Right on. ALP talking heads are resorting to insults, which indicates they are rattled at having a serious debate on their hands. No facts in their latest noisy rants. A further point (which the Coalition seems afraid to make strongly) is that we represent only 1% of global emissions while China, India, USA and Russia in total represent over 60%, and change in that total is not in sight or likely by 2050. No matter how much we dither and dance, and perform political gymnastics, we can’t influence the global trends in any significant way. So, why is the ALP so aggressive about high targets and rapid progress to Net Zero? It’s not going to happen here, or globally. It’s mathematically impossible on all current indications. It’s all pain and no gain.
Coalition MPs must stick to speaking points. If for whatever reason they cannot then learn the benefit of silence. No need to compromise or weasel to please lobbyists and badgering journalists. There is a way to go in full formation of energy policy but the first step is now taken and must be consolidated to begin the long road back to being truly competitive.
Brilliant article. I truly hope this no net zero will get momentum. I have emailed all my net zero friends the latest Chris Uhlman essay: the world we model v the world we live in. Guess what, not one reply.
Great article once again Mike… I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s no doubt in my mind that no one would have been more relieved than Labor if the Liberals persisted with net Zero. It is the main issue in which they will be held accountable going forward. Energy prices will put much more pressure on the cost of living crisis and the renewable system will fail to sustain our developed economy, despite its massive cost. Neutralising the issue would have been an own goal for the opposition and a disaster for Australia. If we are serious about a carbon free future the answer is nuclear and the pathway to nuclear is gas… which we have in abundance.
But coal is in more abundance & is (I believe) a cheaper option than gas.
The optimum way forward is adoption of a sensible energy policy that’s technology agnostic, market driven, exclusive of anticompetive subsidies with clearly defined QOS performance standards& corresponding substantial $ penalties for failure to met such QOS performance criteria. Easy.
If Australia, one of the richest nations on earth, cannot take action on reducing emissions then who can? Of course there is a cost, which will make us all a bit poorer, but for the World to do nothing increases cost down the track. The cheapest way to reduce emissions was always pricing carbon, that plus removing the ban on nuclear energy. The Australian public rejected both those things, so we are left with the current expensive mess. The Liberal Party position really only makes sense if you share Trumps view that Climate Change in bunkum. Otherwise better to be serious about emissions reduction. I voted Liberal at the last election because of the embrace of nuclear energy, but they have just lost my vote at the next one.
Too few countries are serious about reducing emissions. It’s becoming a dead end, even if you are idealistic about possibilities. COP 31 is already showing that, as the article outlined.
You still ignore that Australia only produces 1.2% of the total carbon produced by "humans". To claim it is ok to get "bit poorer" is somewhat wishy-washy. I agree, nuclear power is a good alternative. As it's read it, the Liberals are serious about carbon reduction but not at the expense of the lower income people ( rich will pay) and at the cost of much more. They will, now, not sell a pie in the sky (= a lie).
I do not ignore Australia is responsible for 1% of emissions but 50% of emissions come from countries individually responsible for less than 2%. Human beings are very smart and if the genius of capitalism is thrown at a problem via the price mechanism, the cheapest solutions would emerge. Of course it is silly to pretend there is no cost as Labor does, but even more silly is to pretend we do not have a problem which is the position of the Nats and it seems the dominant Liberal faction.
Actually the question is "how big is the problem (of climate change)". I have just read an essay by Adam Creighton, a Senior IPA Fellow and economists, reflecting on the findings of a report (A Critical review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emmisions on the US climate) by highly qualified scientists such as John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer. Each scientists been involved in the climate debate for years. I can't find a link. But maybe someone on this podcast can help. The report and essay will explain many issues that have been ignored by "politics" but more importantly give you a less hyped and more realistic version of climate change.
Your link does not work when I click it. As I said higher up if you believe that Climate change is a hoax or that it will self correct within a few years there is no point making any changes. Just let the market decide which power source we use. We have extensive coal cheap to mine near our capital cities, so that is the only logical source if you take that view. I believe the chance that Climate change is happening and will damage our lives and the lives of our children is sufficiently high that we should bear the cost of taking action now. The Liberal Party position as announced by Ley are that emissions are a problem but we, and presumably all other nations which contribute to less than 2% of emissions should in practical terms admit defeat and do nothing. Platitudes and hand outs seem to be the policy.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn’t any, but if you’re so certain, go find it), what we should be doing is adopting a sensible energy policy that’s fair to all concerned (including the unreliables), market driven, exclusive of anti-competitive subsidies, inclusive of clearly defined QOS performance standards (+99.98% as defined by the AEMO) & corresponding substantial financial penalties for any failure to meet such mandatory QOS performance standards.
As I said if you do not accept the reports (IPCC etc.) and believe all the climate scientists are wrong, then the only logical policy is to do nothing. If you think there is a good chance they are correct, then I agree a non discriminatory market based solution will be the cheapest and fairest. We should get rid of all the subsidies and leave it to the generators to price their product except we should tax their output at a high enough level to force change.
I didn't bring up conspiracy plots, you did. FWIW, I'm focused upon science. Whilst 'models', that you also brought up, are a useful tool, note - models do not constitute empirical evidence.
There are no less thousands of well qualified scientists globally with divergent views to those of the UN IPCC whose creditability is sadly lacking, as is well referenced by https://clintel.shop/product/the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/ on whose site you can also find the names & relevant CV's of the many climate scientists, engineers & professionals (including mine) who do not share the unfounded, alarmist dogma of the UN IPCC that does not do science. On the contrary, it seeks out & choses those Papers that best suit it's agenda.
Furthermore, the climate predictions you imply are irrelevant on the www.extinctionclock.org web site were made by proponents of the climate catastrophe ie your side of the fence, NOT mine. Remind me now, how many predictions, based upon their past scientific rationale & alarmism have proven accurate?
Meantime, I see your implying I have some sort of commercial interests here - not true. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You have also elected to muddy the waters by bringing up the Ozone Hole. Keh? Let's not move the goal posts as it were & stick to one thing at a time.
This was your opening line in this thread “ the unscientific/unscrupulous marketing machine working behind the climate alarmism campaign demonizing CO2”. That implies that a conspiracy of a marketing machine and not science is driving the belief that the increase in CO2 as a result of human activity is warming the planet. I acknowledge no science is settled, but as I pointed out in my last comment, decisions are taken on the balance of probabilities and not certainties accepted by every scientist or every member of the public. There are literally thousands of government decisions taken on the balance of probabilities. Taking action on the Ozone hole was one, drug approvals another, food standards another, vehicle emissions another etc etc. As you say no science is certain, all decisions including not taking decisions and maintaining the status quo have costs and winners and losers. The costs taking action on CO2 are high but so I believe are the costs of not taking action. As I said in my opening comment if you are certain CO2 is not warming the planet, no action makes economic sense. If you believe on the balance of probabilities human activity is likely warming the planet, then the question becomes what is the most cost effective way of reducing emissions.
It's not a case of what either of us 'believes'. The ultimate arbiter is science. Cold hard facts are all that matter. There's no shortage of Papers on either side of the debate regarding that question.
For my part, here's what I regard is a quality compilation of climate science research material in the form of a free e-Book, courtesy of scientist, Patrice Poyet, from Malta (not small, exceeding 600 pages!) that provides extensive research into most, if not all, aspects of the claimed climate catastrophe driven supposedly by CO2, together with a huge number of Citations & References (equivalent to a book in their own right).
You will probably be less enthused by it.
Nevertheless, I hope you (and for that matter any other readers here) consider this in the spirit that it's offered & where you and/or others, find disagreement, that's fine - to take that up directly with the author who I know welcomes such scientific debate, strictly in keeping with the tried & true principles of The Scientific Method.
On the one hand you are arguing the science is not settled and on the other you are arguing the science is settled on your side of the debate. I have no idea who Patrice Poyet is, but I unlike you I do not believe there is an “unscrupulous unscientific marketing machine” and the fact that the chief scientists and governments in just about every country accepts that human produced CO2 is causing global warming is enough for me. As I keep saying if you believe the climate is not changing, taking any action makes no sense. If the majority of scientists are correct then of course we need policy to reduce emissions.
Coincidentally & supplementary to that earlier Ref: above to Patrice Popyete's Paper rather lengthy Paper, I've just learned of a more recent meeting that took place in Budapest, Hungary earlier this month (8th Dec 2025) at the Grand Hall of the Academy of Sciences including a presentation by Prof Demetris Koutsoyiannis whose (markedly shorter) 58-page Paper titled "H20, CO2 Climate Change: A Holistic Refutation of "Climate Science" is IMO recommended reading for those who 'believe' in the climate catastrophe but are unable to provide empirical evidence proving the case against CO2.
