Contact

Hi, Richard Treadgold here.

All my posts have comment sections underneath, but if those aren’t relevant to what you have to say, feel free to get in touch by posting something in the comments section below. If you include your email address I’ll use that, otherwise I’ll respond here.

I welcome suggestions for posts, comments on current events, interesting news, complaints and anything illuminating. If I like it enough, I’ll turn your comment into a post (you could be world-famous in New Zealand).

Cheers.

Hits: 525

34 Thoughts on “Contact

  1. Chuck on 13/11/2019 at 3:52 pm said:

    I would like to make contact with Terry, please. I am a National Party member as he is and heard in on Leighton Smith’s Podcast. Would he please email me?

    Kind regards
    Chuck

    • Richard Treadgold on 16/11/2019 at 12:00 pm said:

      Hi Chuck,

      I’m sorry, but I’ve only just seen your message, which was waiting for moderation. I’ve sent your email address to Terry and I’m sure he’ll contact you shortly. Any further comments you make here will be published automatically by the system. — Richard.

  2. Brian Wilson on 30/11/2019 at 1:49 pm said:

    I don’t know if you have caught up with the work of Michael and Ronan Connolly, a father and son research team from Ireland. They have spent the last 5 years analyzing data from American weather balloons. https://globalwarmingsolved.com/about-us/ The result is that they have shown that the atmosphere does indeed behave like an ideal gas and is not just in local thermodynamic equilibrium as previously thought, but is in actual thermodynamic equilibrium, at least up to the altitude where the weather balloons fail. If we then reference Einstein’s 1919 paper where he states that if a photon of infra red energy comes up from the surface of the earth and contacts a molecule of greenhouse gas, whether it be water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc, there will be warming, but only if that gas is NOT an ideal gas and NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium. The Connollys were due to present their paper at a university (as yet unnamed probably for legal reasons) but had to cancel when they were threatened with violence if they turned up.

    If these guys are correct, it is pretty much game over for climate change narrative. Again – a biologist’s view point, but I would like some better insight in to the work if possible.

    Thanks

    • Richard Treadgold on 19/05/2020 at 12:07 pm said:

      Brian,

      Sorry I didn’t get around to replying to you earlier. I’ve read a little about their debunking of the orthodox climate narrative. The Connollys look a remarkable and highly skilled family. But I can scarcely comment intelligently, as I know precious little about thermodynamics and gases. If someone with a good physics grounding could comment on their work, it would help us all.

  3. #Methane the real killer! Have you had enough of #atmosphericmethane destroying our earth and causing 25% of the earth’s increase in temperature? For more go to https://www.lllnow.info/

  4. Debunking the Narrative with Prof Dolores Cahill, on youtube.

  5. Sorry Richard,
    I tried to reply, nut no reply. Now I’m still trying to work out how to get the link from bookmarks to this space. Honestly, I can do most basics, on iPad, but anything out of the ordinary drives me absolutely up the wall, sorry. It’s on youtube.

    I’ll see if I can work it out

  6. Dave Butler on 04/08/2020 at 11:58 am said:

    I admire the thrust of this website but find it to be all over the place and difficult to follow.
    I am not looking for debate or discussion, but trying to find summarised scientific evidence about the causes of climate change over the millennia. For example a Danish scientist has recovered ice cores from Greenland that show CO2 levels were much higher in the past yet there were no humans to make the CO2. so global warming at that time could hardly be man made. Also we have had global cooling at stages so the take-away seems to be that the temperature changes for all sorts of reasons
    I was pleased to find this website but a little disappointed that it is hard to follow.
    I would like to see a chart of global temperatures over several thousand years through the ice ages correlated to CO2 levels to see the relationship if in fact there is one.
    No need to post – I am just after a source of scientific information.
    thanks
    Dave

    • Richard Treadgold on 04/08/2020 at 5:50 pm said:

      Hi Dave,

      Thanks for dropping in and for your questions. I apologise for the disorder you see. I’ve written on everything I’ve researched over about 15 years, amounting to over 1500 articles by now. They cover probably most of what you want to know, since I’ve asked the same questions.

