Net Zero Plans Are Dangerous and Unsupported by Science and the Scientific Method
Net Zero initiatives of governments and private organizations are scientifically invalid and will lead to worldwide impoverishment and starvation if implemented, according to a paper published by the CO2 Coalition.
The 46-page paper details how the objectives of Net Zero to eliminate the use of fossil fuels and the emissions of greenhouse gases are based on analytical methods that violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago.
“Reliable scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, where theoretical predictions are validated by observations or rejected by failing to do so,” say the paper’s authors – two renowned physicists and a geologist of more than 40 years.
“Agreement with observations is the measure of scientific truth,” continues the paper. “Scientific progress proceeds by the interplay of theory and observation. Theory explains observations and makes predictions of what will be observed in the future. Observations anchor understanding and weed out theories that don’t work.”
The paper predicts global starvation if fossil fuels are eliminated. At risk in coming decades would be half of the world’s 8.5 billion to 10 billion people who are fed by crops grown with fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. Listed as an example of Net Zero’s potential consequences is the economic and social calamity of Sri Lanka which had banned the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels.
“The recent experience in Sri Lanka provides a red alert. The world has just witnessed the collapse of the once bountiful agricultural sector of Sri Lanka as a result of government restrictions on mineral fertilizer,” the paper says.
The paper says that 600 million years of geological evidence shows that CO2 levels are near a record low and that atmospheric increases of the gas follow warming periods rather than precede them.
These data “are good enough to demolish the argument that atmospheric CO2 concentrations control Earth’s climate and the theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming. They will not.”
The paper’s authors are Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus, Princeton University; Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist and executive director of the CO2 Coalition.
The paper says Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:
- Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions. Net Zero proponents regularly report that extreme weather is more severe and frequent because of climate change while the evidence shows no increase – and, in some cases, a decrease – in such events.
- Rely on computer models that do not match observations. An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed significantly to match real-world observations. “Simply stated, the (computer) model essential to every government Net Zero regulation, action and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work,” said the paper.
- Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not scientific findings. The paper says that the conclusions of IPCC scientists that contradict the narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewritten by government bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero proponents.
- Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide, including that from the burning of fossil fuels, serves as plant food that increases crop production and enables the feeding of more people. CO2, as well as the greenhouse gases of methane and nitrous oxide, help to keep Earth at temperatures conducive to life; without them, people would suffer. Fossil fuels are economical and abundant sources of energy necessary for modern societies and are critical feedstocks for fertilizers and pesticides that support the lives of billions of people.
- Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero. “It cannot be overemphasized that eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat,” says the
- Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2. “We are not aware of any reliable science that supports the National Climate Assessment’s or others’ theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming,” said the paper’s authors, “We have written extensively on this issue for decades.”
This commentary was first published by the CO2 Coalition February 23, 2023.
The Arlington-based CO2 Coalition is a nonprofit organization of more than 100 scientists and researchers engaged in educating the public and policymakers on the benefits of carbon dioxide and on the role of the gas in climate dynamics.
You may download a printable version of Challenging Net Zero with Science here
What is the point of such a paper? Net Zero has nothing to do with science.. .
That IS the point
You make a good point in that science is not really the driving force behind the climate change movement; the driving force is something akin to a new world order where DEI reigns supreme and capitalism is to be thrown to the curb. These motivations do not respond to scientific arguments.
It’s a cult. And like other cults, the leaders grift off of the followers. However, in this case, the leaders of the cult also grift off of the entire world’s population whether they believe in the cult or not.
Perhaps it has more to do with limiting world population growth. The current population growth, not the climate, is the existential threat to human life on earth. Net zero may change the population growth trajectory.
The chance of any of our Beloved Leaders actually even looking at the cover of this report? Never mind reading it and learning something?
Net Zero, point zero!
but Fox news?
But what?
This is important stuff, it needs wide distribution. The average guy desperately needs to understand this. Political leaders, bureaucrats, administrators, mainstream media and a boatload of academics are responsible for food shortages, energy poverty, energy shortages, people freezing in the cold and sweltering in the heat. These people are dangerous and need to be held accountable.
The average guy understands that ‘science’ is what he is told by authority, Net Zero is essential to save the world, and that if he doesn’t believe this he’ll be sacked and his bank account frozen.
A technical scientific paper isn’t going to change that.
I agree. Only when the true extent of the lies are revealed with a significant reduction in living standards and ability to freely travel will people wake up. Our American cousins founded a Republic on no taxation without representations – as all UK political companies are of one Net Zero mindset there truly is no representation. When the penny drops I fear it will not be pretty.
