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

Views: 1

13 Thoughts on “A letter ignored

  1. Simon on 28/04/2020 at 1:15 pm said:

    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.

    • Rick on 30/04/2020 at 6:53 am said:

      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?

  2. Gwan on 29/04/2020 at 1:27 pm said:

    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

    • Simon on 29/04/2020 at 3:30 pm said:

      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.

    • Mack on 29/04/2020 at 4:29 pm said:

      People have model pigs and they also capable of flying.

    • Richard Treadgold on 29/04/2020 at 4:57 pm said:

      Yes, Simon, I’m looking through those 82,500 papers allegedly verifying the climate change rubbish and I might have news for you soon, but don’t hold your breath. I’ve heard you mention before that water vapour concentration depends solely on temperature. So why do the IPCC claim wv is not a well-mixed ghg and refuse to consider its radiative effects?

      Next thing is to explain why wv levels should be constant, even though everybody knows how the wind dries it up. Farmers and housewives are well familiar with the drying effect of a breeze. NOTE: no temperature increase required. The AR5 talks nonsense about this.

    • Simon on 29/04/2020 at 7:19 pm said:

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

    • Gwan on 29/04/2020 at 10:00 pm said:

      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 for ever .
      Positive water vapour feed back does not exist as more water vapour means more clouds and rain that cools the land.
      All the climate models run hot and are not fit for purpose as they have CO2 as the control knob of the climate when in reality CO2 is a very minor trace gas which is essential for all life on this earth.
      Here is a question for you Simon .
      How do these scientists expect the world to feed clothe and house 8 billion people with the massive energy deficits that would happen if fossil fuel consumption is reduced by the amounts that the Paris Climate Treaty wants to impose on the world?
      And here is another question for you to ponder on Simon.
      Why do all these people calling for extensive cuts in fossil fuel consumption never call for nuclear energy that emits no CO2 once the power stations are built?
      Graham ,
      Proud to be farming in New Zealand exporting high quality food to the world.

    • Rick on 30/04/2020 at 10:06 am said:

      “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 ]

    • Richard Treadgold on 30/04/2020 at 10:38 am said:


      To take Rick’s observations a little further, I remind you that the IPCC avers plainly that atmospheric water vapour increases as temperature rises. They don’t appear to understand that wind alone evaporates huge amounts of water vapour. That skews their warming calculations enormously. You probably understand why the IPCC don’t admit to non-temperature-related changes in atmospheric wv, so please explain.

    • Simon on 30/04/2020 at 11:57 am said:

      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.

    • Richard Treadgold on 30/04/2020 at 12:06 pm said:


      Don’t be thick. I did not suggest the climate will change to be drier or windier. Try reading what I said. The IPCC is either making a huge mistake or it’s even thicker than some of its believers.

    • Brett Keane on 05/05/2020 at 8:22 pm said:

      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

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation