Vancouver Green Police State Update 1

Email to Vancouver green nazi squad

Some comments I wrote to a specialist email group, composed of mathematicians and various academics. Use any info as you wish.

Should any of the recipients in the Vancouver bureaucracy have any information that clearly indicates that carbon dioxide has an effect upon either global temperatures or the climate, please let me know.

Best regards,
Hans Schreuder
(retired scientist, mMensa)
Darsham England
What I can say though is that until such time that the scientific community comes to realise that their pet theory of a greenhouse effect (based as it is on greenhouse gases) is unreal, until that time will the climate alarm continue.

I know not what else to write to convince them of this fallacy. Neither water vapour nor carbon dioxide are GHGs; if anything at all, they are superb anti-GHGs; they cool the atmosphere!

Monckton himself writes : “[…] The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record – No “greenhouse warming” signature is observed in reality” – from pg 7.

Yet he admonishes me for my “ignorance” with regard the basic radiative transfer formulae?! All formulae relating to radiative transfer in our open-to-space atmosphere are chasing their own tail, but how can I prove it?

G&T did a splendid paper, now peer reviewed; my summary:
Then I wrote the layman’s guide to how the atmosphere works, with not one word of response by the RS. Nobody listens, nobody wants to know.

The GHE and the concept of GHGs are sacrosanct. Period.
Fact of life: both GHE and GHGs are fantasmas; exactly the same as phlogiston in its day.
Fact of life: no evidence for any hot-spot has ever been observed.
Fact of life: such a hot-spot will never be observed because it can not exist in the open-to-space atmosphere; only in lab flasks can it exist.

Alan Siddons summarised the behaviour of carbon dioxide rather succinctly yesterday:
The problem all along, of course, is that people jump to conclusions. Sure, concentrated CO2 exposed to infrared will get somewhat warmer than everyday air. But this only proves that everyday air (99.96% of which is nitrogen, oxygen and argon) is more transparent to IR and less apt to be heated that way. Air molecules, CO2 included, initially acquire heat by contact with warmer surfaces. Via mutual collisions and convective transport, this heat gets spread around within an airmass.

To some slight degree, CO2 also has the option of acquiring heat by radiative transfer. But, rather ironically, it cannot radiatively transfer this heat to the nitrogen, oxygen and argon molecules which surround it because, as said, they are largely infrared-transparent. As a result, an excited CO2 molecule is obliged to share its heat just like the rest of them do, by bumping into other molecules. In short, there’s nothing special about CO2 in a real-world context. Outnumbered 2500 to 1, CO2’s energy is lost in a busy buzz of collisions, its radiative properties wasted.

Moreover, any heated gas radiates infrared — and in this case 99.96% of the gas consists of molecules other than CO2. Yet no one seriously imagines that back-radiation from 99.96% of the air has a role in raising the earth’s surface temperature. Only when CO2 comes up do we lose touch with reality.

Here’s a succinct point: Immersed in the vacuum of space, the earth has but one means of losing heat: radiation. And what does carbon dioxide do? It radiates.

It’s amazing that so few people have bothered to give this theory a second look.
So, there you have it. In just a few sentences Alan manages to point out how impossible it is for CO2 to make the atmosphere warmer.

Yet Professors of Physics and UK MPs who have degrees in Physics are happily proclaiming that the atmosphere is warmer because CO2 “traps” heat.

Scientist blasts newspaper propaganda

Submitted by Hans Schreuder to Evening Star 24

Dear Editor,

With reference to your article on this page.

I’d like to quote one sentence that is critical in the noise debate.

“While reduced fuel burn helps reduce emissions, it should not be done at the expense of causing increased noise levels over the very small segment of flight immediately after take-off where noise abatement is the key criteria,” he said.

The zealous drive to reduce emissions is nothing short of insanity, as emissions have a proven nil effect on the climate. Your paper and almost all others like you refuse to enter into a proper debate over the emissions issue.

If you were to bother to properly investigate the emissions issue, you will find that despite decades of searching and billions spent on researching, there is not one single shred of actual evidence that carbon dioxide has an effect on the climate or global warming for that matter. Glaciers are not melting, hurricanes are not increasing, oceans are not acidifying, sea levels are not rising alarmingly, Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice is not sliding into the sea etc.

As a leading world expert on climate change living in Suffolk, I have repeatedly offered my services to local councils (SCDC and SCC) who point-blank refuse to accept the simple truth that emission reductions will have nil effect on the climate. There is too much vested interest in keeping the false information going and it is a crying shame on them. Even more so on you as a public information spreader though, as you are only too happy to keep the myth of man-made climate change alive.

May I dare you to a debate? Are you willing to find the greatest adherents to the myth and put them up against me?

