When the Minister for Blackouts, Bankruptcy and Bull finally announces that, in order to save the planet, we need to grin and bear the exorbitant cost of food and energy; ration electricity in a country that had cheap and reliable electricity a few decades ago; turn off everyday household appliances; lose our jobs; lose our freedoms to live, eat and travel the way we desire and eventually freeze in the dark, then it’s time to ask a few basic questions.
How did an energy-rich and energy-exporting country blessed with hundreds of years of coal and gas and thousands of years of uranium end up with an energy crisis? In industrialised countries, the energy heavy lifting has always been done by fossil fuels. There has been little change in the proportion of fossil fuels used over the last century in the total energy mix. Will climate activists give up the 6,000 products from oil, including medicines, that we use in everyday life? No industrialised country survives on sunbeams and sea breezes.
The flight to expensive unreliable subsidised renewables was the thin edge of the wedge. The bird-and-bat-killing wind turbines and agricultural land-sterilising solar industrial complexes are at the wrong end of the grid which will now have to be replaced at a cost similar to that of the GDP of a Pacific atoll island nation. And who pays? Who is responsible for disposing of the Chinese-made turbines and solar panels that cannot be recycled and release toxins into soils and waterways when dumped?
Because wind and solar can only produce electricity sporadically and for a short time, energy-consuming, subsidised pumped hydro, monstrously expensive batteries that can provide electricity for a few minutes and explosive, untransportable, inefficient hydrogen are being touted as the answer to a maiden’s prayer.
We now are being told that, for a huge capital cost, subsidised energy needs to be used and lost to make hydrogen. This is the subsidy-collecting carpetbagger’s dream. Many of these are foreign corporations who are selling us the rope to hang ourselves. This cripplingly expensive energy we are told will charge incendiary EVs which won’t be able to take us to and from Bourke, let alone to the back of Bourke. There is no way we can plough, seed, fertilise, weed, harvest, process and transport food without fossil fuels.
Over the last two decades I put the hard word on climate ‘scientists’, fellow scientists, a former chief scientist, activists, politicians and journalists and asked them to provide me with half a dozen scientific papers that prove human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming.
This question resulted in abuse, obfuscation and promises to provide such papers that never eventuated. I have also unsuccessfully searched the extensive scientific literature on climate change for such papers. If such papers existed, then we would never hear the end of it in the media, ‘their’ ABC and in parliaments. If such scientific papers existed, then I would also be interested in reading the scientific papers that prove that the natural emissions of carbon dioxide comprising 97 per cent of the total annual emissions do not drive global warming.
No body of scientific evidence has ever been published that proves human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. Yes, you read that correctly. Garbage-in garbage-out (GIGO) computer climate models are not evidence. They suggest that we will fry and die sometime after we are dead anyway. These models are not in accord with measurements over more than four decades and overcook what has been measured. Furthermore, we only have to change rooms, stand up or go on vacation and the temperature change is more than the projected couple of degrees which we are told will destroy the planet. In past times such as the Medieval, Roman and Minoan Warmings, it was considerably warmer than now and civilisation thrived.
The whole global warming scare is based on GIGO models and has no primary scientific evidence underpinning the speculative theory that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming. In real science, when evidence does not support a theory, the theory is abandoned. In climate ‘science’ when evidence does not fit the theory, then the evidence is thrown out.
In order to destroy tried and efficient energy generation by coal, gas and nuclear, activists have had to destroy the education system, our freedoms, employment and industry to produce a subsidised, inefficient, unreliable energy system that profits the empowered elites and ignores tried and proven methods of generating cheap reliable electricity.
The assumption that human emissions of plant food drives global warming is wrong, especially if one looks back in time. Burning of fossil fuels has brought us out of grinding poverty, produced the modern world and greened the planet.
Changes to our energy systems resulting from this false assumption have already cost trillions of dollars globally for no benefit.
Maybe we’ll think again when we are jobless and down to our last few pennies.
