| Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. |
 |
|
We sent you this newsletter because you expressed an interest in us or you were referred to us. To forward a copy of the newsletter, to update your profile or to unsubscribe, see the end of the newsletter. CCG Web SiteVisit our web site to learn more about global warming, other climate matters, recent research and news items. Find out about events we might be planning. Ask questions and take part in discussions.Environmentalist scepticOne of the shrewdest falsehoods in the global warming debate is that climate sceptics don't care about the environment. This is untrue but the misapprehension has been cultivated by the activists in an attempt to marginalise the sceptics.Climate change?Yes, of course it does. But every time the climate changes, it simply becomes what it was before. It has gone up and down, to and fro, over hundreds of millions of years with every aspect of climate keeping to regular limits and life survives. The climate does not do “unprecedented”. There is no crisis.Overseas membersSome members of this list reside overseas; naturally, you're welcome to attend as well, but we'll understand if you're otherwise engaged! In the meantime, we're happy to keep you informed.Still, the tail wags the dogThe present concentration of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere is 387 parts per million by volume (ppmv). That means it forms 0.000387 of the total atmosphere. But it's not all from man’s activities, it’s mostly from Nature. How much did we put there? The best estimates are that we are responsible for about 5.3% of all the atmospheric carbon dioxide.What’s 5.3% of 0.000387? It’s 0.00002 (two one-hundred-thousandths). It is entirely unreasonable to propose that such a vanishingly small amount could DOMINATE the climate system, although only a few say so. Thousands of scientists say it doesn’t. Water reigns supremeWater vapour is not only 26 times stronger as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (that’s 2600% stronger!), but there’s also far more of it in the atmosphere — by volume, almost 100 times more: 2% – 3% against only 0.0387% of CO2. But the activists can hardly legislate against water; that could never be framed as a pollutant. |
NewsletterNo. 1September 2009
It is become weird Hopefully, no serious blow to energy use Heads of government are on the brink of writing a treaty in December; they are meeting in New York in preparation for it, although we have been getting mixed signals on the likelihood of them reaching a meaningful agreement. As early as June this year, the UN’s top climate official, Mr Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), said global emissions reduction targets are unlikely to be reached in Copenhagen. That’s quite a pessimistic outlook from the organiser.In early September, UN Development Chief, Miss Helen Clark (remember her?) was toning down expectations for Copenhagen, even suggesting there might be no deal at all. “I think the conference will be positive but it won’t dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’.” Less than two weeks ago, the UK Foreign Secretary, Mr David Miliband, said that the Copenhagen conference would fail to produce an effective treaty on cutting greenhouse gases. Let’s hope we can forget about Copenhagen committing us to any serious reduction in our energy use. Nick Smith promises “nothing” from our sacrifice I just received a reply from the Hon Dr Nick Smith, Minister for Climate Change Issues, who answers my question “What do we get for something that will cost our families from $30 to $112 each and every week?”He says we’ll get nothing for it. It won’t even affect the climate — it’s just our “fair share” of a “global effort” (both letters are on the web site). So the average family will pay perhaps $60 or more per week just to signal to our trading partners and incoming tourists that we’re doing “our bit”. Terrific — $60 a week for a better image. I guess it’s commercially important to stay in the club with our trading partners, but that’s a helluva lot for struggling householders to pay. Here’s a challenge for you I think as a matter of some urgency you should tell others about this offer of a meeting and why they should go along. I’m happy to meet in our living room, but if the numbers are there, we’ll find somewhere more spacious. The important thing is to tell me you’re interested. Please do your best to drum up interest among your family, friends and colleagues — and remember to let me know that you want a meeting.So why should anyone come along? People are becoming aware that there are two sides to the climate issue and that perhaps the official government line is wrong. A lot of people don’t believe that mankind could be warming the planet. But where can they find reliable information? That’s where we can help. This is an opportunity to learn more and ask questions. You probably know lots of people with questions; they tumble out as soon as global warming is mentioned. Such people need this meeting. The CCG is closely affiliated with the NZ Climate Science Coalition (NZCSC) and has links with a number of other scientists on climate research in NZ and overseas. They are without exception generous of their time and expertise. Many of them disapprove of the corruption of the scientific process and the takeover of national science bodies by “climate change” activists. Heard of denialists? If you doubt that activists are now in charge, if you think that the Royal Society of New Zealand, for example, is in the hands of objective scientists, then contact them to disagree over man-made global warming; ask them for evidence of it. Then tell me how you got on. Those who use the insulting term “denialist”, recalling deniers of the holocaust, are the warmists, not the sceptical scientists. Where once scepticism was honoured above all scientific qualities, personal abuse of those whose scientific observations raise questions about the science is now routine. Some have called for sceptics to be charged with “crimes against humanity”, even treason. It is a disgrace.The scientists I talk to (some are members of the Royal Society) confirm that there is no evidence for dangerous man-made global warming. I wondered how I could convincingly demonstrate that point — how to make this executive summary credible yet still brief. What evidence? Well, it’s simple: if there was any evidence that humans were causing dangerous global warming, we’d know it by now — we’d know it by heart, for you can bet your bottom dollar that the warmists would have made sure they told us. The message that we are causing dangerous warming has reached us; the UN propaganda machine has carried that message to almost everyone on the planet. But it has signally failed to convey any evidence for it. The reason cannot be that they could not get to us; it can only be that there is no evidence to bring, only a theory.Do you know what evidence shows that humanity is responsible for a future climate catastrophe? Chances are, unless you’ve done some independent reading, you’re going to be a bit vague on the evidence. Come along and we can tell you things about climate science that you’ll never find in the traditional media. (And no, I’m not a conspiracy theorist — the media have their own unique reasons to ignore what could spoil a perfectly good disaster story.) Activist takeover of science Note that I’m asking about evidence that man has caused the warming, not merely that warming has occurred (because some has occurred). If these comments raise questions you can‘t answer, then you need to hear what I have to say and see the resources I can give you.The action we need is simple. The first priority is to get people curious about climate change; second, make it easy for them to learn more; third, provide credible speakers and sources to inform public meetings; and fourth, make the opinions of thousands of citizens heard by our elected representatives. The resounding call of truth Because science cannot stop this; the activists have taken over the traditional scientific bodies for their own purposes and largely silenced the voice of true, sceptical science. The only thing that will change the course of this “crisis” now is public opinion.Against the influence wielded by the UN and eco-activists with pots of money, perhaps we shall prevail with the power of truth. My very best regards to you, Richard Treadgold, Convenor, Climate Conversation Group. P.S.: Email me. I need to know the numbers you can bring along or even just that you’re looking for more people. And do tell me what you want on our web site. Cheers. RT. |
CCG NewsletterWe encourage you to forward this email to all the people you wish.Please do not reply directly to this newsletter. If you wish to write to Richard Treadgold, please send him an email at convenor@climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz. SUBSCRIBETo sign up for your own copy of the newsletter, visit the newsletter page on our web site.Editor's email address: convenor@climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz Richard's landline/cellphone: 09-479-3396 / 0275-340-641 Our web site and blog: www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz Copyright © 2009 WordShine Ltd. All rights reserved. Opting outWe hope you enjoy our newsletters and continue receiving them. However, we understand you may wish to reduce the pressure on your busy life. To block future messages from us, use the UNSUBSCRIBE link below.Go to top |
|