Climate scientists: concept of net zero is a dangerous trap

James Dyke, University of Exeter; Robert Watson, University of East Anglia, and Wolfgang Knorr, Lund University

Sometimes realisation comes in a blinding flash. Blurred outlines snap into shape and suddenly it all makes sense. Underneath such revelations is typically a much slower-dawning process. Doubts at the back of the mind grow. The sense of confusion that things cannot be made to fit together increases until something clicks. Or perhaps snaps.

Collectively we three authors of this article must have spent more than 80 years thinking about climate change. Why has it taken us so long to speak out about the obvious dangers of the concept of net zero? In our defence, the premise of net zero is deceptively simple – and we admit that it deceived us.

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So it follows that we must stop emitting more and even remove some of it. This idea is central to the world’s current plan to avoid catastrophe. In fact, there are many suggestions as to how to actually do this, from mass tree planting, to high tech direct air capture devices that suck out carbon dioxide from the air.

The current consensus is that if we deploy these and other so-called “carbon dioxide removal” techniques at the same time as reducing our burning of fossil fuels, we can more rapidly halt global warming. Hopefully around the middle of this century we will achieve “net zero”. This is the point at which any residual emissions of greenhouse gases are balanced by technologies removing them from the atmosphere.

This is a great idea, in principle. Unfortunately, in practice it helps perpetuate a belief in technological salvation and diminishes the sense of urgency surrounding the need to curb emissions now.

We have arrived at the painful realisation that the idea of net zero has licensed a recklessly cavalier “burn now, pay later” approach which has seen carbon emissions continue to soar. It has also hastened the destruction of the natural world by increasing deforestation today, and greatly increases the risk of further devastation in the future.

To understand how this has happened, how humanity has gambled its civilisation on no more than promises of future solutions, we must return to the late 1980s, when climate change broke out onto the international stage.

Steps towards net zero

On June 22 1988, James Hansen was the administrator of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a prestigious appointment but someone largely unknown outside of academia.

By the afternoon of the 23rd he was well on the way to becoming the world’s most famous climate scientist. This was as a direct result of his testimony to the US congress, when he forensically presented the evidence that the Earth’s climate was warming and that humans were the primary cause: “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

If we had acted on Hanson’s testimony at the time, we would have been able to decarbonise our societies at a rate of around 2% a year in order to give us about a two-in-three chance of limiting warming to no more than 1.5°C. It would have been a huge challenge, but the main task at that time would have been to simply stop the accelerating use of fossil fuels while fairly sharing out future emissions.

Alt text
Graph demonstrating how fast mitigation has to happen to keep to 1.5℃. © Robbie Andrew, CC BY

Four years later, there were glimmers of hope that this would be possible. During the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, all nations agreed to stabilise concentrations of greenhouse gases to ensure that they did not produce dangerous interference with the climate. The 1997 Kyoto Summit attempted to start to put that goal into practice. But as the years passed, the initial task of keeping us safe became increasingly harder given the continual increase in fossil fuel use.

It was around that time that the first computer models linking greenhouse gas emissions to impacts on different sectors of the economy were developed. These hybrid climate-economic models are known as Integrated Assessment Models. They allowed modellers to link economic activity to the climate by, for example, exploring how changes in investments and technology could lead to changes in greenhouse gas emissions.

They seemed like a miracle: you could try out policies on a computer screen before implementing them, saving humanity costly experimentation. They rapidly emerged to become key guidance for climate policy. A primacy they maintain to this day.

Unfortunately, they also removed the need for deep critical thinking. Such models represent society as a web of idealised, emotionless buyers and sellers and thus ignore complex social and political realities, or even the impacts of climate change itself. Their implicit promise is that market-based approaches will always work. This meant that discussions about policies were limited to those most convenient to politicians: incremental changes to legislation and taxes.

This story is a collaboration between Conversation Insights and Apple News editors
The Insights team generates long-form journalism and is working with academics from different backgrounds who have been engaged in projects to tackle societal and scientific challenges.

Around the time they were first developed, efforts were being made to secure US action on the climate by allowing it to count carbon sinks of the country’s forests. The US argued that if it managed its forests well, it would be able to store a large amount of carbon in trees and soil which should be subtracted from its obligations to limit the burning of coal, oil and gas. In the end, the US largely got its way. Ironically, the concessions were all in vain, since the US senate never ratified the agreement.

Aerial view of thick forest in autumn with road cutting through it

Postulating a future with more trees could in effect offset the burning of coal, oil and gas now. As models could easily churn out numbers that saw atmospheric carbon dioxide go as low as one wanted, ever more sophisticated scenarios could be explored which reduced the perceived urgency to reduce fossil fuel use. By including carbon sinks in climate-economic models, a Pandora’s box had been opened.

It’s here we find the genesis of today’s net zero policies.

That said, most attention in the mid-1990s was focused on increasing energy efficiency and energy switching (such as the UK’s move from coal to gas) and the potential of nuclear energy to deliver large amounts of carbon-free electricity. The hope was that such innovations would quickly reverse increases in fossil fuel emissions.

But by around the turn of the new millennium it was clear that such hopes were unfounded. Given their core assumption of incremental change, it was becoming more and more difficult for economic-climate models to find viable pathways to avoid dangerous climate change. In response, the models began to include more and more examples of carbon capture and storage, a technology that could remove the carbon dioxide from coal-fired power stations and then store the captured carbon deep underground indefinitely.

This had been shown to be possible in principle: compressed carbon dioxide had been separated from fossil gas and then injected underground in a number of projects since the 1970s. These Enhanced Oil Recovery schemes were designed to force gases into oil wells in order to push oil towards drilling rigs and so allow more to be recovered – oil that would later be burnt, releasing even more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Carbon capture and storage offered the twist that instead of using the carbon dioxide to extract more oil, the gas would instead be left underground and removed from the atmosphere. This promised breakthrough technology would allow climate friendly coal and so the continued use of this fossil fuel. But long before the world would witness any such schemes, the hypothetical process had been included in climate-economic models. In the end, the mere prospect of carbon capture and storage gave policy makers a way out of making the much needed cuts to greenhouse gas emissions.

The rise of net zero

When the international climate change community convened in Copenhagen in 2009 it was clear that carbon capture and storage was not going to be sufficient for two reasons.

First, it still did not exist. There were no carbon capture and storage facilities in operation on any coal fired power station and no prospect the technology was going to have any impact on rising emissions from increased coal use in the foreseeable future.

The biggest barrier to implementation was essentially cost. The motivation to burn vast amounts of coal is to generate relatively cheap electricity. Retrofitting carbon scrubbers on existing power stations, building the infrastructure to pipe captured carbon, and developing suitable geological storage sites required huge sums of money. Consequently the only application of carbon capture in actual operation then – and now – is to use the trapped gas in enhanced oil recovery schemes. Beyond a single demonstrator, there has never been any capture of carbon dioxide from a coal fired power station chimney with that captured carbon then being stored underground.

Just as important, by 2009 it was becoming increasingly clear that it would not be possible to make even the gradual reductions that policy makers demanded. That was the case even if carbon capture and storage was up and running. The amount of carbon dioxide that was being pumped into the air each year meant humanity was rapidly running out of time.

With hopes for a solution to the climate crisis fading again, another magic bullet was required. A technology was needed not only to slow down the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but actually reverse it. In response, the climate-economic modelling community – already able to include plant-based carbon sinks and geological carbon storage in their models – increasingly adopted the “solution” of combining the two.

So it was that Bioenergy Carbon Capture and Storage, or BECCS, rapidly emerged as the new saviour technology. By burning “replaceable” biomass such as wood, crops, and agricultural waste instead of coal in power stations, and then capturing the carbon dioxide from the power station chimney and storing it underground, BECCS could produce electricity at the same time as removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. That’s because as biomass such as trees grow, they suck in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. By planting trees and other bioenergy crops and storing carbon dioxide released when they are burnt, more carbon could be removed from the atmosphere.

With this new solution in hand the international community regrouped from repeated failures to mount another attempt at reining in our dangerous interference with the climate. The scene was set for the crucial 2015 climate conference in Paris.

A Parisian false dawn

As its general secretary brought the 21st United Nations conference on climate change to an end, a great roar issued from the crowd. People leaped to their feet, strangers embraced, tears welled up in eyes bloodshot from lack of sleep.

The emotions on display on December 13, 2015 were not just for the cameras. After weeks of gruelling high-level negotiations in Paris a breakthrough had finally been achieved. Against all expectations, after decades of false starts and failures, the international community had finally agreed to do what it took to limit global warming to well below 2°C, preferably to 1.5°C, compared to pre-industrial levels.

The Paris Agreement was a stunning victory for those most at risk from climate change. Rich industrialised nations will be increasingly impacted as global temperatures rise. But it’s the low lying island states such as the Maldives and the Marshall Islands that are at imminent existential risk. As a later UN special report made clear, if the Paris Agreement was unable to limit global warming to 1.5°C, the number of lives lost to more intense storms, fires, heatwaves, famines and floods would significantly increase.

But dig a little deeper and you could find another emotion lurking within delegates on December 13. Doubt. We struggle to name any climate scientist who at that time thought the Paris Agreement was feasible. We have since been told by some scientists that the Paris Agreement was “of course important for climate justice but unworkable” and “a complete shock, no one thought limiting to 1.5°C was possible”. Rather than being able to limit warming to 1.5°C, a senior academic involved in the IPCC concluded we were heading beyond 3°C by the end of this century.

Instead of confront our doubts, we scientists decided to construct ever more elaborate fantasy worlds in which we would be safe. The price to pay for our cowardice: having to keep our mouths shut about the ever growing absurdity of the required planetary-scale carbon dioxide removal.

Taking centre stage was BECCS because at the time this was the only way climate-economic models could find scenarios that would be consistent with the Paris Agreement. Rather than stabilise, global emissions of carbon dioxide had increased some 60% since 1992.

Alas, BECCS, just like all the previous solutions, was too good to be true.

Across the scenarios produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with a 66% or better chance of limiting temperature increase to 1.5°C, BECCS would need to remove 12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year. BECCS at this scale would require massive planting schemes for trees and bioenergy crops.

The Earth certainly needs more trees. Humanity has cut down some three trillion since we first started farming some 13,000 years ago. But rather than allow ecosystems to recover from human impacts and forests to regrow, BECCS generally refers to dedicated industrial-scale plantations regularly harvested for bioenergy rather than carbon stored away in forest trunks, roots and soils.

Currently, the two most efficient biofuels are sugarcane for bioethanol and palm oil for biodiesel – both grown in the tropics. Endless rows of such fast growing monoculture trees or other bioenergy crops harvested at frequent intervals devastate biodiversity.

It has been estimated that BECCS would demand between 0.4 and 1.2 billion hectares of land. That’s 25% to 80% of all the land currently under cultivation. How will that be achieved at the same time as feeding 8-10 billion people around the middle of the century or without destroying native vegetation and biodiversity?

Read more: Carbon capture on power stations burning woodchips is not the green gamechanger many think it is

Growing billions of trees would consume vast amounts of water – in some places where people are already thirsty. Increasing forest cover in higher latitudes can have an overall warming effect because replacing grassland or fields with forests means the land surface becomes darker. This darker land absorbs more energy from the Sun and so temperatures rise. Focusing on developing vast plantations in poorer tropical nations comes with real risks of people being driven off their lands.

And it is often forgotten that trees and the land in general already soak up and store away vast amounts of carbon through what is called the natural terrestrial carbon sink. Interfering with it could both disrupt the sink and lead to double accounting.

As these impacts are becoming better understood, the sense of optimism around BECCS has diminished.

Pipe dreams

Given the dawning realisation of how difficult Paris would be in the light of ever rising emissions and limited potential of BECCS, a new buzzword emerged in policy circles: the “overshoot scenario”. Temperatures would be allowed to go beyond 1.5°C in the near term, but then be brought down with a range of carbon dioxide removal by the end of the century. This means that net zero actually means carbon negative. Within a few decades, we will need to transform our civilisation from one that currently pumps out 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, to one that produces a net removal of tens of billions.

Mass tree planting, for bioenergy or as an attempt at offsetting, had been the latest attempt to stall cuts in fossil fuel use. But the ever-increasing need for carbon removal was calling for more. This is why the idea of direct air capture, now being touted by some as the most promising technology out there, has taken hold. It is generally more benign to ecosystems because it requires significantly less land to operate than BECCS, including the land needed to power them using wind or solar panels.

Unfortunately, it is widely believed that direct air capture, because of its exorbitant costs and energy demand, if it ever becomes feasible to be deployed at scale, will not be able to compete with BECCS with its voracious appetite for prime agricultural land.

It should now be getting clear where the journey is heading. As the mirage of each magical technical solution disappears, another equally unworkable alternative pops up to take its place. The next is already on the horizon – and it’s even more ghastly. Once we realise net zero will not happen in time or even at all, geoengineering – the deliberate and large scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system – will probably be invoked as the solution to limit temperature increases.

One of the most researched geoengineering ideas is solar radiation management – the injection of millions of tons of sulphuric acid into the stratosphere that will reflect some of the Sun’s energy away from the Earth. It is a wild idea, but some academics and politicians are deadly serious, despite significant risks. The US National Academies of Sciences, for example, has recommended allocating up to US$200 million over the next five years to explore how geoengineering could be deployed and regulated. Funding and research in this area is sure to significantly increase.

Difficult truths

In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals. In fact developing ways of reducing concentrations of carbon dioxide can feel tremendously exciting. You are using science and engineering to save humanity from disaster. What you are doing is important. There is also the realisation that carbon removal will be needed to mop up some of the emissions from sectors such as aviation and cement production. So there will be some small role for a number of different carbon dioxide removal approaches.

The problems come when it is assumed that these can be deployed at vast scale. This effectively serves as a blank cheque for the continued burning of fossil fuels and the acceleration of habitat destruction.

Carbon reduction technologies and geoengineering should be seen as a sort of ejector seat that could propel humanity away from rapid and catastrophic environmental change. Just like an ejector seat in a jet aircraft, it should only be used as the very last resort. However, policymakers and businesses appear to be entirely serious about deploying highly speculative technologies as a way to land our civilisation at a sustainable destination. In fact, these are no more than fairy tales.

The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions in a socially just way.

Academics typically see themselves as servants to society. Indeed, many are employed as civil servants. Those working at the climate science and policy interface desperately wrestle with an increasingly difficult problem. Similarly, those that champion net zero as a way of breaking through barriers holding back effective action on the climate also work with the very best of intentions.

The tragedy is that their collective efforts were never able to mount an effective challenge to a climate policy process that would only allow a narrow range of scenarios to be explored.

Most academics feel distinctly uncomfortable stepping over the invisible line that separates their day job from wider social and political concerns. There are genuine fears that being seen as advocates for or against particular issues could threaten their perceived independence. Scientists are one of the most trusted professions. Trust is very hard to build and easy to destroy.

But there is another invisible line, the one that separates maintaining academic integrity and self-censorship. As scientists, we are taught to be sceptical, to subject hypotheses to rigorous tests and interrogation. But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

In private, scientists express significant scepticism about the Paris Agreement, BECCS, offsetting, geoengineering and net zero. Apart from some notable exceptions, in public we quietly go about our work, apply for funding, publish papers and teach. The path to disastrous climate change is paved with feasibility studies and impact assessments.

Rather than acknowledge the seriousness of our situation, we instead continue to participate in the fantasy of net zero. What will we do when reality bites? What will we say to our friends and loved ones about our failure to speak out now?

The time has come to voice our fears and be honest with wider society. Current net zero policies will not keep warming to within 1.5°C because they were never intended to. They were and still are driven by a need to protect business as usual, not the climate. If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. That is the very simple acid test that must be applied to all climate policies. The time for wishful thinking is over.

For you: more from our Insights series:

To hear about new Insights articles, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value The Conversation’s evidence-based news. Subscribe to our newsletter.

James Dyke, Senior Lecturer in Global Systems, University of Exeter; Robert Watson, Emeritus Professor in Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, and Wolfgang Knorr, Senior Research Scientist, Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


1.6 36 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 23, 2021 2:10 am

Drivel to a new level.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Pablo
April 23, 2021 2:52 am

It should have been longer. Not enough mindless repetition of baseless claims.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Pablo
April 23, 2021 4:37 am

The stupidity of the article is beyond comprehension; however when such minds hit the concrete walls of reality, they crack.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
April 23, 2021 5:12 am

They in essence are gaslighting themselves. I wonder if this is net suicide.

Richard Page
Reply to  Pablo
April 23, 2021 6:32 am

Oh yes, isn’t it just wonderful? In essence the climate enthusiasts in academia are trying to separate from the climate enthusiasts in governments – each will point to the other and scream ‘splitter!’ And with some luck they will cancel each other out, or at least the ensuing chaos might reveal some more unpalatable truths!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Richard Page
April 23, 2021 7:06 am

We are The Climate Front of Net Zero!

The Net Zero Climate Front is that fellow over there!


Mickey Reno
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 3:02 pm

Good one, Pat. Oh, wait, I thought WE were the People’s Net Zero Climate Front.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Mickey Reno
April 24, 2021 8:46 am

Maybe we can make them all a franchise and retire, Mickey. 🙂

Reply to  Pablo
April 23, 2021 9:00 am

I scanned the article for some actual science, ANY actual science. I didn’t see any. Then I saw this was from “The Conversation” – no credibility. I immediately knew that I could stop reading and I wouldn’t miss anything.

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Pablo
April 28, 2021 12:34 pm

It was a GEM, from the beginning when they said they screwed up on their models again, right up till the end where they admitted they’re failing miserably. It’s climate science at it’s most honest and best.

April 23, 2021 2:18 am

A useful first step would be to actually demonstrate that a 3% manmade increase in CO2 is doing anything other than good for us, the trees and the planet. So far, all we have seen are failed predictions, wonky over-sloped graphs and hysterical children.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 23, 2021 5:18 am

I met several of the faculty at Exeter. On a nice “journey through time” hike, the area and grounds of campus are beautiful, the leader asked us to pray for Gaia and he broke down in tears. To him, his nutty theories appeared to have become a religion.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Scissor
April 23, 2021 9:41 am

Did you manage not to burst out laughing?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gerry, England
April 24, 2021 3:30 am

That would have been difficult to stop.