A serious question. Why are people not leaving the UK in droves ? Even if they don’t understand what a charade the “climate catastrophe” nonsense is, they surely have to understand they are getting poorer with each passing year and that their savings are tied up in a failing currency.
People ARE leaving the UK in droves. The problem is that the ones leaving are natives, and they are being replaced by people from the Third World with very different cultures.
do you have a link to that data, please?
tia
Some bits of those “very different cultures” may come in handy, like the propensity of the more extreme among them to chop the heads off of those they disagree with.
I disagree.
50 years ago, people in developed countries had a backbone and could think for themselves. Resistance to German aggression in WWII was an example.
The analogy of frogs in slowly heated water seems to apply to many in the West today. Residents in Germany, UK, seem to take the deprivations of “fighting climate change” in stride with no ability to compare their present situation with what they experienced only decades ago. The new worldview based on the “history of now”.
And when I die, and when I’m gone
There’ll be, one child born in this world
To carry on, to carry on
Agreed!
I often quote studies by real scientists (Lindzen, Curry, Happer, Pielke Jr, Lomborg et al) and the immediate response is “all these studies have been debunked” with no ability to cite a data based paper that debunked them; relying on a fact free assertion by an activist – like Michal Mann.
My favorite is when I quote Drs Christie and Spenser (NASA Distinguished Scientists) and am told they are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry!
Always laughable when they play the “money corrupts” card, when their pet pseudo-scientists are getting orders of magnitude MORE money thrown at them to push the “climate crisis” bullshit.
The average guy & gal will never see this. They’re too busy working and using Instagram/TikTok/Fakebook/etc., etc., etc.
Wrong-O, James. Abraham Lincoln: “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” You have to have faith in the people. “We the People …”
Well Bob, I’m not sure the “average guy” is all that interested. I recently attended a public meeting which was for the purpose of allowing people to ask questions of representatives from our local utility company about the future of our utilities. I went because I thought renewable energy and the transition to net zero would be a hot topic. There were zero questions asked on the topic of renewable energy and how we get to net zero which our utility has committed to do. I was able to ask my questions in private conversations outside the formal meeting but learned very little. They are not planning to get to 100% renewables, they are hoping to get to 100% renewables.
Here is the thing, it is all up to the average guy. You can talk to political leaders, bureaucrats, administrators, academics, mainstream media and activists until you are blue in the face. It will do you very little good. To an extent I agree with those who question my faith in the average guy. You don’t want to burden them with a lot of technical terms or lengthy arguments. They need to see that real stand up scientists have a view opposite of the activists. They need to be bombarded with all the failures of the so called solutions. They need to be shown that the reason they are paying so much at the pump, at the store, at the restaurant, for electricity, for gas etc etc is because their political leaders, administrators, bureaucrats and no nothing activists have designed it to be like that. When they have had enough this crap will end.
+42X42^42. We The People …
And what happens to public opinion when they are unable to get to 100% ruinables? What happens as rates skyrocket? What happens when the lights go out? What will the “average guy” think and do then. Either you have faith in a Representative Democracy or you don’t.
Net Zero will never be achieved. All we are doing with this attempted false mitigation ‘science’ is creating an impoverished world. The climate cultists can achieve this while China, India and Russia laugh all the way to the bank. Putin can achieve what he wants without nuclear weapons. He just needs to keep supporting man-made climate propaganda.
I believe the Nut Zero leaders know it will not be achieved.
And they don’t care.
But Nut Zero is a tool for gaining political power and control.
In a few years the obviously failing Nut Zero project will be spun as another climate crisis, and the “solution” will be more government power and control of the private sector.
I delete reason and accountability to think like a leftist, whose goal is to micro-manage your life, because they are “experts” on every subject, and you can’t be trusted to run your own life. It’s that simple.
You’re damn right it is about power and control. Next year I won’t be able to buy a gasoline powered yard tool because those sales will be outlawed by a state issued emergency executive order.
That’s when you vote with your feet – take a trip to a neighboring state where the powers that be have some sense….
Who ever want cattle in the beef herd to “run their own life”?
We The People …
We The People …
The third bullet point looks to be missing a word.
“Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not “
I suspect that “science” was meant to come after the word “not”.
The copy/paste of the bullet points seems to be missing words all over.
The paper says Net Zero regulations and actions are scientifically invalid because they:
Fabricate data or omit data that contradict their conclusions. Net Zero proponents regularly report that extreme weather is more severe and frequent because of climate change while the evidence shows no increase – and, in some cases, a decrease – in such events.
Rely on computer models that do not work. An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed to match real-world observations. “Simply stated, the (computer) model essential to every government Net Zero regulation, action and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work,” said the paper.