Among other things, it dispels the early science undertaken by the likes of Svante Arrhenius. Page 35 refers. In summary.
The neglect of natural processes: Arrhenius’s fundamental errors that still affect “climate science” to this day.
◼ Svante Arrhenius (Swedish physicist and chemist, 1859 –1927; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1903) supported the mistaken idea that changes in atmospheric [CO₂] caused the temperature changes throughout Earth’s history.
◼ Also, Arrhenius mistakenly thought that “vegetative processes” (respiration and photosynthesis) “may be omitted” in the carbon balance.
◼ Note that at Arrhenius’s time, human CO₂ emissions (which are now ≈4% of the total emissions) were ≈4% of the current ones. This translates to 0.25% of the then total emissions. That is, Arrhenius thought that a percentage >99.75% “may be omitted”, and only a percentage of 0.25% is significant.
However, I recommend you(and/or others here) read the full Paper & as appropriate, look forward to your response in keeping with the principles of The Scientific Method.
I have no doubt Patrick Popyete and other scientists dispute the theory of global warming due to CO2. There are three questions here.
1) Is the planet warming?
2) If so is CO2 and other industrial gases the cause?
3) Even if it is warming and CO2 is the cause will the build up of H2O leading to greater cloud cover or other self correcting means mean that it will cool again?
Do you accept the planet is warming? As you know there are hundreds of scientific papers using satellite data etc that confirm it is. If you do not accept this, there is no point arguing the other two questions as they are irrelevant. So will you state clearly your position on this question.
You raise Galileo. As you know he broke the consensus position. Similarly scientists who first warned of global warming, the Ozone layer, Cigarettes, thalidomide etc. Etc. broke the norm and in doing that suggested policies with great financial cost to many.
1) In some 4.5B years, planet Earth has both warmed & cooled many times over & will continue to do so. Not least from the more recent Little Ice Age (from around the 1300's to the mid 1800's) when (thank goodness) it's warmed ever so slightly.
2) The science I've read leads me to conclude that there's a very slight warming effect from minuscule levels of CO2 that's currently in situ today ie around 425ppm. Minuscule & at a level in the not too distant past that was close to being insufficient to support life on planet Earth. 180ppm leads to the decline in vegetation & thus oxygen to keep us going!
3) Since we're currently in what is commonly known as an Interglacial (a cold period), I sincerely hope that planet Earth continues to recover from that to warmer times, since it's well known that cold kills far more so than does a slightly warming planet.
That you & I know, many others 'believe' in the climate catastrophe is your right.
However, when that 'belief' cannot be supported with empirical evidence (you've not supplied any, nor provided, links in support of your 'belief') then I & others who have 'bothered' to read the science on both sides of the fence, am going to call you out, especially in light of the trillions of $'s now being wasted on subsidies in favor of the Unreliables that are never going to deliver (IMO) reliable, 24/7 baseload power.
Make the effort & go read some that material I've provided you with links to & get back to me when you can find some empirical evidence proving otherwise and/or climate predictions that were made that have come to pass - they're all available for you to search through at your convenience at www.extinctionclock.org .
My comment regarding 'science' relates not only to climate science but to science in general that it seems you have little knowledge about. Any real scientist will tell you that 'science is never settled'. It only took the Catholic Church some 400 years to concede that Galileo was right.
You might care to look up the Index of The Rational Climate Book 2nd Edition (referred to above), Section 7, that details the Author's credentials on P539, followed by, I recommend, Section 11, P652 for critical Reviews from leading scientists relative to Patrice Poyet.
The climate on planet Earth has always changed & always will. Your challenge is to provide the empirical evidence proving that CO2 is a pollutant & primary driver of so claimed climate change. Patrice Poyet is does not share that view. You are invited to table your empirical evidence either here or perhaps with the latter on his email address at patricepoyet@yahoo.com?
Right on. ALP talking heads are resorting to insults, which indicates they are rattled at having a serious debate on their hands. No facts in their latest noisy rants. A further point (which the Coalition seems afraid to make strongly) is that we represent only 1% of global emissions while China, India, USA and Russia in total represent over 60%, and change in that total is not in sight or likely by 2050. No matter how much we dither and dance, and perform political gymnastics, we can’t influence the global trends in any significant way. So, why is the ALP so aggressive about high targets and rapid progress to Net Zero? It’s not going to happen here, or globally. It’s mathematically impossible on all current indications. It’s all pain and no gain.
The name calling is in full swing.
Coalition MPs must stick to speaking points. If for whatever reason they cannot then learn the benefit of silence. No need to compromise or weasel to please lobbyists and badgering journalists. There is a way to go in full formation of energy policy but the first step is now taken and must be consolidated to begin the long road back to being truly competitive.
Brilliant article. I truly hope this no net zero will get momentum. I have emailed all my net zero friends the latest Chris Uhlman essay: the world we model v the world we live in. Guess what, not one reply.
Great article once again Mike… I couldn’t agree with you more. There’s no doubt in my mind that no one would have been more relieved than Labor if the Liberals persisted with net Zero. It is the main issue in which they will be held accountable going forward. Energy prices will put much more pressure on the cost of living crisis and the renewable system will fail to sustain our developed economy, despite its massive cost. Neutralising the issue would have been an own goal for the opposition and a disaster for Australia. If we are serious about a carbon free future the answer is nuclear and the pathway to nuclear is gas… which we have in abundance.
But coal is in more abundance & is (I believe) a cheaper option than gas.
The optimum way forward is adoption of a sensible energy policy that’s technology agnostic, market driven, exclusive of anticompetive subsidies with clearly defined QOS performance standards& corresponding substantial $ penalties for failure to met such QOS performance criteria. Easy.
If Australia, one of the richest nations on earth, cannot take action on reducing emissions then who can? Of course there is a cost, which will make us all a bit poorer, but for the World to do nothing increases cost down the track. The cheapest way to reduce emissions was always pricing carbon, that plus removing the ban on nuclear energy. The Australian public rejected both those things, so we are left with the current expensive mess. The Liberal Party position really only makes sense if you share Trumps view that Climate Change in bunkum. Otherwise better to be serious about emissions reduction. I voted Liberal at the last election because of the embrace of nuclear energy, but they have just lost my vote at the next one.
Too few countries are serious about reducing emissions. It’s becoming a dead end, even if you are idealistic about possibilities. COP 31 is already showing that, as the article outlined.
I meant COP 30, the current one, not the next one.
You still ignore that Australia only produces 1.2% of the total carbon produced by "humans". To claim it is ok to get "bit poorer" is somewhat wishy-washy. I agree, nuclear power is a good alternative. As it's read it, the Liberals are serious about carbon reduction but not at the expense of the lower income people ( rich will pay) and at the cost of much more. They will, now, not sell a pie in the sky (= a lie).
I do not ignore Australia is responsible for 1% of emissions but 50% of emissions come from countries individually responsible for less than 2%. Human beings are very smart and if the genius of capitalism is thrown at a problem via the price mechanism, the cheapest solutions would emerge. Of course it is silly to pretend there is no cost as Labor does, but even more silly is to pretend we do not have a problem which is the position of the Nats and it seems the dominant Liberal faction.
Actually the question is "how big is the problem (of climate change)". I have just read an essay by Adam Creighton, a Senior IPA Fellow and economists, reflecting on the findings of a report (A Critical review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emmisions on the US climate) by highly qualified scientists such as John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, Roy Spencer. Each scientists been involved in the climate debate for years. I can't find a link. But maybe someone on this podcast can help. The report and essay will explain many issues that have been ignored by "politics" but more importantly give you a less hyped and more realistic version of climate change.
Hope you find it because it's " reassuring".
Here is the link to the article i referred to in my last reply. Enjoy
https://ipa.au/ipa-review-article/good-reef
Your link does not work when I click it. As I said higher up if you believe that Climate change is a hoax or that it will self correct within a few years there is no point making any changes. Just let the market decide which power source we use. We have extensive coal cheap to mine near our capital cities, so that is the only logical source if you take that view. I believe the chance that Climate change is happening and will damage our lives and the lives of our children is sufficiently high that we should bear the cost of taking action now. The Liberal Party position as announced by Ley are that emissions are a problem but we, and presumably all other nations which contribute to less than 2% of emissions should in practical terms admit defeat and do nothing. Platitudes and hand outs seem to be the policy.
In the absence of empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 (there isn’t any, but if you’re so certain, go find it), what we should be doing is adopting a sensible energy policy that’s fair to all concerned (including the unreliables), market driven, exclusive of anti-competitive subsidies, inclusive of clearly defined QOS performance standards (+99.98% as defined by the AEMO) & corresponding substantial financial penalties for any failure to meet such mandatory QOS performance standards.
Easy.
As I said if you do not accept the reports (IPCC etc.) and believe all the climate scientists are wrong, then the only logical policy is to do nothing. If you think there is a good chance they are correct, then I agree a non discriminatory market based solution will be the cheapest and fairest. We should get rid of all the subsidies and leave it to the generators to price their product except we should tax their output at a high enough level to force change.
I didn't bring up conspiracy plots, you did. FWIW, I'm focused upon science. Whilst 'models', that you also brought up, are a useful tool, note - models do not constitute empirical evidence.
There are no less thousands of well qualified scientists globally with divergent views to those of the UN IPCC whose creditability is sadly lacking, as is well referenced by https://clintel.shop/product/the-frozen-climate-views-of-the-ipcc/ on whose site you can also find the names & relevant CV's of the many climate scientists, engineers & professionals (including mine) who do not share the unfounded, alarmist dogma of the UN IPCC that does not do science. On the contrary, it seeks out & choses those Papers that best suit it's agenda.
Furthermore, the climate predictions you imply are irrelevant on the www.extinctionclock.org web site were made by proponents of the climate catastrophe ie your side of the fence, NOT mine. Remind me now, how many predictions, based upon their past scientific rationale & alarmism have proven accurate?
Meantime, I see your implying I have some sort of commercial interests here - not true. Nothing could be further from the truth.
You have also elected to muddy the waters by bringing up the Ozone Hole. Keh? Let's not move the goal posts as it were & stick to one thing at a time.
This was your opening line in this thread “ the unscientific/unscrupulous marketing machine working behind the climate alarmism campaign demonizing CO2”. That implies that a conspiracy of a marketing machine and not science is driving the belief that the increase in CO2 as a result of human activity is warming the planet. I acknowledge no science is settled, but as I pointed out in my last comment, decisions are taken on the balance of probabilities and not certainties accepted by every scientist or every member of the public. There are literally thousands of government decisions taken on the balance of probabilities. Taking action on the Ozone hole was one, drug approvals another, food standards another, vehicle emissions another etc etc. As you say no science is certain, all decisions including not taking decisions and maintaining the status quo have costs and winners and losers. The costs taking action on CO2 are high but so I believe are the costs of not taking action. As I said in my opening comment if you are certain CO2 is not warming the planet, no action makes economic sense. If you believe on the balance of probabilities human activity is likely warming the planet, then the question becomes what is the most cost effective way of reducing emissions.
It's not a case of what either of us 'believes'. The ultimate arbiter is science. Cold hard facts are all that matter. There's no shortage of Papers on either side of the debate regarding that question.
For my part, here's what I regard is a quality compilation of climate science research material in the form of a free e-Book, courtesy of scientist, Patrice Poyet, from Malta (not small, exceeding 600 pages!) that provides extensive research into most, if not all, aspects of the claimed climate catastrophe driven supposedly by CO2, together with a huge number of Citations & References (equivalent to a book in their own right).
You will probably be less enthused by it.
Nevertheless, I hope you (and for that matter any other readers here) consider this in the spirit that it's offered & where you and/or others, find disagreement, that's fine - to take that up directly with the author who I know welcomes such scientific debate, strictly in keeping with the tried & true principles of The Scientific Method.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347150306_The_Rational_Climate_e-Book_2nd_Edition
In the event that you have empirical evidence proving the case against CO2 & secure Patrice Poyet's agreement, by all means let me know?
On the one hand you are arguing the science is not settled and on the other you are arguing the science is settled on your side of the debate. I have no idea who Patrice Poyet is, but I unlike you I do not believe there is an “unscrupulous unscientific marketing machine” and the fact that the chief scientists and governments in just about every country accepts that human produced CO2 is causing global warming is enough for me. As I keep saying if you believe the climate is not changing, taking any action makes no sense. If the majority of scientists are correct then of course we need policy to reduce emissions.
Coincidentally & supplementary to that earlier Ref: above to Patrice Popyete's Paper rather lengthy Paper, I've just learned of a more recent meeting that took place in Budapest, Hungary earlier this month (8th Dec 2025) at the Grand Hall of the Academy of Sciences including a presentation by Prof Demetris Koutsoyiannis whose (markedly shorter) 58-page Paper titled "H20, CO2 Climate Change: A Holistic Refutation of "Climate Science" is IMO recommended reading for those who 'believe' in the climate catastrophe but are unable to provide empirical evidence proving the case against CO2.
You can down load a copy of that Paper here https://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/getfile/2573/1/documents/ClimateConferenceBudapest3.pdf
Among other things, it dispels the early science undertaken by the likes of Svante Arrhenius. Page 35 refers. In summary.
The neglect of natural processes: Arrhenius’s fundamental errors that still affect “climate science” to this day.
◼ Svante Arrhenius (Swedish physicist and chemist, 1859 –1927; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1903) supported the mistaken idea that changes in atmospheric [CO₂] caused the temperature changes throughout Earth’s history.
◼ Also, Arrhenius mistakenly thought that “vegetative processes” (respiration and photosynthesis) “may be omitted” in the carbon balance.
◼ Note that at Arrhenius’s time, human CO₂ emissions (which are now ≈4% of the total emissions) were ≈4% of the current ones. This translates to 0.25% of the then total emissions. That is, Arrhenius thought that a percentage >99.75% “may be omitted”, and only a percentage of 0.25% is significant.
However, I recommend you(and/or others here) read the full Paper & as appropriate, look forward to your response in keeping with the principles of The Scientific Method.
I have no doubt Patrick Popyete and other scientists dispute the theory of global warming due to CO2. There are three questions here.
1) Is the planet warming?
2) If so is CO2 and other industrial gases the cause?
3) Even if it is warming and CO2 is the cause will the build up of H2O leading to greater cloud cover or other self correcting means mean that it will cool again?
Do you accept the planet is warming? As you know there are hundreds of scientific papers using satellite data etc that confirm it is. If you do not accept this, there is no point arguing the other two questions as they are irrelevant. So will you state clearly your position on this question.
You raise Galileo. As you know he broke the consensus position. Similarly scientists who first warned of global warming, the Ozone layer, Cigarettes, thalidomide etc. Etc. broke the norm and in doing that suggested policies with great financial cost to many.
1) In some 4.5B years, planet Earth has both warmed & cooled many times over & will continue to do so. Not least from the more recent Little Ice Age (from around the 1300's to the mid 1800's) when (thank goodness) it's warmed ever so slightly.
2) The science I've read leads me to conclude that there's a very slight warming effect from minuscule levels of CO2 that's currently in situ today ie around 425ppm. Minuscule & at a level in the not too distant past that was close to being insufficient to support life on planet Earth. 180ppm leads to the decline in vegetation & thus oxygen to keep us going!
3) Since we're currently in what is commonly known as an Interglacial (a cold period), I sincerely hope that planet Earth continues to recover from that to warmer times, since it's well known that cold kills far more so than does a slightly warming planet.
That you & I know, many others 'believe' in the climate catastrophe is your right.
However, when that 'belief' cannot be supported with empirical evidence (you've not supplied any, nor provided, links in support of your 'belief') then I & others who have 'bothered' to read the science on both sides of the fence, am going to call you out, especially in light of the trillions of $'s now being wasted on subsidies in favor of the Unreliables that are never going to deliver (IMO) reliable, 24/7 baseload power.
Make the effort & go read some that material I've provided you with links to & get back to me when you can find some empirical evidence proving otherwise and/or climate predictions that were made that have come to pass - they're all available for you to search through at your convenience at www.extinctionclock.org .
My comment regarding 'science' relates not only to climate science but to science in general that it seems you have little knowledge about. Any real scientist will tell you that 'science is never settled'. It only took the Catholic Church some 400 years to concede that Galileo was right.
You might care to look up the Index of The Rational Climate Book 2nd Edition (referred to above), Section 7, that details the Author's credentials on P539, followed by, I recommend, Section 11, P652 for critical Reviews from leading scientists relative to Patrice Poyet.
The climate on planet Earth has always changed & always will. Your challenge is to provide the empirical evidence proving that CO2 is a pollutant & primary driver of so claimed climate change. Patrice Poyet is does not share that view. You are invited to table your empirical evidence either here or perhaps with the latter on his email address at patricepoyet@yahoo.com?