Let’s define ten agenda points and debate them until the truth is established, one way or the other. I am ready to be convinced that human emissions of carbon dioxide should be regarded as pollution and should be reduced in order to save the planet and make a better future for our children. Are you or anyone else prepared to be convinced of the opposite? Facts, evidence and well-established Laws of Thermodynamics are on my side and I will single-handedly take on all-comers who cry alarm.

My recent letter to PM Brown will indicate to you what is at stake here. It ought to be the hottest topic on your and the government’s agenda, yet all are silently heading towards economic oblivion over emission reductions that are meaningless in terms of effecting the climate. The Guardian regularly offers its front-page headlines to keeping the alarm alive. A recent announcement about allowing more planes and setting the emission reduction target for the rest of industry and commerce at 90% instead of the earlier 80% should set alarm bells ringing. Do you really think you can reduce emissions by 90% (or 80% for that matter) and still have an economy? Are we all going to walk to work? What work?

I await acceptance of my challenge and wide publicity of the forthcoming debate.
To aid publicity, I’ve copied a few people in on this email, including some of the world’s leading scientists, climate researchers, professors and international IPCC expert reviewers amongst them, as well as Look East and the BBC.

Yours faithfully,
Hans Schreuder
Darsham, UK


On Thursday 21 May 2009, at Stormont, Belfast, Dutch scientist Hans Schreuder, who now lives in East Anglia, told the Northern Ireland Climate Change Committee that there is no evidence for global warming or climate change being man-made.

Quoting from eminent scientists world-wide, Mr Schreuder dismissed the entire climate alarmist scenario.

From his testimony, these quotes:

“[…] the longstanding paradigm says that because of trace gases like CO2, the atmosphere heats the earth. But this isn’t true.”

“Any and all evidence that has ever been presented to support the idea that carbon dioxide has an effect on global temperatures has been biased, opinionated and based on an agenda that pre-emptively dismissed alternative explanations.”

“Computer simulations regard the earth as a flat disk, without North or South Pole, without the Tropics, without clouds and bathed in a 24 hour haze of sunshine. The reality is two icy poles and a tropical equatorial zone, with each and every square metre of our earth receiving an ever varying and different amount of energy from the sun, season to season and day to day. This reality is too difficult to input to a computer.
Did you realise that?”

“If carbon dioxide really is such a danger to mankind, as the US Environmental Protection Agency would have us believe, then the upcoming Olympic Games should be cancelled, as well as all other big sporting events, as well as all road transport and all air transport and all coal- and gas-fired powerstations should be shut down. Clearly there is no need for such drastic action and clearly carbon dioxide is not dangerous at all.”

“The above makes a mockery of saying that today’s level is unprecedented.”

“As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated infrared energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it – if only!”

“The periodicity in the data and the unequivocal solar linkage were not even addressed. This is not science. The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart. Heads will roll.”

“Any and all schemes to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are futile in terms of having an effect on global temperatures or the climate and any and all carbon trading exchanges are a fraudulent exercise amounting to no more than hidden taxation.”


Hans Schreuder East Anglia, England
See thousands of other scientists also speaking out:

Via email

SUN heats EARTH, EARTH heats ATMOSPHERE – not the other way around

By Hans Schreuder

A definitive chapter on the fallacy of man-made global warming/climate change.

After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.

The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere – not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth.

[…] it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation’s Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.

Hans Schreuder

Download the full article HERE.

Scientist tells Climate Change Committee: CO2 emissions have NO effect on climate

By Justin Credible

BREAKING NEWS in the land of climate reality, once again. Below is an excerpt from a report submitted by our contributor Hans Schreuder to the NI Climate Change Committee on February 17, 2009.

This document is valuable information for anyone interested in learning the undeniable CO2 truth and uncovering the hoax known as human-caused climate change. Hans is a retired Analytical Chemist and the founder of, a site which shares a very similar name and very similar views to this one. For a wealth of educational information please visit his site, and check back often as it is updated frequently with breaking news. Now, in an effort to get the word out to even more people we are combining forces and sharing resources.


“Despite much rhetoric and research over the past two decades, there is still not a single piece of actual evidence that the now-maligned carbon dioxide molecule causes global warming (or “climate change”).

To over 40,000 fellow scientists from around the world and to myself this is no surprise, for no such evidence can ever be found.”


“Climate change is far beyond the realm of humans to control and nothing humans do will change the climate from its natural and cyclical behaviour, which right now appears to be heading towards a lengthy period of colder winters and shorter growing seasons.

Carbon dioxide does not have any influence over the climate. Despite billions of dollars spent on research, not one single piece of actual observational evidence has ever been presented to categorically indicate that it does. This is because no such evidence exists.”