      The search function near the top of each page is pretty useful. I just searched for “RCP8.5”, “global temperature” and “Feynman” and got good results. There are numerous possibilities. You can also explore the Tag Cloud of categories to find articles that will help you. But keep your questions coming if you need more help.

      Concerning the correlation between temperatures and CO2 levels, it seems there’s no correlation apart from the surprising fact (from the ice cores) that it’s the reverse of the IPCC narrative. CO2 levels tend to change several hundred years after global temperature. It’s messy, with noisy data, but it seems hard to refute.

    • Richard Treadgold on 05/08/2020 at 1:21 pm said:

      Dave,

      I just happened on a recent post from June 2020, The UN can’t prove we cause global warming, containing numerous links you might find interesting.

      I hope you find it useful.

  7. Simon Park on 18/11/2020 at 9:48 pm said:

    Dear Richard Treadgold,

    Apologies for the part of my comment you deleted. It wont happen again.

  8. LAURENCE MCKECHNIE on 06/12/2020 at 2:12 pm said:

    Hi Richard,

    Thank you for the excellent efforts you and your team put in. I would like to get in touch with like minded people in Christchurch so we could sit down and chat about things etc. I feel a bit cut off down here and there are only two people I know that I can talk to openly about the Climate Change scam without fear of being physically modified in some way. Also I have written an article that I would like to run over with a couple of (real) scientists with.

    Kind regards

    Laurence

    • Richard Treadgold on 07/12/2020 at 2:21 pm said:

      Here’s the short version of my private reply to Laurence yesterday:

      I’d like to help you find somebody you could share this interest with. What I suggest is that I run a short post without mentioning you by name that there’s a man in Christchurch who’s keen to make contact with a climate sceptic. When they contact me I’ll pass their details to you and you decide whether to make contact.

  9. LAURENCE MCKECHNIE on 17/12/2020 at 10:02 am said:

    Richard,
    That would be great. Also any skeptics (realists) in the vicinity would be good.

    Regards
    Laurence

  10. Juglans nigra on 12/01/2021 at 7:42 am said:

    Ah; has anyone else been interested in this site?
    https://electroverse.net/electroverse-has-been-demonetized/

    Curious enough for other links to light-on-the-calculation but also light-on-the-sarcasm sites.
    This shivering skeptic is in Gisborne with a patch of Walnut trees surrounded by firewood trees that should have come down years ago. Then again; that could just be my metabolic rate slowed down so much that I feel more like a lizard looking for a nice warm rock to lounge-on.
    As far as climate goes: my kumara plants may be as much a measurement tool as some of the mechanical ones; For the six years now I have been trying to grow them, they sit and shiver until late December ( or January this season ) then finally get going to produce a decent crop of tubers only if there is an extension of summer warmth into Autumn a.k.a. “Autumn drought”.
    Yes, sure there are a bunch of other factors, but they are a proxy measure of cumulative days warm enough to grow with. Soon it may be worth changing over to potatoes as the primary starch crop; they are just as warmth dependent, but in a different range of temperatures.

    Keep those home-fires stoked. W

  11. James Murphy on 26/01/2021 at 10:31 pm said:

    Richard
    I am a devoted Climate Realist, Heartland, Galileo Movement, GWPF, CFact, CO2 Science, etc. Have always been suspicious of the alarm movement, but started reading books about 6 years ago starting with Air Con by Ian Wishart. Have read many on both sides of the topic, even some M.Mann books.
    Regularly engage in discussions with family, sport and work colleagues on this issue. It is surprising how un-informed people are, even when from the better educated classes and living in the better streets. They are un-aware of any argument challenging the alarm narrative. Even when they dismiss the T.Thunberg nonsense, they still think that CO2 is a pollutant and that melting permafrost is a real threat and that the ice-caps are endangered.
    Mostly, I can engage and direct people to more holistic arguments.

    However, I am stuck on the following and wondered if you can help.
    * Where can I find average or mean temperatures for NZ regions, cities and and towns over the last 100 years or so. Should be easy to find, but is incredibly illusive.
    * What is the context of the reported ‘highest ever temperatures recorded’, in Christchurch or Ashburton or some other NZ town that has been showing almost every day for the last couple of weeks.

    Any comment?

    Only if you have a moment or 2.

    I am a 63 year old IT professional.

    Cheers
    James Murphy, Upper Hutt.
    027 630 1955

    • Rob Thomson on 06/07/2021 at 8:55 pm said:

      Did we find a link to the NZ temperatures?
      I have looked at Accuweather and underground but their figures don’t match the NIWA Hottest ever June temps for the century. Most sites just have weather forecasts.

      Thanks.

      Rob

  12. Mack on 27/01/2021 at 10:24 pm said:

    Just before RT answers, James…… we are constantly told that “this is the hottest year evah” We have certain academic climate clowns like Ed Hawkins ( Univ. of Reading) who’ve cooked up pretty coloured stripes to implant things getting hotter and hotter into the heads of a largely innumerate populace .. what colour comes after dark red. goodness knows… we probably need to wait for Ed to kick the bucket and start all over with blue again.
    But I think these old records which are being broken in, say, Cheviot (last year) and Blenheim etc this year, are probably due to new electronic thermometers which are far more sensitive than the old thermometers and eventually just one gust of very hot air will register a “new high” even if the new high lasts for only a second.
    We’re talking 0.1 or 0.2 of a degree C ,here, but apparently it’s enough for Stuff to sustain the AGW hysteria.

    • James on 31/01/2021 at 11:24 pm said:

      New sensitive thermometers possibly. Bit like the heat island issue.
      Thanks

  13. Brian Wilson on 30/01/2021 at 11:33 am said:

    Hi James,

    I am not sure where you will find the temperature records. Hopefully Richard will get back to you. I completely lost faith in any of these so called record temperatures last year. We had the highest ever temperature in France. It was recorded as 45.9c and later upgraded to 46c. Never mind the crappy weather station, no Thompson screen, on the edge of an industrial estate, sited on a large area of concrete and next to a major trunk road, but I still fail to see how 46c was higher than 50c reported on August 30, 1930 in the Loire. It was the same story for Melbourne where so called “record” January temperatures in 2020 fell 4c short of the actual records set in January 1939. Snow in Queenstown this January. The Remarkables received 10 cms of snow on January 19 along with snow at Coronet Peak and Cardrona, but this was not really reported, or just put down to weather. When we had record high temperatures then the main stream media was screaming climate change. The thing is, the media bias is well known and whilst France was having “record” high temperatures, at the same time Eastern Europe was registering record cold for the time of year with unseasonal morning frosts in Saxony. This year we had really warm weather in the south island and yet there was snow on January 29th. The reality is that the wild weather is down to a distortion of the jet streams. Under normal circumstances the jet streams have relatively small meanders or Rossby Waves in their paths. However, over the last few years these waves have become much larger. The result is that warmer tropical air is driven further towards the poles on one side of the wave and polar air is driven back towards the tropics on the other side. This is what is happening in the south island at the moment. Warm weather for a few days as the tropical side of the wave is in play, followed by unusual cold as the other side of the wave crosses. This is how we end up with the sort of situation we saw in Russia last year. The main stream media reported record warm in Siberia and “The Arctic is on fire.” A week later there were record cold temperatures in the same location, but this didn’t get reported. Climate alarmists try to link this distortion of the jet streams to climate change. The argument is that the reduction of the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics has caused this meandering, but I have yet to see a well constructed argument. The usual conclusion is “It’s happening like I say it is. I don’t need proof. Trust me, I’m a scientist.” In reality, I think it is more to do with the Sun. Solar cycle 24 finished last year and we have transitioned in to solar cycle 25. However, cycle 25 isn’t looking too enthusiastic at the moment and NASA predicted that cycle 25 was likely to be the weakest in 200 years. NASA also stated that weak solar cycles have a strange effect on the atmosphere. The thermosphere, the outer layer, shrinks. This means less atmospheric drag on low Earth orbit satellites, meaning way less fuel is needed to keep them in their correct orbits, reduces wear and tear and extends the life of the equipment. However, this compression of the upper atmosphere results in the distortion of the Rossy Waves and may also lead to a wave stalling in a particular place. This produces a heat wave or unseasonal cold. Whilst climate alarmists will argue that this is climate change in action, the sun provides a much better and rational argument. If we look at the Thermosphere Climate Index, then the highest measured energy was 49.4 x 10 to the power of 10 watts back in 1959 (sorry for the long hand but the scientific notation doesn’t come out very well). The lowest ever measured was 2.05 x 10 to the power of 10 watts. During the transition between cycle 24 and 25 it dropped as low as 2.34 x 10 to the power of 10 watts on July 7 2020. As cycle 25 ramped up it reached a balmy 6.4 on the 20 Dec 2020, but has since fallen back to 4.9 as of today. This is classed as very cold and is still compressing the atmosphere. The reality is these so called “record warm” temperatures are not climate change, but local weather anomalies caused by the errant jet stream. Comparisons mean little as climate change is global and not local however the media may try to conflate the two. Notice the same main stream media is completely quiet about the record cold temperatures and snow falls all across the northern hemisphere this year.