Reply to  Scissor
April 23, 2021 1:22 pm

Once the general public come to realize that it is or has become their religion maybe things get better. Blind faith in Hansen and Mann et al. has generated a mind numbed cult fueled by government money. I say “Get our money out of your “Green” religion!” Other religious groups only get tax breaks, not funding.

Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
April 23, 2021 5:24 am

…. and hysterical supposed grown-ups.

April 23, 2021 2:19 am

In this currently cooling world, if there is ANY truth in the CO2 myth, we could really do with ramping up CO2 release. Cold is the real killer!

Toby Nixon
Reply to  IanE
April 23, 2021 2:58 pm

Anyone who says “In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals” has not read “Fallen Angels”.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 24, 2021 3:33 am

Well, John Kerry said yesterday that reducing our CO2 contributions won’t be enough, and we are going to have to implement CO2 removal from the atmosphere, too.

I wonder if John knows that plants don’t do well in low-CO2 environments?

Idiocracy. We are definitely living in a Democrat Idiocracy. Surrounded by idiots in our government. And criminals.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 25, 2021 8:04 pm

It’s too late for that! Clearly our only hope of salvation is to remove the atmosphere. Now!

April 23, 2021 2:28 am

“But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.”

Mostly still wrong, since they still irrationally believe there’s a crisis, that there is substantial warming, and that humans can, or need, do anything to “reverse” it. The arguably small amount of arguable increase isn’t the greatest challenge humanity faces, and is easily overcome using neolithic, pre-scientific technology, economics, and self-organizing social systems.

And, by the way, James Hansen (or Hanson, they can’t decide which way to spell their patron saint’s name) is still wrong, as is any self-styled soothsayer, calling himself a scientist, or not.

P.S. That doesn’t mean to say that I won’t cite these [explicative deleted] the next time I can tell a politician that there is no scientific basis for net zero, or the Paris treaty, to work.

Last edited 1 year ago by dk_
Jon Salmi
Reply to  dk_
April 23, 2021 1:04 pm

Your P.S. is right on point dk. I consider this article a treasure trove of information to use against warmists.

Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 2:37 am

The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
That is as much as I needed to read.
One sentence, spoken without reservations, evidence, qualification, or ant trace of skepticism, demonstrates vividly why such people are anything but scientists.

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 3:49 am

In the final paragraph these authors reveal their objective:
If we want to keep people safe then large and sustained cuts to carbon emissions need to happen now. 

John Kerry, like them, has a simple belief CO2 = pollution.
He want the “polluted” air cleaned.
They need to answer three questions:

  1. Since life cannot exist without CO2, at what concentration does it become a problem?
  2. How can we know CO2 from human sources is excessive when we cannot accurately quantify this vs natural sources?
  3. Where has a physical experiment been done to validate their claims that higher but virtually imperceptible levels of CO2 will damage or destroy human life?
Last edited 1 year ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 7:37 am

Indeed, there is also the untested assertion that we have the technology to replace fossil fuels presently. Oh really? Is there a solar or wind powered auto plant or steel mill somewhere that I haven’t heard of?
Furthermore, these greenies’ fetish for electric vehicles is particularly humorous. Do they really imagine that the entire grid will be solar powered any time in the near future? Have they never heard of attenuation? The ignorance is astounding.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Owen
April 24, 2021 3:51 am

“The ignorance is astounding.”

It really is.

It’s not really that difficult to figure out that the alarmists can’t prove what they claim about CO2. All it takes is a little study and a little bit of critical thinking, but apparently that is a little too much for many people, including many smart people. They won’t do their own research, instead depending on charlatans like James Hansen for their information.

Or, you don’t even have to do any study, all you really have to do to convince yourself that the alarmists are full of bull is to ask them for the evidence and when they can’t come up with any, then you can figure they don’t know what they are talking about.

Ask an alarmist for evidence. That’s the easiest way to come to the proper conclusion about Human-caused Climate Change. The alarmists talk a good game, but they have no evidence. Ask them and you will see.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2021 10:32 am

“apparently that is a little too much for many people, including many smart people.”

Most people I know “don’t have time” to look into things for themselves so they “rely on the experts” to tell them what to think about almost everything. Anything that contradicts the “experts” is obviously wrong.

Musing on that, plus the fact that the “experts” are so often flat-out wrong, I finally really understood what Feynman meant by “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
April 25, 2021 7:01 am

For myself, if I were afraid of what CO2 could do to destroy my future, I would look into the matter enough to understand what was going on. I wouldn’t just sit around and wring my hands like the alarmists seem to do. What a scary world they must live in. No thanks, I’ll stick with reality.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 11:01 am

Yup, and beyond those points, it is lies, nonsense, and fear porn all the way to the horizon.
A warmer globe is better, not worse.
More CO2 is better, not worse.
Humanity is thriving like never before in history, and there is no crisis at all, anywhere. Just normal bad weather and cyclical variations in climatic patterns.

Everything is just like it has always been, everywhere on Earth.
Nothing they say bears any relationship to reality.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 11:06 am

Such is our prosperity, and such is there a lack of any real crisis, that the entire industrialized world can decide to virtually close up shop for an entire year and counting, and beyond some dislocations in employment, nothing of any severe consequence has come of it.
All the food and consumer goods are still packed into store shelves in profuse abundance, and retailers are reporting record sales of every category of consumer goods, from staples to discretionary.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 1:56 pm

OH, no, Nichols, not store shelves. There are local farms here that grow fresh veggies all year-round and invite you to buy from them. Wouldn’t have to store anything, and I might even be able to take up canning to stock my own pantry, too.

Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 1:54 pm

Increase the O2 level too much and we’ll be back in the Carboniferous ear, with giant dragonflies and 6 foot long centipedes. I wonder how sKerry would handle that, don’t you?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 1:52 pm

This: another attempt at reining in our dangerous interference with the climate. – That is probably the ONLY true statement in that entire wallow in guilt-over-nothing.

Someone please be kind enough to explain to me how, since the pollution that I grew up with is considerably reduced and the daytime blue sky is sometimes so deep blue you can see Venus and Mercury and maybe Jupiter, if the time of day is right – HOW IN THE BLUE-EYED WORLD IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO BE AS BLIND TO REALITY AS THESE PEOPLE ARE?????

Sorry, don’t mean to shout, but the self-flagellation manifested in that article is enough to have me suggesting that the people involved in the Entire Greenbeaner Movement get some professional help, including long periods outdoors in the severely cold weather. No more comfortable air conditioned offices, no computers (period!!!), no store-bought groceries (raise it yerselves!!), and — wait, what I”m saying this is about as medieval as you can get, isn’t it? Okay, fine – put their ridiculous personages into a medieval setting where they have to raise their own food, including grains, and clean out the outhouses on a rotational basis. And no self-flagellation, unless they’re out of sight and no one can hear them squeak.

This is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!

And for the fellow who cried about Gaia – isn’t that Mother Nature from the margarine ads i the 1990s?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Sara
April 24, 2021 4:00 am

“the self-flagellation manifested in that article is enough to have me suggesting that the people involved in the Entire Greenbeaner Movement get some professional help”

What we are seeing here is a mass delusion driven by the hugely influential Leftwing Media propaganda machine. They are indoctrinating unsuspecting people into their Human-caused Climate Change cult by the tens of millions.

The end result will be the demise of Western civilization and the rise of other, less delusional, civilizations.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2021 5:05 am

Well, maybe (just maybe), Tom Abbott, we’ll get lucky and they will lock themselves up in those walled cities (see the Escape From movies, Blade Runner, Logan’s Run, Soylent Green, Brave New World, several Heinlein stories about Coventry, the Divergent novels, etc.) and never leave and we will be able to just get on with our lives.

Think how devastating it would be to be kicked out of a walled city (see Heinlein’s Coventry stuff) and have to figure out how to find food, clothing and shelter and the meat you eat is real pork or beef…. and you’ve eaten soy products your whole life…. and — well, the possibility is very real.

Reply to  Sara
April 24, 2021 10:35 am

What a concept, I could certainly live with it – if they locked themselves away and left the rest of us alone. I’m just not so sure about the second half of that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
April 25, 2021 7:04 am

They can’t leave other people alone. It’s not in their nature.

April 23, 2021 2:37 am

What a hoot, the fear is that the “problem” can be solved, so much better to redefine the problem so that it can never be solved. Don’t worry greenies, just take a look at the Mauna Loa CO2 plots, if you see that as a problem then it is obvious that it will be around for long enough for you to get nice properties and pensions.

Boff Doff
April 23, 2021 2:40 am

Lost the will to live by the third paragraph! They need to take their assumptions and their critical analyses and stick them up their models.

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Except of course, they have!

Sara Hall
Reply to  Boff Doff
April 23, 2021 5:24 am

That’s about the same point I decided it was pointless reading any further.

Dave Miller
Reply to  Sara Hall
April 23, 2021 4:08 pm

I made it halfway.

Nothing but nonsense halfway through predicts the other half is equally vapid. In my models, anyway;-)

Interested Observer
April 23, 2021 2:44 am

The time for wishful thinking is over.”

Start by admitting that CO2 is not the temperature control for this planet. Everything that follows on from this lie is politics, not science.

April 23, 2021 2:45 am

This bunch of nonsense is so grotesque, it doesn’t even belong to the climate farcical pseudo-science it takes for granted.

Maybe it’s a new kind of clown show which falls under the field of post-modern-pseudo-science.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Petit_Barde
April 23, 2021 4:54 am

They probably mean to publish it on April 1.

Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 2:49 am

Why spend trillions on worthless and futile attempts to engineer perfect climates for each climate zone? Perhaps spending only billions or even millions on adapting to and even seeking to benefit from climate changes would reap considerable benefits for the general public? Could it be that this alarmist climate boondoggle is actually a glorified ponzi scheme benefitting very few but impoverishing the masses?

Last edited 1 year ago by Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
April 23, 2021 7:39 am

“Adapting” means you might be able to throw away an old sweater in a few decades….if it warms up enough….or you could move somewhere 250 Km closer to the pole.

April 23, 2021 2:54 am

” Sometimes realisation comes in a blinding flash” plonkers, when will they realise they are just pushing a political agenda and that if achieved they will be surplus to requirements. Like the rest of us they’ll own nothing and be happy.

Peta of Newark
April 23, 2021 3:04 am

Just wow
if I had a muck-heap as big as that in my field, I’d be ££££££ minted.
Rolling in it.
And I Am Not Joking

Trouble is, I don’t actually have a a field anymore.
snot fair, jus not fair

They do demonstrate the awesome power of Magical Thinking though.
And self-muddlement with all them wurdz

“80 years” of ignoring Entropy, wilfully ignoring the fact that Heat Energy always goes down a Thermal Gradient
From University Folks studying Science

simply mind-blowing

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Tony Taylor
April 23, 2021 3:11 am

I thought I was going to read about how three climate scientists were going to debunk climate science, but I admit that it deceived me. 

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Tony Taylor
April 23, 2021 11:12 am

I had the exact same thought when I opened the article.
All they did was re-imagine the tired refrain that “it is worse than we thought”.

Alan the Brit
April 23, 2021 3:19 am

Here we go, yet again! Oh no we’re polluting the atmosphere with awful terrible chemicals & evil substances Humans are evil & wicked, so lets pump lots of chemicals & substances into the atmosphere to stop it happening! The logic defies rational reasoning, at least for this simple engineer!!!! Have any of these geniuses (they’ve got an ology after their names so they must be!) stopped to errr………..oh what’s it called now, oh yes, think?

April 23, 2021 3:33 am

A combined 80 years of struggling to realise at last,
that basically is all about the new modern global age indulgence markets at large… and a financial mass ripoff in global scale,
of the masses.


April 23, 2021 3:42 am

I gave up about 1/3 the way through.
This is worse than drivel. It’s droaning on about idiocy.
CO2 is a non problem and much needed in our atmosphere!

April 23, 2021 3:52 am

I envy your persistence and nerve. 🙂

My self,
almost made it to the end of 3rd paragraph… just about.

Salute you. 🙃


April 23, 2021 7:36 am

Thanks for the heads up. I won’t waste my time. Nice graphs but that’s about it. I prefer scary videos …

Reply to  John Shewchuk
April 23, 2021 9:50 am

I bookmarked that one, John.

April 23, 2021 3:54 am

It may be quite useful to keep this article handy for discussions with true believers. Here is a trio of true believers who have come to realise that a major component of the narrative is junk. And not just junk, it’s serial junk.

We all here at WUWT know that the major assertions in the article about CO2 and global warming are also junk, but if it’s possible to progress one step at a time then this article may provide the means for one step.

I would of course prefer an instant collapse of the whole scam.

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 23, 2021 4:58 am

My thoughts exactly – not even net zero is good enough. They want more…

and it will never be enough.

As I have said repeatedly pandering to these lunatics only encourages them.

I am becoming extremely curt with anyone who goes into this subject – its also great fun as they are almost never appraised of any salient facts – this academic included – apparently.

Dave Miller
Reply to  Ken Irwin
April 23, 2021 4:13 pm

There aren’t enough caves to go around to pull off their un-articulated conclusion.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ken Irwin
April 24, 2021 4:13 am

“As I have said repeatedly pandering to these [alarmist] lunatics only encourages them.”

Listen up, Republican politicians! This is good advice!

Don’t feed the Human-caused Climate Change meme. As Rush Limbaugh liked to say: Don’t accept the premise (any premise) the Left is selling. Challenge it instead, because it is always wrong if it is coming from the Left, as the Left’s trackrecord demonstrates.

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 23, 2021 7:05 am

As the one who spotted this first on the ‘conversation’ site […. I read it regularly to see what the academically challenged academics are up to …] I am most grateful for everybody in providing some perspective on this utterly huge pile of crap/gold, which actually flabbergasted my braincells.

One wonders what Griff & co. will make of this Heretical Rationalisation. Could we see a ceremonial burning at the stake … complete with CO2 emissions from exploding heads?

Clearly, this foot-shooting effort is the Galileo-moment for the AGW Movement.

One hopes that the Government seizes this opportunity to cancel COP using any pretext to hand. (Unless of course they want Glasgow to be a competitor to the Edinburgh Fringe….)

But seriously, for any budding comedian out there, a precis would make a very good stand-up act.

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  Mike Jonas
April 23, 2021 7:33 am

Agree. This essay demonstrates that true believers realize that mitigation measures won’t work, and explains why. It’s not some supposed Exxon-supported conservative organization announcing that the Emperor has no clothes. This is a very useful essay.

Given the authors’ premises and conclusions, the only thing that will save us is to drastically reduce CO2 production, beginning immediately. The thought of what changes that would mean to everyday lives is astounding – no private fossil-fueled transportation, no more non-essential air travel, rationing of electricity and power, closing of most manufacturing – until “carbon free” electric generation lets us resume our standard of living. Willis and others have explained how that just won’t happen in 10 years, or 20 or 30 years.

That will frighten people when they understand that the proponents of the Green New Deal intend exactly that. It’s part of what is needed to awaken the woke.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 23, 2021 9:48 am

‘Carbon Free’ electric generation is impossible – it can never happen. There will always have to be some manufacturing of infrastructure and means of generation that will emit the dreaded ‘carbon’ – it’s a complete nonsense.

Dave Miller
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
April 23, 2021 4:19 pm

You misunderstand their position a bit.

In their minds, they will not be among the ones struggling to survive in the caves. The seem to think we’d still need academics in their future world.

Timo V
April 23, 2021 3:59 am

Incredible load of carp! On a bright side, i sense we are reaching kind of a critical mass internationally. China and particularly India are not far from telling US and EU climate clowns to go have some good old “solo fun”.

Bill Toland
Reply to  Timo V
April 23, 2021 5:23 am

I think it is starting to dawn on some climate alarmists that their science denying drivel will not be tolerated in the developing world. China and India have no intention whatsoever of reducing their carbon dixoide emissions under any circumstances.

Last edited 1 year ago by Bill Toland
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Bill Toland
April 23, 2021 11:28 am

At this point they are back to trying to convince world financiers to stop funding for poor countries trying to improve the lives of their people.
They need get honest and admit they do not want to help people, they want to eliminate them.
Because there are only two ways to do what they are saying must be done.
The first would be to just eliminate them, but of course that will never fly.
The second is to cut off the means by which humanity has managed to increase production of food and other necessities to a level sufficient to sustain the current population.
Which will make survival impossible for billions of people, or however many there is not enough food for.
But large numbers of hungry people do not just lay down and die because some other people cut off their resources.
That is not what happens next.

Personally, I hope it ends badly and soon, for anyone who wishes such a fate on others, whilst they themselves are happily living in the lap of luxury and plenty.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Toland
April 24, 2021 4:33 am

“China and India have no intention whatsoever of reducing their carbon dixoide emissions under any circumstances.”

That’s right. Which means the Western world is spinning their wheels when it comes to trying to reduce total CO2 in the atmosphere. The Western world, under its current idiotic Leftwing leadership, will continue to bankrupt their economies for no good purpose in an effort to reduce their CO2 output, meanwhile, the rest of the world moves on and ahead.

It’s just a ridiculous situation. The Climategate Charlatans and their Spawn have turned a benign gas like CO2 into a worldwide crisis, at least for the leaders of the Western world.

The enemies of the Western world have big smiles on their faces. All they have to do is sit back and watch the Western world self-destruct over CO2, and then they can go in and pick up the pieces.

Reply to  Timo V
April 23, 2021 7:01 pm

Right….China already uses 10x the coal that the U.S. does (we’re a distant 3rd behind China and India)

April 23, 2021 4:09 am

Well that’s 30 minutes of my life I’m never getting back. What screed.

April 23, 2021 4:14 am
April 23, 2021 4:26 am

But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.

You certainly do that, and have been doing it since 1988.

Richard Page
Reply to  Charlie
April 23, 2021 9:50 am

They’ve been doing it since before the JASON report in the 70’s – it’s an endemic problem.

April 23, 2021 4:27 am

The first line after the bit entitled Difficult Truths:

There is nothing wrong or dangerous about Carbon Dioxide.

Fixed it for you.
You can forget about all the rest of the paper.

April 23, 2021 4:34 am

Net zero CO2 emissions is about as likely as zero covid.

Step forward creative accountants…

April 23, 2021 4:36 am

I am always “net-zero”. It is everyone else who isn’t.
Admittedly, I do the accounting for me only.

April 23, 2021 4:41 am

Wow, a group who don’t want to rely on technology use a poorly written and non converging set of computer models to define the path of civilization over the next century. They claim we’re working the solutions all wrong by backloading them but it never crossed their mind to challenge the original premise.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Sean
April 23, 2021 6:50 am

And they come to this conclusion working with a combined 80 years of experience in science. Mind-boggling that they are not only this slow but that they are freely admitting their slowness to the world!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pamela Matlack-Klein
April 24, 2021 4:37 am

They haven’t learned anything in 80 combined years.

James F. Evans
April 23, 2021 4:47 am

“Net zero”

Equals rationing.

April 23, 2021 4:48 am

This might be the single most stupid article I have ever read. I want my 10 minutes back.

Barnes Moore
April 23, 2021 4:51 am

One reason I read this blog is to get a reminder of the profound idiocy of supposedly educated individuals. Quite a juxtaposition between this article and History Confirms Democrat’s 1988 Senate Global Warming Hearing Got Everything Wrong from Start to Finish – Watts Up With That? Why is it that those writing these articles don’t look at actual data?

Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 4:52 am

so, net zero ain’t radical enough?

“The only way to keep humanity safe is the immediate and sustained radical cuts to greenhouse gas emissions…”

Will the authors set the example?

What’s unsafe about cold parts of the planet warming a bit?

As for human safety, I’m far more worried about religious extremists and the CCP.

Bruce Cobb
April 23, 2021 4:54 am

Three blind men: “A-ha! Now we see”!
No, you don’t.

April 23, 2021 4:54 am

What a massive load of crap. Long past time to make a list of these idiots and block them from using or benefiting from any source of electricity and any product made from, with or transported using petroleum. Force them to live the lives they want to force all of us to live.

April 23, 2021 5:01 am

These people need sectioning, surgically.

Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 5:03 am

The Guardian: “First Thing: green up your act, Biden warns world leaders”

“….the climate crisis has shifted the planet’s axis

Wow, I guess that’s the ultimate tipping point. If we don’t instantly stop all “carbon pollution” as called for by the 3 authors of the current article, the planet will surely flip right over.

Last edited 1 year ago by Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 9:57 am

…the planet will surely flip right over.

Calm down. It’s just Guam that will flip over.

The planet will burst into flames.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  H.R.
April 23, 2021 11:35 am

Right- on YouTube there is a video of Bill Nye the science guy- he poured lighter fluid on a globe, then set it on fire, then used some 4 letter words about how pissed off he is about it. He looked insane.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 1:47 pm

🤣🤣 Oh, I’d love to see that video, Joseph.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  H.R.
April 23, 2021 2:00 pm

Bill Nye.JPG
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 3:23 pm


Bill Nye… WAFI!!

Dave Miller
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 4:24 pm

He is! The only good thing about the AGW rigmarole is Bill left the Adirondacks!

Oh Crap, that’s Bill McKibben.

Last edited 1 year ago by I'm not a robot
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Dave Miller
April 23, 2021 5:01 pm

McKibben is now in VT. I’ve read all his books- they suck. Very, very, very boring. Alex Epstein debated him several years ago and mopped the floor with him- it’s a video anyone who dislikes McKibben must watch. McKibben was introduced as Dr. McKibben and he failed to correct this error until well into the debate after someone from the audience made the point. McKibben has a B.A. in English from Hah-vid. Just like Ale Gore.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 11:27 pm

Of course the VERY BEST WAY of stopping that fire..

….. would have been to douse it with CO2 from a fire-extinguisher.

Mark Whitney
April 23, 2021 5:25 am

This article should come with a warning label “Caution, may cause dizziness or mental confusion. Do not drive or operate machinery after consumption.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mark Whitney
April 24, 2021 4:42 am

The mental confusion is on the part of the three authors.

Rod Evans
April 23, 2021 5:30 am

Oh dear.
What can I say that has not been said by those who have already commented, on this rambling fact free piece of rubbish?
When you think, they can not get any more disingenuous, along comes an article such as this to demonstrate, there is no limit to their lunacy or desire, to destroy normal healthy social behaviour.
This is nothing short of a demand, for authority to shut down consumer society.
A clearly articulate piece, pushing a false premise, without any attempt to provide scientific proof of the need to do anything?
At least they admit, they are just acting like flies jumping from one dung pile to the next, looking for the juicy bit.
The other remarkable feature was no mention of China’s role in the ongoing failure to limit CO2 globally? Maybe that was because inside they know, it does not matter one jot to the actual Climate what China, or anyone else does, regarding CO2.

Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 5:32 am

Meanwhile, here in the Climate Emergency Theocracy of Massachusetts:

“Proposed new bill embraces environmental justice, solar equity and expansion, utility accountability and nature-based solutions ”

“It is important to note that the provisions in the Next Generation Roadmap law would not have happened without the zealous clean energy and climate change groups that have multiplied across Massachusetts who are fighting to tackle racial and economic injustices embedded in our energy sector.”

In this theocracy, virtually everyone worships the Green God..

Burgher King
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 7:45 am

Will this guy be the Democrat’s choice for an installed president when Kamala Harris leaves office in January, 2033?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 10:02 am

What in theeee Sam Hill is solar equity?!?

Are we going to cut larger and larger holes in everyone’s roofs, as you get closer and closer to the poles so everyone gets the same amount of sunlight?

Last edited 1 year ago by H.R.
Tom Abbott
Reply to  H.R.
April 24, 2021 4:49 am

I don’t know what solar equity is, but I suspect if you don’t support it, Democrats will call you a racist.

At least, that’s what the Democrats do when you disagree with them on any other subject.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 23, 2021 11:39 am

“…environmental justice, solar equity and expansion, utility accountability and nature-based solutions…”

Anyone else notice it has become extremely easy to spot the words of people who have no idea what they are talking about?
The charlatans have become so comfortable with their scams they are now talking openly about them, unaware that it is only their acolytes that are too hypnotized to hear what is being said.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 11:44 am

The best way to deprogram people from such nonsense is having them read every article on this blog site!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 24, 2021 4:46 am

“solar equity”.

The Democrats just keep adding to the language. Unfortunately, noone knows what they mean by this stuff. I think that is intentional on the part of the Democrats. One reason to confuse the language is to obscure what you are really doing.

It’s all part of the effort to confuse and control the masses.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2021 4:58 am

They succeeded in Massachusetts. The state legislature is 90% Democrat. We have a Republican in name only governor. Here, you’ll NEVER hear any skepticism about the “climate emergency”. It is the state religion- here in the state that once burned witches. While pretending to be the most progressive state- it’s still run by Puritans. Everything here is intensely regulated. As a forester, if I intend to manage a timber harvest, several government agencies have to review the cutting plans. One day I had a meeting with 5 reps of 5 agencies- in a forest. I was the only one not earning any money that day. All were young people less than half my age who knew next to nothing about forests- yet they were reviewing my work. Yet, when a solar company plans to build a solar “farm” they can clear cut 100 acres with little review- because it’s state policy. I think the state wants to be the first state to be net free- though I believe that’s impossible. One way to get there is to export all the industrial jobs and they’re successful at that- few are left- and to import all the products we want- so the “carbon pollution” in producing those products doesn’t have to be counted.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
April 25, 2021 7:08 am

“I was the only one not earning any money that day.”

Well put! 🙂

Trying to Play Nice
April 23, 2021 5:34 am

I’m glad I don’t live in Europe. It doesn’t seem like there is much intelligent life left there.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
April 23, 2021 9:07 am

I thought Mike Mann lived in Pennsylvania. Last time I looked on the map it was not located in Europe.

Richard Page
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
April 23, 2021 9:54 am

And he seems very much at home with the Australian BOM enthusiasts….

David Dibbell
April 23, 2021 6:01 am

From the article: “The threats of climate change are the direct result of there being too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” Get a grip. There is a highly variable emitter/reflector above us. Here is how it performs, at a gridpoint near me, as hourly CERES data for 2018 shows. The atmosphere is not a passive trap, as these results could never be produced that way. It has to be powered. Sure, if nothing moves, the static absorption and emission of longwave energy is real and measurable. But the final output is not suppressed, as the heat engine operation of the atmosphere feeds the emitter/reflector.

Last edited 1 year ago by David Dibbell
David Dibbell
Reply to  David Dibbell
April 24, 2021 3:57 am

Click on the image for a clearer view. And in case anyone wants to see these plots in more detail, here is a link.comment image?dl=0

Kevin kilty
April 23, 2021 6:20 am

“… 1980s, when climate change broke out onto the international stage into bad rash…” on June 22, 1988 more exactly…

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Kevin kilty
April 23, 2021 5:04 pm

Hansen will soon be publishing his latest book.

