There is a fundamental problem with climate change alarmism. In the two recessions of the last two decades where carbon emissions were hugely reduced, there was no difference to the CO2 in the air and temperature of the world.
Transcript
As an engineer, I respect and consult scientists, because lives have depended on it, and still do. As an engineer educated in atmospheric gases and as a business manager, I was responsible for hundreds of people’s lives, based on my knowledge of atmospheric gases. I listened to scientists, I cross-examined scientists and I debate the science. I have never found anyone with logical scientific points based on empirical scientific evidence that shows we have anything to worry about at all.
The basics are these: when you burn a hydrocarbon fuel, you burn molecules containing carbon and hydrogen with oxygen and they form CO2, carbon dioxide, and H2O, water vapour; that’s it. Carbon dioxide is essential for all life. But let’s go beyond the science and have a look at natural experiment. We’ve had two natural experiments, global experiments, in the last 14 years. The first was in 2009, when the use of hydrocarbon fuels reduced in the recession that followed the global financial crisis. There was less carbon dioxide produced from the human use of hydrocarbons. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? It kept increasing. What happened in 2020, when we had a major recession, almost a depression, around the world as a result of COVID restrictions put in place by governments? We saw the same reduction in hydrocarbon fuel use by humans and the same cut in carbon dioxide output from humans, and yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase.
Those who understand the science understand that it is fundamental: humans cannot and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; it’s controlled by nature entirely. I’ve cross-examined the CSIRO three times now in the last few years. Under my cross-examination, which is the first of its kind in this country and the only one of its kind in the world, the CSIRO admitted that they have never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is dangerous—never stated it. This is all rubbish that’s being talked about. Secondly, they admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. Thirdly, they never quantified, in three meetings, any specific impact of carbon dioxide from human activity. Never! That is the fundamental basis for policy. What’s more, they showed their sloppiness because they withdrew discredited papers which they initially cited to me at their choice as evidence of the unprecedented rate of temperature change and then failed to provide the empirical scientific evidence. They withdrew the two papers they put to me on temperatures, the two papers they put to me on carbon dioxide.
There is no danger. Temperatures are not unprecedented. We need to come back to the science, not the so-called experts the Greens talk about, not the pixies at the bottom of the garden. We need to come back to the science, the empirical scientific evidence, and base policies on that.
Very well said Malcolm. I may have mentioned before that a large number of who share emails on climate and many provide very definitive scientific evidence that carbon dioxide has NO effect on climate, and are in contact with significant physicists such as Princeton’s Professor Will Happer, are discussing ways in which we can clearly and widely present our findings to the public. I am wondering if you could suggest to us a mrans by which we might do this.
It seems to me that it would be useful to form a group with all of the people, such as yourself, in the government – both upper and lower house – who understand that the claims of global warming by CO2 are totalnonsense. People such as Matt Canavan are somewhat silenced I believe by other party views, most of whom I would believe, are constrained by the probable need to toady to public opinion for electoral needs. If sufficient people could be persuaded to “come out” as it were, it would give a great boost to our own work.
Unfortunately, while your comments are always helpful, I am sure you could well do with some robust support from other members of the Government and opposition. I would beleive that a large number even from the Labor P would be on side but are silemced by their caucus approach.
Kind regards,
Jonn
–
Hi Malcolm,
The point you make about no dip in the atmospheric CO2 curve during the Covid and other global slow-downs is such a powerful piece of evidence that our burning of fossil fuels has no impact on the global atmosphere; it needs to be trumpeted to the world.
I totally agree with John Nicol that a concerted effort by us sceptics is required to get the message to the general public and hence the politicians, that they are currently on the wrong track.
Galileo narrowly escaped execution for holding that the earth revolves around the sun, because the authorities, and hence the general public were convinced otherwise.
Jim Simpson, with a background in marketing reckons that we would need $100m to mount a thoroughly professional campaign. I think he’s being pessimistic because I reckon we might get a lot of pro-bono assistance,
The first step is always the hardest; this is to prepare a complete, professional proposal for a national campaign to elicit financial support from the millions of Australians who agree that they are being hurt by the climate change hoax. For this we would need the involvement of a marketing guru.
There’s a whole bunch of manmade islands just off the coast of Dubai. Some of the worlds wealthiest people have bought real estate at these remarkable locations. What would the point be in constructing these things & buying very expensive property on them if they were literally just about to be inundated by rising seas?
I heard two stories from the Cape Town area. The first came direct from a 70 year old fisherman in Gordons Bay whose family had been fishing off that coast for over 150 years. He claimed he moored his boat at the exact same spot as his ancestors, & that as far as he could tell, the ocean had risen not so much as a millimetre in his lifetime.
The second story comes from Strand, not far from Cape Town & close to Gordons Bay. This story involved the construction by the local municipality of sea-walling to prevent the rising tides from inundating the CBD, central business district. Following the construction of the walling, the CBD flooded several times during rainy season because the torrential downpours’ produced lots of water that could no longer run unimpeded into the ocean thanks to the climate change walling. The story goes that the walling was taken down a few years after being put up.
What you make of that is up to you.