal Society, the Ministry for the Environment, the Minister for Climate Change, Professor James Renwick, any other members of the RSNZ, nor any other NZ scientist can show evidence that human emissions dangerously heat the climate. You must know a few scientists, why don’t you ask them?

I am confident about this because I have asked all those I’ve named. The fact we never hear in public the science behind our dangerous warming is a glaring omission, never questioned by our faint-hearted media. You might expect they would have bombarded us with the evidence until it became unforgettable. Everyone should know it by now by heart.

Yet we don’t.

We will study your response with close attention.

Warmest regards,

Richard Treadgold

Leave a Reply

2 Comment threads
11 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Notify of

Here is 82,000 papers for you to read. Your assertion that there is no evidence that human emissions dangerously heat the climate is absurdly false.


Oh, come on, Simon! You cannot expect us to read 82,000 papers!

Perhaps you haven’t heard how, in 1931, a group of German scientists who disagreed with Einstein’s theory of relativity compiled a book of papers entitled “One Hundred Authors Against Einstein”. When Einstein saw it he remarked wryly, “Why a hundred? If I was wrong, one would do!”

That’s the thing with real science, you see. Scientific arguments are not won or lost by the weight of the numbers of scientists or papers that are For or Against them. If they were, it wouldn’t be science: it would be mere demographics at best and chicanery at worst.

So, if your 82,000 papers all do contain compelling evidence that human emissions dangerously heat the climate, just one will do to prove your case and the other 81,999 will be superfluous.

Which one do you recommend we look at?


Simon here again posting so called studies that prove that CO2 will cause dangerous warming .
Not one of these papers proves anything as they are all opinions because the theory of global warming relies on to things and neither has been proven to exist .
The two facts that might enable runaway warming are the tropical hotspot which has never been found and positive water vapour feed back which has not been proven .
These are the inconvenient facts that these scare monger scientists are very careful not to mention .
You have been duped by the warmists and you cannot see past their hype .
The IPCC were instructed to find any man made warming and they could not .
It took a crooked scientist to cook the books .Graham


Tropospheric mid-latitude temperatures are increasing as predicted by Global Climate Models. Water vapour is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. These facts are indisputable.


People have model pigs and they also capable of flying.


You’re implying (without evidence) that a warming climate will also be drier. Be careful what you wish for.


Simon you will never learn . How do these scientists that predict warming ,then blame droughts on the warming when if the warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour there will be more precipitation . You can’t have it both ways More water vapour in the atmosphere equals less droughts . As I have told you before the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will only raise the earths temperature by .6 C. That is six tenths of one degree Celsius . That is a fact that has been known for over 100 years as the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic and most of the warming has already taken place millions of years ago. The only way that more warming than .6 C is through positive water vapour feed back and that is not happening . Have you ever traveled to the Pacific islands ? They are close to the Equator and their temperature has not moved a whisker and this is because the sun and wind evaporates water from the sea surface and most afternoons the thunder clouds build up and heavy downpours cool the Islands . This has been going on… Read more »


“Tropospheric mid-latitude temperatures are increasing as predicted by Global Climate Models.”

What is the relevance of the models’ alleged ability to predict tropospheric mid-latitude temperatures, Simon? I thought it was their ability to predict global temperatures accurately that we were concerned with. That is, after all, the purpose which they are supposed to serve as Global Climate Models.

“Water vapour is governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship. These facts are indisputable.”

Nothing is indisputable in science, Simon. According to Wikipedia*, the Clausius-Clapeyron relationship only governs the relationship between saturation water vapour pressure and temperature under certain special conditions. It does not govern actual atmospheric water vapour content at all, which is determined by a host of other factors, mostly unknown and unknowable at present.

[*See: Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation#Meteorology_and_climatology ]


So it’s going to be windier as well? Maybe, in places.
Attribution studies have shown that rainfall events are increasing in intensity and that drought events are becoming more pronounced.
A meandering jet stream is causing weather systems to become more likely to be locked in place, e.g. the Southern Oscillation Anomaly which has resulted in our drier than normal summer.
All the more reason to limit the impact as as much as possible.

Brett Keane

RT, I note his list starts with “Probablistic Integration” which is of course needed when one is making the elephant waggle its trunk but only in cuckoo-land. NO hotspot, no increased WV at the Tropopause, Simon, Total Failure, go home and stick to your Tarot Cards…….Brett

Post Navigation