Rely on findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that are government opinions, not science. The paper says that the conclusions of IPCC scientists that contradict the narrative of catastrophic global warming from fossil fuels are rewritten by government bureaucrats for public reports to support the false narrative of Net Zero proponents.
Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels. Carbon dioxide, including that from the burning of fossil fuels, serves as plant food that increases crop production and enables the feeding of more people. CO2, as well as the greenhouse gases of methane and nitrous oxide, help to keep Earth at temperatures conducive to life; without them, people would suffer. Fossil fuels are economical and abundant sources of energy necessary for modern societies and are critical feedstocks for fertilizers and pesticides that support the lives of billions of people.
Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero. “It cannot be overemphasized that eliminating fossil fuels and implementing Net Zero policies and actions mean the elimination of fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat,” says the paper.
Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO2. “We are not aware of any reliable science that supports the National Climate Assessment’s or others’ theory that fossil fuels and CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming,” said the paper’s authors, “We have written extensively on this issue for decades.”
I’m not aware of any reliable science that supports human-caused catastrophic global warming, either.
I don’t think there is any such science.
Alarmists could prove us wrong by providing some evidence, but they have not done so for decades and are no closer now to doing so than they were in the beginning.
Net Zero is not necessary.
Net Zero is not possible, and will not happen based on a number of things that will keep it from happening.
Net Zero is a Western Delusion.
Efforts to implement Net Zero will be catastrophic to the humans affected.
Story Tip
The latest insanity in this line of thought is here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/feb/28/scientists-uk-aviation-net-zero-ambitions-half-farmland-double-renewable-electricity
Highlight on making UK aviation net-zero:
And if you want to know how useful this would be in reducing global emissions, and on the theory global warming. Well…
So, burning fossil fuels are bad, but using food crops to turn into fuel to burn is great?
This has two reasons: Withhold food from poor people, and pollute the genetics of the remaining edible crops into the poisonous, cancerous dreck that is “biofuel feedstock”.
Actually, eradicating humans in ten different ways is still just one agenda, yes?
The worst part is, the same people who cannot be bothered with reading anything sciencey, have it on good authority from the one guy that did read a Book, that the only way we can turn this around, is by praying for the end of the world, so we can be saved?
We had to burn the village in order to save it!
Just make planes so they can only make right turns. Saves lots of CO2 for UPS.
Surely the only question is how much is needed to fuel private jets.
I’m afraid it will not make a lot of difference, because the Monbiots of this world simply will say that they are the good guys who know best. Only when people are fed up and bodies hang from lamp posts will the penny drop. By which time it is way too late. Oh, and I am an optimist.
Net Zero or is it nut zero.
The politicians and activists pushing Net Zero have zero brain power which can only lead to zero food , zero electricity . zero transport fuel in many countries .
14 years ago the world was burning 4.7 billion tonnes of coal .
Now China alone is using 5.3 billion tonnes of coal alone with world coal production rising from a steady 4.7 billion tonnes to over 8 billion tonnes .
It makes little difference if western countries try and go Net Zero to the global emissions .
The people pushing this nonsense seem to have permanent blinkers and here is an example from New Zealand .
James Renwick is now a professor of climate at Victoria University in Wellington .
He has always pushed the climate doom story and believes that CO2 is going to cause runaway warming .
When questioned about New Zealands emissions he said that our population was about the same as Los Angeles { he got that wrong } and we had about the same amount of emissions so we have to cut our emissions.
Over half of New Zealands are calculated from our agriculture and farmed animals that feeds our population of 5 million and another 35 million people around the world .
How much food is grown inside the Los Angeles city limits?
The majority of our agricultural emissions are enteric methane which has nothing to do with fossil fuel .All fodder that our animals consume has absorbed CO2 to grow and the methane emitted is broken down in the upper atmosphere within ten years .
The process is a closed cycle and over any ten year period not one atom or molecule containing carbon is added to the atmosphere.
James Renwick calls himself a climate scientist but he will not accept facts that go against his beliefs .
This whole climate debate seems to sweep all inconvenient fact aside and Net Zero is a belief unsupported by facts that will never happen as populations will realize this when the food runs out .
It is Nut Zero
It’s not science…
“”Saito, who says he has not always been a “degrowth communist”, has written a more academic text, Marx in the Anthropocene, which builds on those arguments to propose degrowth communism as a “new way of living”.””
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/28/a-greener-marx-kohei-saito-on-connecting-communism-with-the-climate-crisis
It’s a religion
I was waiting for someone to say religion.
As a long time (60 years) atheist, I get almost everyone upset by comparing the climate change secular religion to conventional religions.