    Local warm weather is global climate change.
    Local cold weather is just local weather.
    War is Peace
    Freedom is slavery
    Ignorance is strength.

  14. https://climatism.blog/tag/art-krugler/ Polar Bears in the hot tub. Is a very interesting article; it introduces uranium as a heat source ~ amongst other topics refuting warming climate by humans

  15. Brett Keane on 19/04/2021 at 10:27 am said:

    I see no point in arguing our case when they are in fact Marxists and uninterested in the truth. Their leaders know this and just use CAGW for destroying Western Civilisation.
    We need to work on discrediting them from their own mouths using deceptions as Sun Tzu suggests. Of course, you already did this re NZSS/NIWA and the Courts……

  16. Graham Wallace on 25/05/2021 at 9:08 pm said:

    Hi Richard,
    Have you ever seen this video from Jørgen Peder Steffensen?
    https://youtu.be/WE0zHZPQJzA

  17. The government thinks or is trying to fool motorists that subsidised electric cars will somehow help climate change. Of course; in my opinion, there is no significant climate change, but if there was climate change and there is a way to decrease greenhouse gases, to try and impose electric cars into the transport sector will not help in the least. In fact quite the opposite.

    This is because a significant sector of electricity in New Zealand, is still being generated by coal and natural gas and the use of normal generation will simply be transferred to the “carbon greenhouse gas sector” emissions

    It is difficult to see how electric cars can help, now or in the future, in the overall electric generation sector, when they will be using generated electricity that will, in part or whole, need to be further generated by coal and gas.

    Either the current government is stupid or there is something that I don’t understand here.

    At the very least this needs to get into the media.

    https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resources/energy-statistics-and-modelling/energy-statistics/electricity-statistics/

    “Electricity generation from the combustion of coal, oil, and gas provides baseload, backup and peak electricity supply. Generation from these fuels is around a quarter of New Zealand’s electricity generation. Most of New Zealand’s thermal plants are found in the North Island, close to domestic coal, oil, and gas resources.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntly_Power_Station

    https://www.worksafe.govt.nz/managing-health-and-safety/consumers/safe-living-with-gas/what-is-natural-gas/#:~:text=New%20Zealand%20is%20unusual%20in%20that%20its%20LPG,and%20colourless%20hydrocarbon%20gas%20largely%20composed%20of%20methane.

    What is natural gas? | WorkSafe
    Natural gas and LPG are both in use in New Zealand, and there are some differences between the two that you should be aware of. What is LPG? Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) is the generic name for mixtures of hydrocarbons (mainly propane and butane) stored in the liquid state.
    http://www.worksafe.govt.nz
    Natural gas is a highly combustible odourless and colourless hydrocarbon gas largely composed of methane. Natural gas is created in roughly the same manner as oil, by processes that act upon organic matter over millions of years.

  18. LAURENCE D MCKECHNIE on 03/11/2021 at 9:31 am said:

    Hi Richard,

    I have written some Climate Science articles and would be happy for you to look over
    them before I go public if that is alright with you and if you have the time.

    Cheers
    Laurence

  19. LAURENCE D MCKECHNIE on 10/12/2021 at 5:02 pm said:

    Richard,

    Thank you for all the work you do to keep what sanity remains in the world alive.

    I would like to send you five commentaries that I prepared over the past year or so. I have sent them out
    to various organizations and Government Departments etc. I am not a scientist although I did enjoy the sciences at school way back when you actually learnt stuff. But most of all I have an abhorrence to deceit at the level that we are seeing it now days. Would you be able to provide me with an email address please.

  20. LAURENCE D MCKECHNIE on 10/12/2021 at 5:11 pm said:

    Hi Richard,

    Could you send me your email address so that I can send you attachments.

  21. Neil Munro on 17/06/2022 at 5:04 pm said:

    Richard,

    I attempted to post: “The LNT Hoax within the UN IPCC AGW Hoax” last Friday but it didn’t get past moderation. Blogging for dummies provided a number of clues that could explain why the post was blocked, so I will try to avoid the same mistakes.

    Your readers understand the UN IPCC AGW hoax, but may not be aware that the anti-nuclear LNT (Linear No-Threshold) hypothesis is also a hoax and is linked to the AGW hoax.

    If the IPCC believes that the global warming threat is as serious as they repeatedly say it is, then logic would suggest that all non-fossil energy sources be harnessed to reduce the CO2 emissions that they blame for the alleged warming. They chose to sideline Nuclear power generation and rely on renewables including intermittent solar and wind. Were they concerned that a rapid increase in nuclear power generation would significantly reduce CO2 emissions and weaken the public response to their alarmist propaganda? LNT is kept alive by anti-nuclear activists and politicians who influence the UN IPCC.

    The LNT hypothesis alleges that nuclear radiation causes biological damage that is cumulative. The assumption is that living organisms, including humans cannot repair the biological damage caused by ionizing radiation. This is demonstrably false as evidenced by the medical practices of radiation oncology and radionuclide cancer therapy. Large doses of radiation are dangerous but there are safe limits which depend on the tissue/organ. The safe limits are known to oncology specialists. The very large radiation doses required to destroy tumors are delivered in “fractions” separated by at least a day to allow the body to repair the damage before the next fraction of the dose. This process can spread the radiation dose over about a month.

    There has never been valid scientific support for the LNT hypothesis since its use was recommended by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences Committee on Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation (BEAR I)/Genetics Panel in 1956. NZ radiation regulations are based on the LNT hypothesis. The radiation dose limits can be found at schedule 3 of the NZ Radiation Safety Act 2016, and need to be challenged. Ultra conservative dose limits can lead to panic evacuation when safe levels of radiation are detected as occurred at Fukushima. They are also one of the reasons why Nuclear power is more expensive than it needs to be.

    I can post references to experts who can explain why the LNT hypothesis is false, and the history that led to political acceptance of LNT. Efforts have been made to overturn the LNT hypothesis but political dogma is a challenge.

    The activist link between LNT and UN IPCC AGW casts further doubt on the IPCC agenda.

    • Richard Treadgold on 26/08/2022 at 12:28 pm said:

      Hi Neil, sorry your comment didn’t appear. I was less than diligent in checking. This was your first comment here, but after I approve one, your future comments are posted automatically. The mistake was not yours! You probably know that posts can be diverted to moderation at any time and Blogging for Dummies has good advice for avoiding that.

      As to your topic, I entirely agree about the LNT hypothesis. When the Fukushima disaster occurred, the alarming news stories prompted me to research the basis for them. I eventually dug up that the amount of radiation heading for the US was completely innocuous but it sold newspapers. Sadly, I’ve forgotten the small unit of radiation exposure news articles were citing, but I remember it as hardly above the natural background radiation.

      Since LNT is the major factor holding back adoption of nuclear energy, we should publish another article on it. Could you write one? Do you know of one I could publish? We’d see just how much interest it might attract.

  22. Neil Munro on 02/09/2022 at 3:54 pm said:

    Richard,

    The LNT hypothesis is pseudo-science and must be rejected. Unfortunately, it is the current paradigm and politicians are not motivated to challenge it. Fortunately, there are groups of scientists who are challenging the advisory bodies ICRP (International Commission for Radiological Protection) and NCRP (National Commission for Radiological Protection (USA)).

    The groups of scientists are:
    • SARI Scientists for Accurate Radiation Information https://radiationeffects.org/
    • XLNT XLNT Foundation https://www.x-lnt.org/
    • SRI Society for Radiation Information https://s-radiation.info/

    The members of SARI, XLNT, and SRI issued a Joint Communique or Position Statement on July 27 2020. This can be found at https://x-lnt.org/joint-communique and is recommended reading. The units of radiation mentioned (mGy) is 0.001 gray where gray is a fundamental measure of absorbed ionizing radiation energy dose. 1 gray = 1 Joule per Kg, that is 1 watt-second per kg. To put this in perspective, the limited information available suggests that 50% of people exposed to a whole-body dose of 5 gray would die. High doses employed during radiation oncology are restricted to the immediate vicinity of the target tumor and are limited to safe levels.

    I learnt most of what I know about ionizing radiation by reading two books written by Wade Allison MA DPhil, Fellow of Keble College, Professor of Physics (Emeritus), University of Oxford. He visited Japan after the tsunami in March 2011 and includes a first-hand account of what he saw at Fukushima Daiichi in a book “Nuclear is for Life – A Cultural Revolution” (N4L). I recommend this book because it provides an honest and thorough introduction to ionizing radiation in layman terms, including the history and politics surrounding the LNT hypothesis. This book is available in soft cover form from a number of book sellers and is also available from ResearchGate in PDF form if you have an account or “read full-text”. The directory page references for LNT are 12, 24, 96, 237, 252, 273-274.

    There is a lot of misinformation about radiation available on the internet, including from official advisory bodies such as the ICRP and NCRP so it is important that the source of the information be checked to ensure the information is consistent with medical science. I chose to believe the views expressed by Professor Wade Allison after reading his books. The biographical notes on Wikipedia are reassuring.
    Professor Wade Allison is a founding member of SARI which is a very exclusive group of scientists. There is a lot of useful information on their website https://radiationeffects.org/ especially the website links.
    My current understanding of radiation and LNT is as follows:
    The immediate damage caused by radiation is proportional (linearly related) to the total absorbed radiation energy. This point is not in dispute!

    Very large whole-body doses are dangerous because they overwhelm the bodies’ defenses. Survival depends on the magnitude of the dose and the medical care available. This is not in dispute,
    Supporters of the LNT (Linear No Threshold) hypothesis believe that all exposure to ionizing radiation is harmful, regardless of how low the dose is, and that the effect is cumulative over a lifetime. This is a fundamental flaw in the LNT hypothesis. LNT ignores how biological life reacts to the damage caused by each radiation dose.

    Some supporters of LNT also claim that a dose dispersed among many individuals is as damaging as the same total dose given to one individual. This would be administratively convenient, if true, because the total damage could be assessed simply from the dose added up for a population, an estimate called the collective dose. Dividing the collective dose over a period of time by an average fatal dose is alleged to provide an estimate of the number of people that will die. This is nuts but it appeals to activists and is the source of media reports of expected fatalities as a result of the Fukushima release of radioactive material. If you look up “Collective dose” in Wikipedia you will find a similar explanation, and limitations as described by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). It looks like they are backtracking but not completely giving up on the collective dose and certainly not on LNT.

    It is not widely understood that the biological damage caused by ionizing radiation is not nuclear but involves the breaking of chemical bonds which produces reactive oxide species (ROS) including H, OH, O and hydrogen peroxide. These radicals also leak from the cell’s mitochondria, its power source. Each living cell produces antioxidants to neutralize the radicals regardless of their origin. Professor Wade Allison describes the biological protection system in more detail in Chapter 8 starting at page 177 of “Nuclear is for Life”. This is the information that the supporters of LNT choose to ignore.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.