The Daily Sceptic reports that a new paper by distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden shows the utter futility of the globalist pursuit of net-zero policies. The scientists calculate that a successful effort to reach the net-zero goal by 2050 would result in a lowering of global temperatures that is at best imperceptible.
Here’s an excerpt from that story:
Recent calculations by the distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer and William van Wijngaarden suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C. Even assuming the climate modelled feedbacks and temperature opinions of the politicised Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the rise would be only 0.28°C. Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth. “It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists.
In the U.K., the current General Election is almost certain to be won by a party that is committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons. The Labour party will attempt to ‘decarbonise’ the electricity grid by the end of the decade without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas. Britain is sitting on huge reserves of hydrocarbons but new exploration is to be banned. It is hard to think of a more ruinous energy policy, but the Conservative governing party is little better. Led by the hapless May, a woman over-promoted since her time running the education committee on Merton Council, through to Buffo Boris and Washed-Out Rishi, its leaders have drunk the eco Kool-Aid fed to them by the likes of Roger Hallam, Extinction Rebellion and the Swedish Doom Goblin. Adding to the mix in the new Parliament will be a likely 200 new ‘Labour’ recruits with university degrees in buggerallology and CVs full of parasitical non-jobs in the public sector.
Hardly any science knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO2 – perfectly good plant fertiliser – and bury it in the ground. As a privileged, largely middle class group, they have net zero understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages. All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.
They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wild flowers where food once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion cars and stop granny visiting her grandchildren in the United States. On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilisers, plastics and cleaning products. It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than produce one where they are present. Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.
Unlike politicians the world over who rant about fire and brimstone, Messrs Lindzen, Happer and van Wijngaarden pay close attention to actual climate observations and analyses of the data. Since it is impossible to determine how much of the gentle warming of the last two centuries is natural or caused by higher levels of CO2, they assume a ‘climate sensitivity’ – rise in temperature when CO2 doubles in the atmosphere – of 0.8°C. This is about four times less than IPCC estimates, which lacks any proof. Understandably the IPCC does not make a big issue of this lack of crucial proof at the heart of the so-called 97% anthropogenic ‘consensus’.
[End]
Just one more bit of proof - as if any were needed - that the whole net-zero charade is nothing more than the largest transfer of wealth ever devised by mankind. Voters will either put a stop to this madness, or the entire globe will descend into totalitarian domination by a small set of billionaires and corporate interests.
Time is growing short to affect that change.
That is all.
A few years ago, maybe 5-6,I thought these greenies were just misinformed and were paid to demonstrate and resist. Now they’ve proven they are mentally ill and are vile destructive misfits.
The real science has been hijacked in the media mob’s rhetoric by falsehoods and outright lies. The politicians supporting this green garbage are simply wannabe dictators. The puzzling part is how so many supposedly normal and somewhat educated people follow it or believe in it! It being the green agenda, the left wing agenda, the alphabet soup of communists (UN, IEA, WEF, WHO, IPPC, ad nauseum).
considering that the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is naturally occurring (I've read as high as 95%) and considering that CO2 is a tiny element in the atmosphere (less than 4 one hundredths of 1%), the fact that is has minimal impact on the climate should not be surprising - thanks to the Professors for pointing that out - and wrt carbon capture, since CO2 is heavier than the other components in the atmosphere it naturally falls to earth where the plants use it to create oxygen, so the whole carbon capture is absurd since it is happening anyway