Challenging "Net Zero" with Science
A layperson's review of this paper authored by the CO₂ Coalition: Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and Gregory Wrightstone
This paper made for a fascinating read. It was easy to understand, with complex topics graded to the language of a layperson; as far as expertise threshold goes pertaining to climate science and physics. The fallacies pointed out by the authors, in the corrupted global stance of governments, is deconstructed using logic, facts, examples, and dire warnings of how disastrous “net zero” could be for humanity.
Executive summary (link to full report)
Governments around the globe are taking actions to implement fossil fuel-free or “Net Zero” energy systems without a thorough examination of the scientific basis for doing so. This paper undertakes that examination by reviewing the scientific support (or lack thereof) that has been used to justify this transition to Net Zero. No attempt is made to address the significant economic, societal or environmental consequences of a near-total reliance on renewable energy and the required battery-backup that is necessary to transition to a fossil fuel free future.
Two of the paper’s authors – Drs. William Happer and Richard Lindzen, professors emeriti at Princeton University and Massachusets Institute of Technology, respectively – have spent decades studying and writing about the physics of Earth’s atmosphere. The third, Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist of more than 40 years, has spent much of the last decade writing and speaking about the interplay of geology, history and climate.
The authors find that Net Zero – the global movement to eliminate fossil fuels and its emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases – to be scientifically invalid and a threat to the lives of billions of people. Among the paper’s findings are:
• 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.
• Computer models supporting every government Net Zero regulation and the trillions of dollars subsidizing renewables and electric cars, trucks, home heating, appliances and many other products do not work.
• Scientific research and studies that do not support the “consensus” narrative of harmful man-made global warming are routinely censored and excluded from government reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment.
• Conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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.
• The many benefits of modest warming and increasing carbon dioxide are routinely either eliminated or minimized in governmental reports.
• 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. Many would starve.
• The adoption of Net Zero is the rejection of overwhelming scientific evidence that there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂. Net Zero, then, violates the tenets of the scientific method that for more than 300 years has underpinned the advancement of western civilization.
The scientific method
The authors state:
Reliable scientific theories are determined by the scientific method, validating theoretical predictions with observations, not by models that do not work, government opinion, consensus, peer review, omitting contradictory data or fabricating data.
Logical and simplistic in its deductions - this statement evokes the knowledge of everything our rulers are doing wrong (by design) and the same rationale could be applied to the Covid-19 ‘pandemic’, from which the climate change alarmism has been segued into to sustain the juggernaut of fear amidst an unsuspecting public.
The report cites the disaster in Stalin’s Russia, whereby ‘false biology’ was perpetuated onto the Russian people for 40 years, by the czar of Russian biology and agriculture - Trofim Lysenko. This politicisation of science resulted in millions dying as a result of Lysenko’s ruthless campaign against science in agriculture.
The the profoundly true observation of Michael Crichton is quoted:
“If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it is science, it isn’t consensus.”
How many times have you heard the statement “it is the general consensus” by talking heads and captured television reporters after imbuing the (nameless / unsourced / non-cited) “experts said” mantra?
The authors describe how “Net Zero” regulations and actions are scientifically invalid and fatally flawed science because they:
A. Fabricate data or omit data that contradicts their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather.
B. Rely on models that do not work.
C. Rely on IPCC findings, which are government opinions, not science.
D. Omit the extraordinary social benefits of CO₂ and fossil fuels.
E. Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO₂ emissions to “Net Zero”.
F. Reject the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.
More contemporarily, Lindzen and Happer remind us that the recent experience in Sri Lanka should serve as a ‘red alert’. The government of Sri Lanka banned the use of nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides, forcing a green agenda on farmers, which wreaked havoc on the food supply. The authors warn that if similar decisions are made on a global scale, there will be mass starvation.
*For anyone wishing to gain a deeper understanding of what happened in Sri Lanka, you may become better informed after reading a detailed article by James Corbett - We’re All Sri Lankan Farmers Now.
Happer makes clear, that without the “use of inorganic fertilizers” derived from fossil fuels, the world “will not achieve the food supply needed to support 8.5 to 10 billion people.” Eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilizer and pesticides will create worldwide starvation. And scientifically there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.
The paper details numerous examples of data trends studied using the scientific method for the aforementioned points of A through F. We will look at three examples in this article.
A. Fabricate data or omit data that contradicts their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather
Citing Prof. Steven Koonin in his book Unsettled (2021) on the conclusion he reached, being the opposite of what seems to be in the media about extreme weather:
“The bottom line is that the science says that most extreme weather events show no long-term trends that can be attributed to human influence on the climate.”
“Science tells us … [that] observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather events don’t show any significant change – and some such events have actually become less common or severe – even as human influences on the climate grow.”
On the subject of heat waves, Koonin calls out the US government’s Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) as not just misleading but wrong. The chart below is referred to as a “textbook example of fabricating data.”
He noticed inconsistencies between this seemingly alarming chart, and other figures reproduced deeper into the report:
This chart, deep in the CSSR, on p. 190, clearly shows warm temperatures were not occurring more often, that the “average warmest temperature has hardly changed over the last 60 years.
Koonin concluded in even stronger terms, that the 4th National Assessment’s CSSR is “a prominent misrepresentation of climate science.”