Conventional religions
— do what we leaders say or you will go to hell
Climate religion
— do what we leaders say or Earth will turn into hell
Boh types of religious leaders use fear of the future to gain power and control.
I see one difference — the climate religion has no apparent good points, unlike most of the ten commandments.
The IPCC Report is their climate bible.
Most people seem to need a religion.
I don’t
The climate religion is one available choice/
The save the planet (claptrap) climate religion.
If he had a silly hat to wear, Al Bore could be the Climate Pope.
It has all the features and hallmarks of a faith – even excommunication and burning at the stake on social media.
Lots of sacrifice, no virgins.
Indeed, no joy whatsoever.
I suspect most extreme environmentalists are still virgins
+10 😉
Good one, sir.
I dare you to put these to the same test:
Communism, Capitalism, any political system really, every economics theory… religions with a jealous god, every single one!
After that, I dare you find any real, effectual difference between any political party, and a mafia organisation.
Of course, the corollary is also true: every religion is a system of social control, every gang the de facto local government on their turf.
The “god” of capitalism is money.
Under capitalism, the people that provide the best goods and services get the most money from the people who voluntarily buy those goods and services. The government is mainly to keep them honesty and keep the peace.
Capitalism mainly exists in the imagination these days.
I prefer people getting rewarded for providing things I want to buy, over getting rewarded for obeying the government.
Capitalism. socialism, communism, or a hybrid of two or more, are economic systems.
Political systems would be a democracy, republic, monarchy, fascism, totalitarianism, or a hybrid of two or more.
China is a hybrid of communism and capitalism because 100% communism didn’t work.
There is a huge list of types of governments at the link below — maybe too many — the only two categories that really count are good governments and bad governments, I suppose.
?List of forms of government – Wikipedia
~ Winston Churchill
They are secular humanists who think man controls nature, or should be in control.
“Secular humanism is a nonreligious worldview rooted in science, philosophical naturalism, and humanist ethics.”
AGW, climate action, and ESG are all humanist ideologies, albeit steeped in religion.
The Climate Howler Global Whiner “climate science”, except for recognizing that AGW exists, is mainly junk science predictions of climate doom. That’s a secular religion in my book. Junk science is not real science. Always wrong predictions of climate doom are junk science.
Leftism is a mental disease — they are all power-hungry lunatics who want to control everyone else. If it was up to me, all US leftists would be deported to Cuba, or even worse, to the California coast. It’s so bad there the leftists in my family moved out of CA to other states !
“…except for recognizing that AGW exists, …”
You’re giving your self-described AGW junk science too much credit; is it your own humanist belief? For all intents and purposes AGW is so small compared to sun/ocean forcing it is indistinguishable from zero.
Agreed. The hypothetical effect of CO2, etc. has no empirical evidence that supports it, precisely the point being made in the referenced article.
Conversely, a good deal of empirical evidence suggests CO2 has no effect.
I’ll go with the evidence.
Observation trumps theory.
AGW and climate action are anti-human, not humanist.
“Conventional religions
— do what we leaders say or you will go to hell”
Attending church was one thing that setoff my skepticism radar.
When I was a kid, I attended the Church of Christ, and this particular denomination held that only the human voice was fit to worship God when it came to music in the church. No musical instruments were allowed.
And I remember one time when I was about ten years old, the preacher was preaching about this subject and he said that anyone who used a musical instrument in the worship of God was a sinner and would go to Hell.
And I thought to myself, that doesn’t make sense. Why would a loving God punish someone who was in the process of worshipping God? No, that can’t be right!
So that kind of got me questioning a lot of things in life. And I haven’t stopped since.
Religion serves a good purpose for a lot of people. And we certainly don’t really know how creation works, at this time. Who is to say what is, and what is not? The Question is still open.
That there are many people who misinterpret the Bible is not evidence that the Bible is unreliable.
There are many examples of people in the Bible using instruments during worship, King David in the Old Testament is referenced as being a skillful player of the lyre.
I remember one gentleman that I debated about scripture. He declared that while the Bible says we won’t know the hour or the day of Christ’s return, it says nothing about the week or the month.
On that matter, anyone who declares they know when Christ will return, is directly contradicting scripture.
“That there are many people who misinterpret the Bible is not evidence that the Bible is unreliable.”
Yes, that was the preacher’s interpretation, which I silently took exception to.
I wasn’t saying anything about the Bible, but rather about how it was interpreted by some.
Far too many people today believe “might is right” and “the law of the jungle prevails”. Your rights come from the biggest guy with the biggest stick. That’s how you get Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the rest.
Except no climate religion leader ever said “love thy neighbor as thyself”. Nor willingly sacrificed his son to save everyone else. Nor created anything good unlike the Supreme religious leader who created all you see or can see.
I feel sorry for folks who think as you do as you willingly say all the rights you claim come from some government that can rescind them in a second. My rights as enshrined in Constitution come from God.
“Conventional religions — do what we leaders say or you will go to hell”. Actually, not true for Christians not in the “word of faith” prosperity churches.
After consulting Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphics, lost manuscripts of the Knights Templar, secret files from Area 51; the secret to combating Nut Zero was revealed to me.
Proclaim unless CO2 emissions are doubled immediately; you cat will become sick and possibly die, LGBTQetc will suffer dire consequences and something bad will happen in Ukraine. There problem solved. Simple minded people require simple answers. If this pronouncement started trending on twitter, there would be a groundswell of support for the immediate construction of coal fired power plants, a mandated V8 engine in every car and a Luddite fervor for the destruction of wind farms.
Great sarcasm David H.
I’m jealous.
But I can’t get too happy.
Because climate change killed my dog
and caused me to grow hair in my ears this winter,
rather than on the top of my head.
Your dog might be next.
This comment is serious,
not sarcasm.
“a mandated V8 engine”
Cheaper than an EV
Not that many V8*s left because now even luxury cars often use turbocharged four cylinder engines
The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) nonsense predates the global warming nonsense, and will probably outlive it.
yeah but Lamborghini
As I write UK’s windmills are producing 4GW and thank goodness for gas at 22GW as it’s a bit chilly here
UK National Grid: Live (iamkate.com)
A better set of graphics showing the absurdity of the fantasy of net zero accomplished mainly by wind. Look at last month’s generation, and last years. At the bottom right.
https://gridwatch.co.uk/WIND
Generally I prefer the more comprehensive view of the first and best
https://gridwatch.templar.co.uk
But gridwatch.co.uk has better graphics for this purpose.
Thanks
The first link has good graphics
Added it to my bookmarks
How discouraging to look at the “steady” flow of wind energy on the monthly chart — doesn’t anyone see a blackout disaster coming with more and more windmills?
My vision disability makes most of the second link impossible to read. I knew of the link before today ,but could not handle the graphics.
Nut-Zero? -Delusional green madness…..Meanwhile in the real world….
Woodside Energy
“Woodside has recorded full-year net profit after tax (NPAT) of US$6,498 million.
Production was 157.7 MMboe and operating cash flow was $8,811 million.
The Directors have determined a final dividend of US 144 cents per share (cps), bringing the full-year fully franked dividend to US 253 cps.
The dividend is based on the underlying NPAT of $5,230 million and the full-year shareholder distribution is $4,804 million.
Woodside CEO Meg O’Neill said Woodside’s strategy delivered exceptional results in 2022, reflecting the success of the merger with BHP’s petroleum business, completed at the start of June.”
——————————-
……..and for all those that just hate big oil and gas. >>>
“As a result of our increased profit, Woodside’s Australian tax and royalty payments for the year more than tripled to A$2.7 billion. We are proud to be making this record contribution back to the local communities where we operate, and our Australian tax payments are expected to again increase significantly in 2023.
Shareholder Reports & Investor Briefings – Woodside Energy
——————————————–
No doubt the Australian Federal Treasurer will be salivating at those huge tax receipts from Woodside. He can use that “dirty” tax income from horrible FF operations to fund further subsidies for Nut-Zero – yah!
Garbage Tip:”Greta Thunberg says Norway’s wind farms are an ‘unacceptable’ violation of human rights
here
Sorry, that was a bit rough on Norway but Greta will get the joke
😀
And as regards the story here, Happer has now lost all credibility as far as I go – he is minutia miner extraordinaire
And perfectly un-listenable, he blusters, fluffs, umms and ahhhs soooo much- does he even know his own subject
but even worse:Just pause for a minute to see what he and you are projecting onto Warmists – does anyone really think they’re gonna switch off the fertiliser supply.
Are they actually THAT ugly?
My take:They damn well should switch off Ammonium Nitrate – and CO2 has perfectly Sweet FA to so with it.
Here’s just 4 reasons out of dozens:
The production of Ammonium Nitrate using Natural Gas is thermodynamic disaster – The Waste of energy and of a precious finite resource is beyond insaneFarmers dumping it into the soil to feed their crops is even worse. If they sprayed it on (Foliar Feeding) they’d need only 10% of the amount they currently useIf they added a trace-element feed into that spray they could make that 5%If they added some serious trace elements to their soils they could cut Nitrogen use by another half AND – switch off their irrigation systems. If plants have sufficient trace elements, they can get all the water they need from the normal humidity of the air.Minutia: It seems that every year, The World uses 190Million tonnes of Nitrate
While every day, each and every (healthy) one of us (literally) pisses away 15 grams (typical) of Urea.
For 8 Billion souls, I make that 44Million Tonnes annually
So if farmers (haha) ‘sprayed’ their crops, just one quarter of World Population could supply their ENTIRE Nitrogen fertiliser requirement – simply by pissing into a pot and delivering it to their nearest peasant when its full. (No its not full of germs or heavy metals – peasants are another matter)
At present prices, that’s about $5USD worth.
While it’s perfectly possible, esp if you’re only using 5% of what you did, to make Ammonia with damp sand, Titanium Dioxide and sunlight
And as regards the story here, Happer has now lost all credibility as far as I go – he is minutia miner extraordinaire
And perfectly un-listenable, he blusters, fluffs, umms and ahhhs soooo much- does he even know his own subject
Happer has forgotten more than you will ever know about climate science
“does anyone really think they’re gonna switch off the fertiliser supply.”
Sri Lanka did – with less than successful results.
The reason the libtards want to ban Nitrogen is because of the water pollution, or so I thought. So instead of doing something about the poorly nutritioned, mass-production, pee-on-each-other feedlots and sheds, they take aim at fertiliser. They could have, as you said, pumped the pee onto the crops, saved time, money, “carbon footprint” and some sanity.
But I bet you, after all the gunk they fed those poor factory beasts, to keep them alive in the disgusting circumstances of monopolised production, that urine must be so toxic, it probably corrodes the plants’ roots right off…
I presume that Peta is an organic grower or some one that supports organics .
Organics fed the world back around 1900 AD.
In New Zealand when European settlers started farming the requirements for a phosphorus nitrogen fertilizer soon became apparent . Thousands of tonnes of guano (sea bird droppings ) was dug off islands in the Pacific where sea birds had lived for millennia.
This was shipped to New Zealand as a very useful fertilizer untill supplies were exhausted.
Here is a little known history fact. Settlers in the Waikato region grew wheat for export to Sydney, Australia and the wheat was exported through Kawhia and in one year Kawhia had the largest export volume of any port in New Zealand .
Nitrogenous fertilizer has tripled in price so no farmers or growers will be throwing excess around .
The other fact that Peta and so many politicians will not understand is that nitrogen fertilizer feeds half of the worlds population .
Ban nitrogen fertilize and half of the worlds popuation will starve .
Is that the long game ?
The problem we have with NetZero, apart from the madness behind the belief in it, is the trench warfare mentality of those who have lied to us, and their sponsors and backers throughout, from the very start – especially the IPCC bureaucrats who ceased following the science long ago. The actions of politicians and influencers using private jets and ignoring China’s excesses (and their excuses for doing so) etc is an example of how little real concern there is about reducing fossil fuel emissions among the main protagonists because they know it will not make an atom of difference to climate but it will prove (if they keep it up) just how easy it is to herd sheeple when you have the right political dogs.
It is all so similar to the dichotomy of those at the private parties who virtue signalled in public during COVID-19 hysteria and insisted we all wore masks, kept our distances, locked down when told and got vaccinated or else. SARS-CoV-2 was and can be an unpleasant influenza virus but the remedies were far worse than ever was the virus. What bullies and liars they all were and still are and what of the public and social cost of it all? We should never trust any of them again.
The bottom line is that the current crop of leaders and their supporting politicians and media associates cannot be trusted to even get close to telling us the truth about anything as they are lying every day to prevent exposing themselves to slip ups and inevitable banishment. Having sceptical opponents to shut up on a daily basis helps them to maintain focus, but one day theyll be given just enough rope to hang themselves and the NetZero philosophy will be all but over.
The revelation could be tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, the sooner the better for all the rest of us and I for one will enjoy breathing fresh air and hearing something resembling the truth once again as we line these people up for due trial as a means to deter others from trying any similar fraud on us in any of our lifetimes again. It’ll be good to be free to choose once again. It’ll be good listening to a propaganda less media too without hearing a list of the things we must do or think or feel to be model citizens … from those who have no qualification or even qualities to be in positions to influence others about what is right or wrong about anything.
There is no climate emergency and never was one. Things happen beyond our control and always will do.
“lying every day”
Or…. weaving a narrative – a narrative that cannot be wrong or questioned. In the new faith it’s the data that gets the Spanish Inquisition style torture.
“The bottom line is that the current crop of leaders and their supporting politicians and media associates cannot be trusted to even get close to telling us the truth about anything”
Politicians lie?
When did that start?
The prior crop of leaders did a good job lying too
Lied the US into a Vietnam War, including a fake Gulf of Tonkin incident.
A war we could not win with the strategy used, assuming we should have been there in the first place.
Lied us into attacking Iraq with fake weapons of mass destruction — a nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack.
Lied us into occupying Afghanistan when Bin Laden lived in the eastern mountains well outside the control of Kabul, and he soon escaped to Pakistan anyway.
The Covid scaremongering and vaccine lies.
The Climate scaremongering and lies began in 1979 and became public in the 1980s. Didn’t start just a few years ago. It’s a golden oldie lie.
Nut Zero is new.
Hats off to Harold Wilson.
Vietnam? No thanks.
I think India should be thanking the U.S. for the U.S. involvement in South Vietnam. The commies had their sights set on India, but events intervened thanks to U.S. actions.
You’re welcome.
Politicians, as a rule, don’t lie. They tend to be legalsitic, and just as amongst gunslingers you are very likely to get shot, so, amongst lawyers, you may end up sued to the point where you commit suicide by shooting yourself in the back of the head three times.
What politicians mostly do, is to speak the absolute truth, using words that you may misunderstand to be in your favour…
They make empty promises before elections.
If elected, they take credit for anything good that happens, and blame Trump for anything bad that happens.
That’s lying.
“Lied the US into a Vietnam War,”
The reason for going into Vietnam was to prevent a communist takeover of Vietnam and surrounding areas. You say that is a lie? Are you claiming that six American presidents lied about the war?
” including a fake Gulf of Tonkin incident.”
So you say. It made no difference one way or the other. The United States was going into Vietnam, Gulf of Tonkin or no Gulf of Tonkin.
” A war we could not win with the strategy used, assuming we should have been there in the first place.”
Yes, a war of attrition was the wrong strategy, but that’s what you get with hesitant politicians running the show. They are minimalists which is detrimental to successful combat operations.
The war *was* won even using that flawed stategy. North Vietnam was putting 15-year-old boys into the battle lines at the end.
North Vietnam agreed to a peace deal, and withdrew its forces from South Vietnam.
Had the United States left a division of combat troops in South Vietnam after the Peace Accords were signed, like we did in South Korea, South Vietnam would still be South Vietnam because the North would not have attacked again.
But leftwing appeasers like Joe Biden (yes, he was there) and Ted Kennedy forced the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from South Vietnam and along with their anti-war attitude, opened the door for further North Vietnamese aggression. And then Biden and the boys said they would not come to South Vietnam’s aid, even though they were legally and morally obligated to do so. They washed their hands of South Vietnam and threw them to the wolves.
The U.S. military and its strategy had nothing to do with the loss of South Vietnam. The appeaser Leftwing politicians threw it away, just like Joe Biden did in Afghanistan. They turned their backs on millions of innocent people and just walked away. An utter disgrace. An offense punishble by Hell Fire, if such exists, imo.
There were WMD in Iraq as well as WMD programs.
Nobody ever claimed that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.
Afghanistan gave BinLaden direct support for his training camps and other operations.
Kissinger was afraid that winning in Vietnam would put us into direct conflict with Russia, much like how China intervened when we got too close to winning in Korea.
His goal from the beginning was a tie, and to hold back the communists from using Vietnam as a launching pad to attack other countries in the region.
Although 50 years after the fact history has a way of smoothing things out I would expect a few more decades of inquiry before all the facts are revealed. Ala JFK.
I check the CO2 Coalition blog for new material every day.
Didn’t see this study there.
It is binned in the odd category of Testimonials and Statements, which I’ve never viewed before. Easy to miss. I did.
Thanks to Charles for spotting this.
He’s on the ball.
If I had a Happer and Lindzen paper to publish online, I’d make it a lot more visible than CO2 Coalition did with this paper.
Reducing the global population is their goal. As evidenced by the comment made on GBNews a few weeks ago, by the “revered” Stanley, father of ex PM Boris Johnson, wishing to see the UK population reduced to 15M, better still 10.
Yet Stan had 4 children and Boris has at least 5 (maybe more, he can’t remember) and his liaisons never seem to last very long as he has difficulty keeping his pants on.
“An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed significantly to match real-world observations.”
The failure to match real-world observations is not the real reason to reject the models as the basis for policy. The real reason is that they NEVER should have been thought capable of diagnosing or projecting the climate response to increasing concentrations of non-condensing GHGs such as CO2.
There is no large-grid, discrete-layer, step-iterated, parameterized and parameter-tuned general circulation model that can realistically compute the motion. And one cannot expect to simulate the longwave emission or the shortwave reflection with any authority at all with the crude representation of clouds that all the models must use.