Abolition Man
April 23, 2021 6:24 am

This has the sound of a tract written by a semi-literate monk, writing between bouts of self-flagellation, deep within a Dark Ages monastery!
The strident religious fervor roiling just below the surface of this screed is hard to stomach; in much the same way it is difficult to listen to most politicians! They know that we know that they are lying; but they want to keep their zombie supporters placated and plodding in the politically correct direction!
That must be a big reason I feel so restless in most urban areas now. Watching the actions of a beehive or termite colony is interesting from a distance; being right in the middle of one is a bit disconcerting!
The mind numbing qualities of the media and Big Tech are leading us closer to the Matrix with every breath we take!

April 23, 2021 6:26 am

From what I’ve read, we need more CO2, not less; that we’re already at dangerously low levels. If true, that renders all this moot.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Russ
April 23, 2021 6:53 am

No longer dangerously low at 180ppm during last glaciation period; it still would be nice to have a little more of a safety factor in the 800-1,000ppm range! And all the plants would just love it!

Mike Lowe
Reply to  Abolition Man
April 23, 2021 1:05 pm

My standard reply when any alarmist comments on this subject is “there is NO climate emergency, and we need MORE CO2 not less”. I have yet to have any of these technically illiterate fools contest my statement!

Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 7:00 am

Email sent to all three authors under the subject heading:

net nonsense: an even more dangerous trap

Dear Drs. Dyke, Watson, and Knorr,

I write hoping to relieve your fears. Please regard, “Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections.”

Your entire collective fear about CO2 emissions and the climate rests upon the reliability of climate models.

However, climate models have no predictive value. Their air temperature projections are physically meaningless.

Be reassured. Collectively you three authors of that article must have spent more than 80 years being misguided about climate change.

There is no known evidence of a climate crisis; now or pending.

Glad to have helped.



Patrick Frank, Ph.D.

These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;
 But as for certain truth, no one has known it.

      Xenophanes, 570-500 BCE

David Dibbell
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 23, 2021 8:08 am

Good to see this. The more I think about it, the more I appreciate how your emulator helped to expose the illusion of it all. Best to you.

Pat Frank
Reply to  David Dibbell
April 23, 2021 11:51 am

Thanks, David. I expect to submit a thorough-going CMIP6 update in the relatively near future.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 24, 2021 5:01 am

Good move, Pat.

Maybe Dr. Happer will send those three authors his latest research paper, too.

Then they would know from your paper that the computer models making these three people scared of CO2, are not fit for purpose and Dr. Happer’s paper would show them that there appears to be an upper limit to how much warmth CO2 can add to our atmosphere, and the Earth’s atmosphere is just about at that upper limit today, so any additional CO2 added would have little effect.

If they have enough sense to understand what they are reading then that ought to calm them down a little bit about the future of the world.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tom Abbott
April 24, 2021 8:44 am

One can only hope, Tom.

But given the historical persistence of religion in the face of fact, hope for spontaneous AGW apostasy is pretty thin.

My intent is to just rub their noses in it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
April 25, 2021 7:11 am

I was just describing an ideal situation (wishful thinking). I support you rubbing their faces in it, absent an epiphany from the alarmists. 🙂

Last edited 1 year ago by Tom Abbott
April 23, 2021 7:02 am

There is the growing realization that, if we still want energy and really must quit emitting CO2, we must switch to nuclear energy. The authors of the screed above have joined the chorus.

There should be a Manhattan project to develop Small Modular Reactors (SMR). The main constraint should be preventing nuclear arms proliferation. The goal should be to start rolling SMRs off the production line in five years.

Constructing and installing SMRs would go on for decades and provide many jobs and boost the economy. Batteries are useless for long distance vehicles so we still need a transportation fuel. Ammonia (which is not without serious problems) can be used to fuel internal combustion engines. It can be produced using excess energy from nuclear power plants.

Then some day, when people finally realize CAGW is a fraud, we can go back to putting beneficial CO2 into the atmosphere.

Last edited 1 year ago by commieBob
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  commieBob
April 23, 2021 5:07 pm

When the next ice age begins- the greens will be demanding new coal power plants.

Walter Sobchak
Reply to  commieBob
April 23, 2021 5:58 pm

“There should be a Manhattan project to develop Small Modular Reactors”

Why? The US Navy already buids small modular reactors. The problem is not technology it is the bizarre politics of our era.

The main constraint should be preventing nuclear arms proliferation.

No one is going to steal reactors to build nuclear weapons. They are way too hot, for many different values of hot.

Reply to  commieBob
April 23, 2021 7:08 pm

There you go. But tell that to the California utilities, who are planning on decommissioning their 2 remaining nuclear plants. To be fair, they are not SMRs but big legacy plants with lots of legacy costs…but still, if they were serious about eliminating fossil fuels and carbon emissions nukes are the best way to do that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Owen
April 24, 2021 5:05 am

Shutting down California’s nuclear powerplants is just insane.

Kevin kilty
April 23, 2021 7:10 am

Unless a person spends time on a university campus it isn’t apparent how widely weak thinking extends through otherwise well educated people. Examples:

Faculty person in education believes that “science” operates by having scientists get together and hammer out an argeement — i.e. no mention of experiment, observation, measurement but only consensus forming. This person is teaching this view of science as a process to one class after another of science educators.

Faculty person in engineering thinks we have to abandon the use of metals completely over the expense and environmental issues in mining and refining, including CO2 footprint, and instead rely exclusively on plastics.

Another faculty person in engineering thinks that policy to limit the earnings of business and “businessmen” would best suit fairness.

etc. etc.

Right now there is a lot of hysteria over covid, of course, and focus on how wonderful it is to have installed people in various offices on the basis of skin color — oh, and on wokeness topics…

If only the taxpayer really knew.

April 23, 2021 7:15 am

George Orwell: “There are some ideas so wrong that only a very intelligent person could believe in them.” A perfect adage for this article and its authors.
As was completely predictable right from the start, the developing world was never going to accept any limits on their use of coal in particular, and fossil fuels in general, so the only way to keep carbon emissions down was to scale up nuclear. Not every country needed to do it, the US, Japan, Europe, Russian, India and China would have been enough. This could all have been financed by a massive preferential loan scheme set up by the World Bank (which would have given them something useful to do for a change).
But no, the intelligentsia, the academics, Cultural Marxists and far-left environmentalists all wanted to use the issue to overthrow capitalism and bring in their favourite brand of envy-driven societal destruction – i.e. world communism – via a command/rationed intermittent energy system.
So here we are. Up the proverbial creek missing a vital piece of equipment. Praying for a breakthrough in battery storage that would make Moore’s Law look positively linear.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  igsy
April 23, 2021 11:47 am

I have serious doubt that any of these guys are “very intelligent”.
They are dead wrong about the big questions, which means they are not smart, they are very stupid.

Dave Miller
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 4:34 pm

Teleb named these types.

deket pop
April 23, 2021 7:18 am

nice ho that is a must plan

Coach Springer
April 23, 2021 7:51 am

FTA: “But when it comes to perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces, we often show a dangerous lack of critical analysis.”

Let’s start with “perhaps the greatest challenge humanity faces”, shall we? From there, let’s try analyzing “Zero Now.”

Michael Nagy
April 23, 2021 8:00 am

I kept waiting for these “experts” to realize somewhere at the bottom that CO2 doesn’t drive the climate but that never came. I can’t see how any true scientist or expert, after years of proof, models that are falsified, temperatures of the past left out, can actually come out and say that it does. Boggles the mind.

April 23, 2021 8:09 am

Obviously, the Pentagon will need “Green Nuclear Weapons”
But I can’t even think of a definition for such a weapon.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Neo
April 23, 2021 9:01 am

A daub of green paint will do the trick.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Neo
April 23, 2021 10:43 am

The neutron bomb might fit the green bill. It’s made to kill the maximum of humans with the minimum of physical damage.

April 23, 2021 8:11 am

He doesn’t seem to realize that “net zero” is scam to sell projects, equipment, raise taxes, and create jobs while accomplishing truly zero….the fact that he is a greenie who doesn’t think “net zero” is a good idea for psychological reasons is ironic.

Ken Kimberley
April 23, 2021 8:42 am

I think this is the forgotten aspect of the climate change arguments.

Pat from Kerbob
April 23, 2021 8:42 am

I thought Willis showed a couple days ago that according to climate scientologist Berkley earth we have already blown through 2C increase since pre-industrial, and no crisis to be seen?comment image?resize=514%2C506&ssl=1

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 24, 2021 5:14 am

I saw temperature figures from NASA on the climate the other day and those figures show that the year 2016, the warmest year in the 21st century was 1.02C above the average from 1850 to the present.

Our current temperature is 0.7C cooler than 2016.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 23, 2021 8:46 am

It is indeed rare to have three erudite members of academia explain in such detail their delusions and ensueing idiocy.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
April 24, 2021 5:16 am

A three-man Echo chamber.

