Email addresses below
“The influence of mankind on climate is trivially true and numerically insignificant. – Dr Richard Lindzen
It’s true. They have no proof.
So you say the science is settled, you trust 97% of climate scientists and you call me a denier. It’s hardly surprising and I sympathise with that view—we’ve been badgered over it for years.
But all we sceptics do is ask you, “What’s the evidence?” There’s no denial in that, so what’s your answer? If the science really is settled, what evidence is it based on? There’s been a tide of global warming propaganda for the last few decades, so if there was any proof we are causing dangerous warming, do you think they’d let us forget it? The fact that we don’t know what it is shows they don’t have any proof.
New Zealanders are generally level-headed and straight talking and they know the climate isn’t falling apart like the IPCC claim it is. They just don’t believe the warmster narrative.
A globe-encircling scandal
Regrettably, nobody has evidence for dangerous man-made global warming. If anyone tells you there is, ask them what it is—how does it happen, what’s the mechanism? Then please tell me.
I’ve asked the Royal Society to give me evidence and they gave me nothing.
They suggested I ask the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), so I did. They’ve no evidence either.
You’ve heard that 97% of scientists agree with man-made global warming. But it was a fraudulent study. It showed the consensus consisted of only 3% of climate scientists.
I’m not the denier here. Our foremost climate authority, the IPCC, has no proof of dangerous man-made warming. It’s a globe-encircling scandal.
The climate emergency is a fantasy, but the money it’s costing you is real
Don’t believe me, ask them yourself. Below you can get contact details for the IPCC Secretariat in Geneva, the RSNZ, the NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre and the NZ Climate Change Research Institute. Or you might trust the Ministry for the Environment, though they gave me nothing and told me to ask the IPCC. So did their Minister, James Shaw—also the Minister for Climate Change.
If you’re keen to know the truth, you should do something, don’t you think? Check what I say with someone you trust. If you need a hand understanding their answer—whether you think it’s proof of the alarmist narrative or not—I’m happy to help, or I can put you in touch with knowledgeable and helpful scientists with the NZ Climate Science Coalition.
But don’t just forget it again. It’s costing you money already and it’s soon to cost you a whole lot more. To start with, about $3000 per household per year for the completely unnecessary Zero Carbon Bill.
But if our politicians get wind that we know there’s no good reason behind it, they will reconsider. We voters are the only ones who can achieve this.
Contact information
IPCC Secretariat, Geneva Email
Royal Society of New Zealand Contact page
NZ Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre Email
NZ Climate Change Research Institute General Inquiries
Ministry for the Environment Email
James Shaw, Minister for the Environment Email
Views: 520
Gidday. Thanks for all the great work. I wonder if you would care to comment on this rebuttal, please. Thoughts and points welcomed. I have sent the sight my own feedback and rebuttal and would be happy to share my humble offering…which I might leave below. Regards, and respect. Carl Bromley.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/
My Letter to Climatefeedback.org
“Message Sent (go back)
Name: Carl Bromley
Email: carlbromley@gmail.com
Comment: I read your rebuttal to the Letter to the UN Clintel.
A rebuttal was to be expected…and of course a rebuttal to your rebuttal and so on, which constitutes the reality that Climate change is a Scientific debate and not “Settled” across the broad spectrum of the Scientific communities although ‘Settled’ in the minds of each respective party I am sure to an extent, though science be never 100% settled in any area one would think if minds are open to new findings, data and discovery.
The selected so-called ‘Fact finder’ along with the New Paper reviewers promoted on your article in my view are selected according to presupposed bias on the Climate change debate and hold little credibility when one draws on biased media to support one’s position.
With all this ‘Tick for Tack’, back and forth communication, the big question remains “Will there be the requested and I would add, openly publicised meeting with the World-class Scientists on both sides of the argument in 2020 as requested? And if not, why not?
One thing is glaringly clear is that the ‘Science is NOT clearly settled’ among the Scientific community. That repeated assertive statement is blatantly dishonest and does not lend credibility to the Climate Crisis position at all.
Furthermore demeaning Scientist and experts from other fields appear a weak defence as ‘knowledge’, understanding, and insight is not sanctioned or limited to ‘Experts in a field’. In my field of expertise, I have come across much incompetence and ineptness from many with PHDs and those with superior qualifications academically than myself. Academics do not guarantee accuracy or competence.
The point is, any intelligent person can consider information, research and draw conclusions despite variations in their specific fields. Diverse fields do not exclude accurate conclusion, in fact, their diverse qualifications of such accomplished levels of Accademia assert their ability to sift and evaluate information.
Climate change ideology is cleary highly political and it is extremely concerning how the use of emotional thinking that shuts down, shuts out and demeans equitable discussion and debate is used, if not outright promoted to gain leverage and traction to support of climate change assertion. It is difficult to trust anyone who is ok with using such unethical tactics to ‘Win’ a debate.
It would be very much encouraging to see the request for an open, and even publicised meeting between world-class scientist on both sides of the debate happen as requested by Clintel.
Sincerely
Carl Bromley.”
Pingback: Yes, it IS hard to believe there’s no evidence — so ask the IPCC yourself | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Hello, thanks for your information. I would love to know what was the full answer of the IPCC to your question about evidence. Best, L.
Thanks for this.
Exactly what question did you ask?
Hi George,
Thanks for asking. I said to them:
Mr Mloxisi Shongwe replied:
Knowing there was no proof in Chapter 8, I wrote again, and Mr Shongwe repeated his first reply. After my third attempt for something substantial, at least a page number, there has been silence.
I haven’t written this up properly for the blog, but I should. I’ll start by posting the press release I distributed. People should hear about this failure at the highest level.
In Chapter 10 of the WG1 report (“the Physical Science”) in the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is found the IPCC’s explanation for its signature opinion that “more than half of observed warming” was caused by human activities.
The reasoning begins and ends with the assumption that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) is 3°C (an assumption adopted in 1979). Once that ECS figure is adopted for Figure 10.4(b) (p. 110) all the rest is simple circular reasoning – as I tried to point out last year in this post:
https://www.climateconversation.org.nz/2018/10/human-influence-is-unquantifiable
It is ironic that the very same WG1 report was unable to put forward a “most likely” figure for ECS, because there was too much disagreement between model outputs and observations.
I agree, we are being had by perverted science.
A whole generation of young idealistic kids with undeveloped processes are being lied to, and this is a crime of global proportions.
The IPCC, Is sponsored by the UN.
The UN needs pulling apart with a wrecking ball.
There is no proof for human caused global warming, but there is plenty of evidence against it. Just check out Ben Davidson’s research on the subject and you will find that science is already way ahead of the the mainstream media.
You can find a wealth of evidence against human caused global warming on this YT channel (I hope it won’t be closed down before you see it!) https://www.youtube.com/user/Suspicious0bservers/videos
Hi Mara, thanks for dropping in. Could you refine your link, please? It shows a page with scores of videos. Which one are you referring to? Thanks.
Sorry for that, Ben is posting daily space weather and science news, that’s why there are so many. But this video about climate forcing is a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEWoPzaDmOA
https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/10/scientists-oxygen-nitrogen-radiatively-important-greenhouse-gases-with-ir-absorption-temps-similar-to-co2/
A lot of what I have been working on , comes from sources such as these. Folk who experiment at basic levels., no models…..
Finally got my 5 minutes of say to the latest version of the greenhouse Bill, at Three Kings Auckland, before Chloe Swarbrick et al. Did tell them it would get colder over the next year. We shall see, that’s Science. Brett Keane