Pat Frank showed this formally and numerically in his 2019 paper here.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full
And the geostationary satellites now show us directly by advanced sensing and visualization why this is so. This is why I keep posting this link to the NOAA GOES East Band 16 images and animations in 2 km resolution. NOAA calls this the “CO2” band centered at a wavelength of 13.3 microns at the edge of the “atmospheric window.” The models cannot come anywhere close to realistically simulating the motion and cloud activity, which has so much to do with longwave emission and shortwave reflection. The color scale used for the visualizations is such that the radiance at 30C (yellow) is 10 times the radiance at -90C (white).
https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk_band.php?sat=G16&band=16&length=12
Bottom line: Watch from space, and lose the fear of GHGs. It is not a radiative “trap” as an end result in response to absorbed energy. It is a huge array of highly variable emitter elements, driven by the motion. And the motion helps us grasp that the atmosphere, as the compressible working fluid of its own heat engine operation, produces just enough overturning circulation at local to global scale to result in a highly self-regulating climate outcome.
“An analysis of 102 computer models used by Net Zero proponents found that 101 of them had failed significantly to match real-world observations.”
Just as important is that the Russian INM model, which least over predicts the global warming rate, gets about 1% of the IPCC attention, when it should get 99% of the IPCC attention.
Although a side issue, the CMIP5 models (aka climate confuser games) used for TCS (70 years in the future) with an RCP 4.5 CO2 growth rate scenario, predict continued warming at about the 1975 to 2015 warming trend.
Which would seem reasonable, had the global warming not stopped in 2015.
Zeke H. discovered that fact, and then claimed the models were accurate. Climate Howlers repeat his claim like trained parrots.
Meanwhile, the IPCC scaremongers with their wild guess ECS (200 to 400 years in the future) using the radical RCP 8.5 CO2 growth rate scenario.
The ECS with RCP 8.5 warming rate is roughly double the TCS with RCP 4.5 warming rate. So you will never read the IPCC mentioning TCS with RCP 4.5 to the general public — that’s not scary enough.
ECS, TCS, all speculative bullshit.
None of it considers the negative, offsetting feedbacks which render ACTUAL, as opposed to HYPOTHETICAL, ECS or TCS indistinguishable from ZERO.
Radiation, its all radiative!!
These climastrology sods just cannot seem to think in 3D, never mind imagine that 3D model actually move in all its wonderful complexity.
I want back the many hours I’ve wasted trying to tempt people into going outside, see how Nature moves outside mommy’s basement…
…but they are too busy measuring the temperature of imaginary, stationary clouds by counting photons in a test tube…
Lindzen will always be one of my favorites.
This is my own work tho.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2023/02/28/imagine/
After speed reading 48 one page articles this morning I only had energy left to read two of your articles.
They were good and I bookmarked your blog
I like the variety of subjects.
Will recommend a few of your articles tomorrow.
Good job !
So, you’re a fifty a day man, then!
Reports such as this will have a useful purpose in the future, but little impact now.
Those writing history in 2050 or so will, at first, question how ‘western’ nations managed to destroy so much of the society that evolved following the early 1500s (16th Century). Those historians will find documents such as this useful to enable placing the blame on cultish (non-scientific) madness.
Note, the authors write about the current situations: They “violate fundamental tenets of the scientific method which originated more than 300 years ago.”
I won’t be here, having checked out prior to the writing of that history.
The Climate™ won’t care. (Nor will it care about me checking out! 😂)
Net Zero is the solution that doesn’t work. The western world has reduced CO2 emissions by 25% already. Nothing has happened. NADA.
It’s very interesting when you tie this paper to the work by Dr. Gray over a decade ago. Dr. Gray at that time showed how 3.7 w/m2 of forcing would lead to only 0.3 C of warming.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
Now, with 3 w/m2 of forcing, as seen in this paper, the total warming drops to 0.0. This ties perfectly into the Miskolczi 2007, 2010, 2014 work where he also show no warming over 60+ years of NOAA data.
All of this work is based on observations and standard physics.
A hearty Thanx! for pointing to this really good paper. I don’t see how the warmists can keep the hoax going for much longer. The CO2 chart near the end clearly shows that CO2 and temperature are not correlated.
The CO2 chart near the end clearly shows that CO2 and temperature are not correlated.
Actually, they are very tightly and causally correlated, as shown by the Vostok and Law Dome ice-cores. The problem for the Alarmists is that causation is the wrong way round, i.e. CO2 is a function of temperature rather than vice versa..
Yep, the causation is the wrong way and even over the fairly short term it’s obvious that CO2 isn’t the driver.
That chart shows that over the long term, even that correlation is overwhelmed by other things.