April 23, 2021 9:06 am

Wow, I’m sure glad the ozone hole has been repaired. Remember when it was going to kill us all? All we had to do was stop freon from being manufactured and used. I’m also glad that the acid rain has stopped. Remember when it was going to kill us all?. All we had to do was install catalytic converters on every tailpipe.

Now, we need to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere before it kills us all. The best way to do that is to return to horse and buggy days I think. How many horses does 3 Trillion buy? I need to buy a manure shovel though. I’ve heard it piles up quick.

April 23, 2021 9:12 am

Remember, Watson was the chairman of the IPCC before Pachauri.

John F Hultquist
April 23, 2021 9:20 am

You should have put a “trigger warning” on this essay.
I think this will ruin my day and possibly the entire weekend.
I am now going to step outside and confront the climate crisis —

From the National Weather Service – Pendleton:
Today – – Mostly sunny, with a high near 63. Light and variable wind becoming south 5 to 7 mph in the afternoon.

Bill Everett
Reply to  John F Hultquist
April 23, 2021 10:19 am

I think that CO2 mapping based upon data from the new CO2 measuring satellite contains the information that could expose anthropogenic warming of the atmosphere as a false argument. I also think that the mapping already shown reveals the possibility that vegetation may have a significant, and perhaps dominant, role in the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels. I realize that this flies in the face of current science but new information sometimes is the cause of changes in the accepted science.

Steve Z
April 23, 2021 9:41 am

The author of this article asks “What happens when reality bites?”

The reality is that “net zero” is unfeasible and prohibitively expensive, but is also unnecessary. Yes, CO2 levels in the air are increasing, but where is the warming predicted in 1988? Half of it never happened.

What about all the food shortages predicted in 1988? They never happened either–in fact we have a larger, better-fed population now than then.

What about the prediction of Florida being flooded? Sea levels are still rising at the same rate as before, so that coastal cities can be protected by building a 1-foot high sea wall every century, which would be much cheaper than trying to replace fossil-fuel power plants with windmills and solar panels.

If all the CO2 emitted by human activity remained in the atmosphere, CO2 concentrations would be rising about 1.8 times faster than they actually are (at Mauna Loa), meaning that natural processes currently remove about 45% of human CO2 emissions from the atmosphere. Most chemical reactions have rates that are proportional to the concentration of reactants (Le Chatelier’s Principle), so that CO2 removal rates increase with concentration. If man-made CO2 emissions remain stable in the future, the CO2 removal rate will catch up to the emission rate, and concentrations will stabilize at a higher level than now, while the Earth will be greener and provide even more food than it does now.

Reality HAS bitten, Mr. Rotter. The predictions of gloom and doom were wrong, and the future is bright if we just leave things alone, and let Mother Nature do what she does best. We don’t need any exorbitantly expensive global “silver bullet” projects to “solve” a non-problem–we’ll just need a few sea walls here and there over the next few centuries.

April 23, 2021 9:42 am

“In principle there is nothing wrong or dangerous about carbon dioxide removal proposals.”

This has got to be one of the most terrifying statements I have ever read. You want an “existential threat”? The entire concept of removing CO2 from the atmosphere is far more of an existential threat than ANY warming we might be facing. We want to reduce CO2 from 400-450ppm to, what? 300? 250? What’s the target? What if we overshoot and end up below 180ppm?

Talk about a threat to all life on earth…

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  TonyG
April 23, 2021 10:55 am

Yes, i have stated that geoengineering types need to put their own lives on the line and their schemes may end all life on the planet.
At least we get the satisfaction of maybe seeing them drawn and quartered before the rest of us die

April 23, 2021 9:42 am

All this human CO₂ comes from C.  C in the form of petroleum, coal and ‘natural’ gas. There is a tiny bit from burning foliage and wood, but environmentalists consider that net-zero already, since more plants grow.  

OK. Want to stop CO₂ then from further building up?

MUST stop removing it from its natural sequestration reservoirs … coal mines, gas and oil fields. That anyone of any reasonable intellect can countenance the idea that massive continent-wide arrays of CO₂ scrubbers will take out the CO₂ that is being generated, or that all those tens-of-thousands of natural gas fired power stations will efficiently collect all the CO₂ before it leaves their smokestacks … is ludicrous. Any system that costs far more than the cost of generating electricity itself, is going to be a føøl’s game. 

No. I fully expect to see that all the post-Paris Biden-era agreements that are studiously debated, begrudgingly signed, and gleefully politicked ‘around the planet’ as proof the something is being done will … like the very same 30+ years of ‘agreements’ having been seriously considered, begrudgingly signed and gleefully marketed … will do NOTHING AT ALL to change the upward reaching Mt. Moana Loa CO₂ realtime measurements.  

All banapple gas. 
Pölïtical fodder, election material, with NO TEETH.

Nope. To do it right, one has to fill in coal mines with overburden. To cap gas wells, and to fill their pipes with cement.  And the same for petroleum.  We have to not just as, but demand that the producers of this supposedly terrible resource go completely bankrupt. Bankrupt, and without a hope of recovery as the winds-of-politics change the landscape shortly after the Oil Ticks and Coal Mongers wail in their decline.  

Nothing short will ‘solve’ this problem in the way demanded.  

Nothing less will ‘turn the curve’ up there on Mt. Moana Loa. 

It’d be a terrible burden on society, larger society.  A few lucky oil wells and gas wells, and even coal mines would need to remain open, just to provide the petrochemicals that drive our whole industrially useful chemical industry, as well as our lubrications, emergency energy reserves and so on.  Can’t shut down all sources instantly, unless a great big kilometer-scale meteor swarm strikes earth and sends into a –25° C asteroid Winter. For decades, or even likely centuries.  

So… shut down production.

Demand will fall in line accordingly. 

And very likely technology to overcome the loss.  Genetic engineering of super-plants that make gasoline and diesel, or oil and vinegar (snicker) directly.  And major parts of deserts covered end-to-end with solar cells, with continent-crossing pipelines of sea water, to be desalinated, and turned into hydrogen gas.  And piped likewise everywhere else, with very little energy loss (compared to long-distance electricity at the civilization scale delivery).  

Can do this?

But not with mealy mouthed politicians and international pontificators.  
Not a chance. 
Because NO ONE will tell the ‘oil ticks’ to shut down their gas wells and oil fields.  
And realistically, neither will anyone shut down coal mines, especially in China.

⋅-⋅-⋅ Just saying, ⋅-⋅-⋅
⋅-=≡ GoatGuy ✓ ≡=-⋅

Reply to  GoatGuy
April 23, 2021 4:51 pm

He the asteroid, that could be used. We just need to push a big one a little to land right on China.

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Stevek
April 28, 2021 1:08 pm

I have no doubt there are planet worshippers that pray for him to hit. Their idiocy is unfathomable and without bounds.

David S
April 23, 2021 9:50 am

For skeptics there is now a reason to develop methods of removing CO2 from the air. Elon Musk is offering a $100 million prize for doing it.
As a skeptic I don’t believe CO2 is harmful. But I do believe in 100 million bucks. 🙂

Dave Miller
Reply to  David S
April 23, 2021 4:41 pm

Elon risks his $100,000,000.00 because he understands thermodynamics. LOL.

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Dave Miller
April 28, 2021 1:05 pm

Correct me if I’m wrong but, didn’t he take more corporate welfare then any business owner in human history? I don’t think he has any idea what the value of currency is.

April 23, 2021 9:54 am

Sometimes realisation comes in a blinding flash.”

Yep, it did. We wasted our lives and our 10th-rate phony scientist careers, but we can pretend we didn’t by lying harder … to ourselves.

Does this psychiatric phenomenon have a name? Is there any kind of treatment?

Acute cognitive dissonance disorder ?? It’s only going to get worse.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 23, 2021 11:55 am

Microcephaly generally is due to the diminished size of the largest part of the human brain, the cerebral cortex…”

Last edited 1 year ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
April 23, 2021 11:58 am

To be 100% fair about it, some of them may simply be cretins.

Gary Pearse
April 23, 2021 10:04 am

“suddenly it all makes sense. Underneath such revelations is typically a much slower-dawning process. Doubts at the back of the mind grow. The sense of confusion that things cannot be made to fit together increases until something clicks.”

I thought we were about to see defections from the earth scorching meme in the face of the the coldest spring in Germany since 1881 and the widespread wine and other crop destruction througout France and elsewhere including N America.

The rationalization of niggling “doubts”, which one knows the the clisci clique has, by the half hearted Maxwell Smart explanations of how global warming causes new record cold for the hundredth
time, is causing growing angst and temper tantrums among the them and their supporters.

Neo-left icon Michael Moore came within a whisker of deep understanding of what was really going on in the clisci world with his trashing of ineffective renewables and the lies behind them in his Planet of the Humans. I believe he is smart enough to wonder why ‘respected’ scientists are okay with this renewable sham. I hope the ‘niggling’ in his mind raises the deeper, behind the curtain question. It would be his greatest documentary film, but the instant cancel-culture backlash he has already had may have pushed him into retirement. Com’on Michael, be a real bad boy.

