This excellent article should be circulated to every classroom from years 6 to 12. It should be sent to every member of the Coalition (God knows they need help as they cannot muster a policy on net zero to save themselves, literally). The so called science that the authors published, brilliantly skewered by Uhlmann, showing it for what it is... a piece of revenge backed by a billionaire who is bitter over his monumental failure in green hydrogen and his thirst for revenge, perhaps only matched by his hypocrisy given his other mining interests. There's another scary problem that this article raises... the failure of our hallowed halls of academia to instill in young climate warriors (like the author of the white paper so neatly demolished by Uhlmann) any knowledge of the past (aka the exchange between scientific and social history since year dot). The planet as we know (jeez just take a core sample) has been much hotter, much colder, more humid, less humid, had more water cover it and less, and had far greater levels of CO2 floating around. These foolish climate zealots write science from a standpoint of 24hrs ago. Thank god for intelligent reporting from the likes of Chris Uhlmann. Now to clone you sir and get you into parliament.
There is another fundamental flaw in the ANU analysis. The relation between greenhouse effect and CO2 is NOT linear, as seems to be the assumption, it is logarithmic.
That means (in rough terms) if a rise in temperature of 1 degree is caused by an increase of 200ppm of CO2, the next 1 degree would require another 400ppm, and the next 1 degree would require another 800ppm. So a 3 degree increase requires an increase of 1,400ppm in CO2.
Now the scientists will say there are positive feedbacks that makes things worse. But these same scientists will ignore every negative feedback that has the opposite effect.
It boils down to "tell me the answer you want and we will find the numbers to back it up"
Andrew Forrest is the biggest hypocrite in Australia when it comes to climate change. He is the main beneficiary of a company responsible for exporting millions of tonnes of iron ore to China … which is then used to build ‘ghost cities’ and ‘highways to nowhere’… the amount of carbon emissions released in those wasteful endeavours would be literally breathtaking… and for what? Nothing!
Water vapour is a green house gas much more inportant than a little extra carbon.. Nobody anywhere has mentioned the vast underwater volcano in Tonga that has been adding billions of cubic metres of water to the atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere since it erupted in 2022.
Even reducing human carbon emissions to zero today, forever, would have less effect on temperatures than this 1 volcano.
Estimates by economists are normally always UNDERESTIMATED…
“The Net Zero Australia report, advised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and Australian Climate Council, estimates a full renewables-only transition would cost between $7 and $9 trillion. That is 6 times Australia’s current record high national debt of 1.2 trillion dollars.”
Bowen is a climate change catastrophe along with all these astute bought academics.
Well I would never argue with Emeritus Professor Will Happer. If he says I got the decimal point in the wrong place, I'd go with him. That makes the ANU paper 10 times worse.
This excellent article should be circulated to every classroom from years 6 to 12. It should be sent to every member of the Coalition (God knows they need help as they cannot muster a policy on net zero to save themselves, literally). The so called science that the authors published, brilliantly skewered by Uhlmann, showing it for what it is... a piece of revenge backed by a billionaire who is bitter over his monumental failure in green hydrogen and his thirst for revenge, perhaps only matched by his hypocrisy given his other mining interests. There's another scary problem that this article raises... the failure of our hallowed halls of academia to instill in young climate warriors (like the author of the white paper so neatly demolished by Uhlmann) any knowledge of the past (aka the exchange between scientific and social history since year dot). The planet as we know (jeez just take a core sample) has been much hotter, much colder, more humid, less humid, had more water cover it and less, and had far greater levels of CO2 floating around. These foolish climate zealots write science from a standpoint of 24hrs ago. Thank god for intelligent reporting from the likes of Chris Uhlmann. Now to clone you sir and get you into parliament.
There is another fundamental flaw in the ANU analysis. The relation between greenhouse effect and CO2 is NOT linear, as seems to be the assumption, it is logarithmic.
That means (in rough terms) if a rise in temperature of 1 degree is caused by an increase of 200ppm of CO2, the next 1 degree would require another 400ppm, and the next 1 degree would require another 800ppm. So a 3 degree increase requires an increase of 1,400ppm in CO2.
Now the scientists will say there are positive feedbacks that makes things worse. But these same scientists will ignore every negative feedback that has the opposite effect.
It boils down to "tell me the answer you want and we will find the numbers to back it up"
According to Happer going from 400ppm CO2 to 800ppm the earth would warm 0.07 degrees?
Andrew Forrest is the biggest hypocrite in Australia when it comes to climate change. He is the main beneficiary of a company responsible for exporting millions of tonnes of iron ore to China … which is then used to build ‘ghost cities’ and ‘highways to nowhere’… the amount of carbon emissions released in those wasteful endeavours would be literally breathtaking… and for what? Nothing!
Thanks Chris well said!!
Water vapour is a green house gas much more inportant than a little extra carbon.. Nobody anywhere has mentioned the vast underwater volcano in Tonga that has been adding billions of cubic metres of water to the atmosphere, especially the upper atmosphere since it erupted in 2022.
Even reducing human carbon emissions to zero today, forever, would have less effect on temperatures than this 1 volcano.
Just like big pharma and their shenanigans.
Add to this debate ..
Estimates by economists are normally always UNDERESTIMATED…
“The Net Zero Australia report, advised by the Australian Conservation Foundation and Australian Climate Council, estimates a full renewables-only transition would cost between $7 and $9 trillion. That is 6 times Australia’s current record high national debt of 1.2 trillion dollars.”
Bowen is a climate change catastrophe along with all these astute bought academics.
Well I would never argue with Emeritus Professor Will Happer. If he says I got the decimal point in the wrong place, I'd go with him. That makes the ANU paper 10 times worse.
The phrase "Mad as a gum diggers dog" comes to mind.