Readers might recall heat wave alarmism tactics deployed by the media across Europe in 2022, to make people feel the personal threat of climate change. Off-Guardian covered this succinctly here.
Another great piece worth reading can be found at independent media outlet site - The Conservative Woman, entitled: The climate scaremongers: Health chief caught lying about heatwave deaths.
D. Omits the Extraordinary Social Benefits of CO₂ and Fossil Fuels
The authors explain why CO₂ is essential to food and therefore life on Earth - without CO₂, there would be no photosynthesis, no food and no human or other life.
A major social benefit of increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere is that it increases the amount of food plants produce through what is known as “CO₂ fertilization.” More CO₂ means more food for people around the world.
A graphic illustration of the response of plants to increases in CO₂ is shown below.
Dr. Sherwood Idso grew Eldarica (Afghan) pine trees with increasing amounts of CO₂ in experiments, starting with an ambient CO₂ concentration of 385 ppm. He showed what happens when CO₂ is increased from 385 ppm to 535 ppm, 685 ppm and 835 ppm over 10 years:
Throughout the legacy media, the government mouthpieces are going into overdrive lately to proclaim doom over CO₂ emissions. The Guardian is even going as far as to claim that UK farming causes over a quarter of cities’ particle pollution!
In summarising other points made by the CO₂ Coalition report, with regards to the benefits of CO₂:
more CO₂, including CO₂ from fossil fuels, produces more food
in drought-stricken areas, more CO₂ produces more food
different plants with more CO₂ produce vastly more food
different varieties of the same plant with more CO₂ produce vastly more food
CO₂ and other greenhouse gases keep us from freezing to death
burning fossil fuels creates more CO₂ and thus more food
fossil fuels are essential to making fertilizers
fossil fuels are essential to making key pesticides
fossil Fuels are the most reliable, low-cost source of energy and results in job creation.
The following chart of the GDP per person for the last 2,000 years powerfully illustrates what has happened:
Now, contrast this with the climate hysteria and woke gobbledegook which are becoming inseparable.
Quoting from Chris Morrison via DailySceptic.org:
One of Britain’s leading climate ‘experts’, Professor Kevin Anderson, has provided a valuable insight into the increasingly bizarre demands that surround the promotion of the collectivist Net Zero political project.
Writing in the Conversation, he argues for Net Zero within 12 years, complete with a refit of U.K. housing stock, a withdrawal of all combustion engine cars in favour of expanded public transport, electrification of industry, the roll out of ‘zero-carbon’ energy, and the banning of all fossil fuel production.
F. Rejects the Science There is No Risk of Catastrophic Global Warming Caused by Fossil Fuels and CO₂
The paper reiterates that the scientific method must determine scientific knowledge. They are unaware of any reliable science supporting the theory that fossil fuels and CO₂ will cause catastrophic global warming.
The authors further highlight that the theories and studies arguing for such scenarios will:
cherry-pick a tiny amount of time, geologically speaking, that supports their theory
omit the millions of years of data that contradicts the theory, or worse, fabricate data
often use a chart that points sharply upward.
Thus, in our scientific opinion, any government or other analysis advocating “Net Zero” regulation, policy or other action is scientifically invalid and fatally flawed science if it:
A. Omits unfavorable data that contradicts conclusions, for example, on extreme weather events such as heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and droughts.
B. Relies on models that do not work and thus would never be used in science.
C. Relies on IPCC findings, which are government opinions, not science.
D. Omits the extraordinary social benefits of CO₂ and fossil fuels.
E. Omits the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO₂ to “Net Zero.”
F. Rejects the science that demonstrates there is no risk of catastrophic global warming caused by fossil fuels and CO₂.
We urge all government agencies involved in “Net Zero” regulation, policy or other action, including USGCRP in its final version of the 5th National Climate Assessment, to apply the scientific method and
1. Delete any reliance on and citation to IPCC government-controlled findings.
2. Delete any reliance on and citation to CMIP models and any other models unless they have been proven to work.
3. Delete any reliance on methods other than the scientific method, such as peer review and consensus.
4. Include and analyze the enormous social benefits of CO₂.
5. Include and analyze the enormous social benefits of fossil fuels.
6. Immediately stop all efforts to eliminate fossil fuels to avoid massive human starvation in the future.
Dear readers, you should now be better informed and equipped to respond to climate hysteria and virtue signaling wherever and with whomever you encounter the pro climate alarmist narratives disturbing your sanity.
Let us know in the comments if you have seen local media reports in your area waxing lyrical about the latest IPCC report or other climate change fearmongering. Then we can grasp how militantly the trusted news initiative mechanism is kicking in to spread a common narrative. Here is an example from The Bangkok Post from 28th March 2023:
2015 Annual GWPF Lecture - Patrick Moore - Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok-based journalistic dissident. If you liked this content and wish to support the work, buy him a coffee or consider a crypto donation:
Your readership is much appreciated. Subscribe to receive new posts from Creed Speech and support my work.
Hi Nicholas, I cross-posted your Substack article on the Thailand Expats & Friends GAB sub-forum.
Will also try to 'sneak' the link to the report into the recently launched Green Forum of AseanNow, but need to do it below the Mod radar, as any posts containing facts that do not support the MSM narrative are removed and the poster temporarily or permanently banned...
Greta's eloquent response to the 3 authors of the study:
" How Dare You "