Kevin McNeill
April 23, 2021 10:43 am

Utter bosh

April 23, 2021 10:47 am

Couldn’t believe what I was reading! At first, I thought it was going to the biggest retraction in the history of climate science. What twaddle! I feel for those taught or supervised by this bunch!

James D Huggins
April 23, 2021 11:18 am

Net Zero nonsense is Dangerous TRIPE!

There….I fixed it for you

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
April 23, 2021 11:47 am

It is good thing that the temperature of the planet is not much affected by the concentration of CO2 once it gets above 300 ppm. All this wailing and gnashing of teeth about carbon capture is an inefficient use of human energy.

It may surprise these pundits that the ocean is a huge sink for CO2 in the form of plants that grow in it. In the coming freeze everyone will get a chance to experiment with tree cutting and planting. As yield will depend on CO2 concentration we can all conduct a life sciences experiment.

In the meantime we should push Gen 4 and 5 nuclear generation technologies for that was lies perpetual energy independence. Gas and oil will be reserved for making plastics and carbon-based materials.

April 23, 2021 12:40 pm

Just thinking what would be involved in NSW Australia becoming “Net Zero”

comment image

Or even South Australia

comment image

The whole idea is totally laughable.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
April 23, 2021 12:54 pm

Oh , and we heard a few threads ago that “hydrogen hubs” will be created.

First step will obviously be to build COAL fired power stations to power these hubs.

Then the private sector can build the hydrogen industry, (and eventual carbon sequestration fakeries), around those new COAL fired powered stations.

April 23, 2021 12:42 pm

One could say it’s all about Puritan thought. Not that I am anti-Puritan or something.
But something which isn’t Puritan thought, as example, is we should want to grow human population to 20 billion people by 2100 AD. Though if this was desired, Puritan thought
would have factories making babies, and the State raising children.
Or Puritan thought includes the fear of the power of women. Having women look like men and be like men, is related the fear of the power of women.
Of course women or humans in general should have freedom to do as want, but idea that they there is not enormous value of raising children- that women should avoid it, is lessen the power of women.
Abortion is similar the fifth amendment- the freedom not speaking. And being able to have children is like the first amendment the freedom to speak- form groups, have religion.
Is there any greater religion than of family?
But my point is humans are under populated, rather than over populated. And also
talking about women.
So if we thought human should have global population of 20 billion by 2100 AD- we don’t have to get such higher population {that not the idea]- but it would better, if we could get to such a population. Or we willing to allow there to be 20 billion people by 2100 AD.

If that was the case, we would want higher CO2 levels- as higher CO2 allow more food to be
produced with less land area used.
But there is lots of things we would want to do, rather than having fixation on controlling what women do.

Mike Lowe
April 23, 2021 12:45 pm

One of the authors is from the “University of East Anglia”! Need I say more?

Reply to  Mike Lowe
April 23, 2021 12:55 pm

IIRC, Exeter Uni once boasted more people on the IPCC than any other university in the world

It swills from the very dregs of the climate funding trough.

Its very existence relies on it.

Last edited 1 year ago by fred250
April 23, 2021 1:57 pm

Net Zero is a fantasy. PERIOD. End of conversation.

April 23, 2021 2:08 pm

Good Lord! What can one say? It’s all been in vain.

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Terry
April 28, 2021 12:47 pm

Unless people stop worshipping at the gaia altar there’s no way to get away from this level of widespread rampant idiocy.

April 23, 2021 2:37 pm

Well they better lead by example stop their personal carbon emissions completely 100%

Rudi Rue
Reply to  H B
April 28, 2021 12:59 pm

FOTFLMAO Yeah, I’ll bet they’re buying millions in carbon credits if they’re doing anything. Oh, and good luck vetting the carbon credit industry.

Geoff Sherrington
April 23, 2021 3:42 pm

Another trap. Less natural gas means less synthetic N fertiliser means less food means more starvation.
These people have taken on sub-human thoughts when they push for actions to mass kill other people. Truly demented. Geoff So

Paul Blase
April 23, 2021 3:53 pm

We’re doomed.

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Paul Blase
April 28, 2021 12:44 pm

Yep, this is their best and brightest minds. It’s sad.

Jim Traynor
April 23, 2021 4:42 pm

So, this is how you save face. If only we had listened to them.

April 23, 2021 5:07 pm

Well I must admit it is fun to watch the panic of these fools.

April 23, 2021 9:39 pm

Here’s my practical solution to sequester the CO2 emitted by coal-fired power plants.

(1) All coal-fired power plants should be surrounded greenhouses in which various types of vegetables and food crops of the C3 type are grown.

(2) The power plants should all have state-of-the-art emission controls to reduce the real pollutants to negligible proportions.

(3) The remaining CO2 in the emissions should be funneled through the Greenhouses to be absorbed by the food crops in order to enhance their growth.

Can I please have my reward now, Elon Musk. 

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Vincent
April 28, 2021 12:43 pm

I’m sure he’ll give you credit and royalties. All of these tech Billionaires and just recently Trillionaire are sooo much more generous then the working people of the world.

Vincent Causey
April 24, 2021 12:48 am

It was actually an interesting article, as it gives a glimpse into the minds of the climate science community – one nutty technological fix after another is proposed, each more nutty than the previous, and there is now a realisation that they are indeed all nutty fixes. As one quote notes “I am more scared of the solutions to the climate change problem than the problem itself.”

The author himself has reached the conclusion that these fixes will never work as intended and amount to kicking the can down the road, or in his words, “an excuse for business as usual.” But I must disagree with this last point.

It is not “business as usual” for ordinary people who are pushed into energy poverty. It is not business as usual when their government bans hydrocarbon vehicles, effectively pushing the means of car ownership beyond the range of millions. It is not business as usual for people who are told they can’t even sell the homes they have paid good money for unless it can be certified as having a certain “energy efficiency” that would cost huge sums of money to achieve (another nutty scheme proposed by the UK’s climate change committee).

The list goes on, and keeps growing, inflicting an ever increasing toll of hardship on ordinary people. But what then is his own solution to so called “business as usual” solutions? Apparently we must cut emissions to zero, the “just do it” school of thought. This is so absurd as to be beyond parody, although I’m sure Monty Python could have come up with something. If history decides anything, it wont’ be that we didn’t do enough to “fight climate change”, it will be the opposite.

April 24, 2021 12:59 am

I stopped reading after the third paragraph and then a quick scan confirmed what this was truly all about. I have no idea what planet these people are living on, or come from.

Stephen Skinner
April 24, 2021 2:06 am

Phobia – an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.
We are in a pandemic of phobias that are also mutating into ever more virulent variants with impossible solutions that usually contain the word ‘zero’, some use of the word ‘phobia’ as a weapon and are characterized with extreme obsessive compulsive desires.
We have:
Zero-tolerance (of the following)
…climate crimes
…racism (this war is usually racist to whites and misandric)
…sexism (this war is usually misandric) ,
…misogyny (this can be misandric and will definately be transphobic),
…transphobia (this can be misogynistic, misandric and homophobic) ,
…homophobia (this can be misandric, transphobic and misogynistic),
…hate speech (covers all the ‘Zero’s)

Humanity is suffering from mass delusion

Last edited 1 year ago by sskinner
Tom Abbott
April 24, 2021 3:26 am

From the article: “By the afternoon of the 23rd he [Hansen] was well on the way to becoming the world’s most famous climate scientist. This was as a direct result of his testimony to the US congress, when he forensically presented the evidence that the Earth’s climate was warming and that humans were the primary cause: “The greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

No, Hansen didn’t present any forensic evidence, he just made a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions. Those assertions never have been substantiated all these years later. Hansen couldn’t prove what he claimed if his life depended on doing so.

Hansen’s testimony is the first Big Lie of Climate Science. All the climate change insanity since his testimony took place is all based on Hansen’s unsubstantiated claims.

Hansen will turn out to be the biggest scam artist in human history. I think that will hold up since I can’t think of a bigger scam than the Human-caused Climate Change scam.

You could not have done more damage to humanity than you did with your lies about the Earth’s climate, James. Do you realize the enormity of your deception? Someday, the rest of humanity will realize it. Your name will not be held in high regard.

April 24, 2021 8:46 am

The West has to go nuclear while the developing world stays fossil fueled until they too can go solar, wind and nuclear. Simple…so model that.

Pat Smith
April 24, 2021 8:53 am

Excellent decision to publish this article on WUWT. Well done!

Melbourne Resident
April 24, 2021 9:13 pm

I cant believe that so-called scientists would even consider pumping sulphuric acid into the atmosphere to control climate. Have they never heard of Acid Rain? Do they want to kill everything on the planet?

Rudi Rue
Reply to  Melbourne Resident
April 28, 2021 12:39 pm

I can hear the news report now: “We wouldn’t have killed everything except our simulations didn’t take into account the PH increase in the oceans interacting with”… blah blah blah… we’re never at fault when we waste and steal trillions of your yuan, dollars, pounds, etcetera.

Al Miller
April 24, 2021 9:20 pm

sadly, for me, I kept reading hoping to find the part where the “scientists” came to their collective senses…

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights