About

Since 2004 we have explored the science of global warming, published it freely and exposed deceptions.

For five years we stood neutral on the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming, neither accepting it nor rejecting it, but we can do this no longer. The weight of evidence is against the IPCC and the warmsters, which means there’s no good reason to fleece our citizens to fight the weather.

The belief in man-made global warming stirs emotions akin to religious zealotry and questioning it can provoke scorn and hatred. At the CCG we strive to conduct discussions in an atmosphere of unperturbed but intense curiosity.

We conclude, as Vincent Gray told us, that global warming is what the earth does when it’s not cooling. It must be mostly natural, not man-made, since, though it seems reasonable to surmise that we have some effect on the climate, sign of a global human influence is so far undetected.

Carbon dioxide is vital to life, feeds plants and is entirely benign. The facts are that CO2 levels have been 17 times higher than today for many millions of years, yet run-away global warming has never occurred. It’s seems unlikely to start now; the late 20th-century warming was within normal limits. We know from laboratory tests that almost all the warming you could get from CO2 occurred decades ago and the only sign that warming will be dangerous in future comes from computer models whose predictions remain unverified.

Many of the facts we’ve unearthed and most of the topics we discuss won’t be found in the mainstream media, yet they ought to be widely known, because, from the description in the IPCC’s AR5 (2013), dangerous man-made global warming is impossible.

It’s difficult wading through the science, it’s tough keeping your head in the hothouse of activism and one must be especially careful to find trusted sources. So we aim to be a credible voice in the global warming wilderness. We bring a simple message: listen, find evidence and avoid conclusions slanted by bias.

We hope you enjoy our discussions and that perhaps you learn something from them and we learn something from you.

Richard Treadgold
Convenor
Climate Conversation Group

August 2009 February 2019 November 2019

 

 

8 Thoughts on “About

  1. T J McConnell on March 22, 2019 at 4:54 pm said:

    Hi Richard. I have been told of your group and your thoughts and opinions on what is happening on the planet at this time. Now I won’t beat about the bush and say that I am researching to make sense of why your group has such strong apprehensions to these events. ( I am trying to be polite here Richard) I would as a man with feet in both psychology and physics and regarded as reasonable intelligent to understand why you and your associates have taken on this monumental task of pushing water uphill against all that is now known and evidential on a daily basis. Now dont get me wrong I dont want to argue your point of view it’s just for my research I would be very interested in, not what you think but why are so so vehemently opposed to the point of views held by others and over 90% of scientists and academics. Would you mind if I ask how old your average subscribers are and their average I.Q. and scientific training. Its so I can get a certain amount of knowledge as to what gives your group such firm credence to your counterclaims and that its all a planetary scam. It’s not that you are wrong in your thinking, that’s not what I am researching here. I am looking, as an outsider, independently reviewing my research to get a clear understanding of where the world is going on this. It seems you have been fighting this for some time now and your group has strong convictions. I wanted to know where those convictions come from. Yours T J McConnell

    • Richard Treadgold on March 22, 2019 at 5:06 pm said:

      Thanks for your questions and remarks, TJ McConnell. I’m busy, so my answer must be brief: I base my opinion on the facts. If you have actually read some of my posts, you’ll see I quote facts quite frequently, with references. Check them out for yourself (that’s what started me off about 15 years ago). You might be curious about our interactions with the Royal Society, so you can search this site for ‘Royal Society’ and get your eyes opened. You’ll find they have no proof of dangerous man-made global warming. Let us know how you get on.

      Oh, a final observation: I’m not pushing anything uphill, not really. That’s a job the IPCC have taken on. They have no proof either. If you think they have, kindly tell us what it is.

  2. KillerBean on March 23, 2019 at 5:07 am said:

    TJ McConnell.

    “Would you mind if I ask how old your average subscribers are and their average I.Q. and scientific training.”

    That to me shows you are nothing but a troll. How would Richard know this, and why would it matter.

  3. Brett Keane on March 24, 2019 at 7:15 am said:

    Hmmmm. TJMc writes like Simon under yet another guise. Brett

  4. Richard Treadgold on March 24, 2019 at 8:51 am said:

    Perhaps, but Simon or not, he’s certainly transparent.

  5. Dear Mr. Treadgold,

    I am an old Russian journalist and now I edit my own international network resource for environmental education ECO.ZNAY (Eco.Know) based in St.Petersburg, Russia (http://ecoznay.ru/). It exists already four years and covers diffrent environmental subjects for their better understanding by ordinary people.

    Since climate change became now a top social subject all over the world, several months ago I established a thematic supplement of the site called CLIMADROM (https://climadrom.ucoz.net) for more complete coverage of climate issues. I also hope to make it the popular international platform for unbiased debates of supporters of different views on the causes and consequences of climate change, which we all witness.

    Here would never be censorship and influence of taste and money. Freedom of thought and self-expression is the main value that we intend to keep and cherish most of all because it is lacking in the global information space, where the struggle of climate alarmists and climate skeptics thrives.

    I urged all participants in discussions for restraint, composure and discuss of purely scientific views, and not the personal qualities of their followers. In my opinion, only in this way can we all come closer to a truth that is elusive, although always somewhere near.

    Simultaneously with the establishment of the CLIMADROM application, I began implementing a large international project in the form of a survey of scientists from different countries who are studying the planet’s climate to one degree or another. Among them are climatologists themselves, as well as geophysicists, oceanologists, glaciologists, atmospheric physicists, etc.

    Everyone is offered the same 6 simple questions. Here they are:

    1. What is indisputable, what is controversal or not true at all in your opinion in climate science regarding climate change?

    2. What comes first: an increase in carbon dioxide emissions predetermines climate change or, on the contrary, climate change cause rising carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere?

    3. How the modern possibilities of mankind are great in order to have a noticeable and even decisive impact on such global aspects of the biosphere’s existence as climate?

    4. What should be the focus of humankind’s efforts at this time — to containing global warming, to adapt to it or to explain that AGW is a myth, as eminent Russian geophisicist Kirill Kondratiev stated many times two decades ago?

    5. How an ordinary person should treat the growth of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere — as a potential danger, as an obvious benefit or in some other way — and why?

    6. Do you consider it necessary to start now a broad planetary discussion of the climate change problem so that all points of view are heard equally attentively and impartially, since a great distrust of the IPCC reports has arisen?

    The answers to these questions are published here: https://climadrom.ucoz.net/load/

    In spite of the fact that we sent these questions to several hundred scientists in Russia and across all continents within two months, we have so far received answers from only eighteen of them. This is due to many factors: the majority of active scientists are very busy with their research; many scientists are tired of discussing such topics; some of them have lost interest in them; someone is broken as a result of an unequal struggle with alarmists and lost heart. However, the main reason, as I guess, is that my site is very little known so far in Russia and the world, which does not encourage scientists to rush to respond to his call, because this is not yet the New York Times or something like that.

    In this regard, I ask you to publish this letter of mine and urge climate scientists to support my project and to answer my simple questions. I am convinced that this would be very useful for ordinary people who do not read scientific articles, but constantly hear contradictory media spells that confuse people. I think the social role of scientists also consists in helping to shape the scientific outlook among the general public.

    Please send your answers to: [email protected].

    Thanks in advance to all scientists who would respond to my call!

    Alexander Zhabskiy.

  6. RE Chamberlin on July 30, 2019 at 7:53 am said:

    Above summary of climate knowledge seems to track well with what I have personally researched – so seems anyone with the desire to question claims could arrive at these same conclusions.

Leave a Reply to KillerBean Cancel reply

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