Challenging Net Zero With Science
By Paul Homewood
The CO2 Coalition have recently published this new paper by Richard Lindzen and William Happer:
February 23, 2023
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 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.”
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.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Not a word of this will appear in the MSM
Zactly.
Lindzen and Happer are silly rabbits – BBC determines science.
Incorrect! The UN owns “climate science”.
Of course, silly me. Having determined ‘The Science’ ™ the BBC then pass it on to the WHO , who own it.
It’ll be mentioned along with “Denialists funded by fossil fuel concerns…”
Reblogged this on Truth is difficult but essential… and commented:
Net Zero is part of Climate Change, which is part of the Globalist ‘New World Order’. It is dangerous for our wellbeing.
“Omit the disastrous consequences of reducing fossil fuels and CO2 emissions to Net Zero.”
Forgot that reducing CO2 emissions takes no CO2 from the atmosphere. Forgot that reducing CO2 emissions means slowly eliminating all the fuels needed in the conventional vehicles doing all of the transportation involved in the transition to renewables and electric transportation, never mind transporting people, food and all of the materials required. Forgot that negative CO2 emissions (CCS technologies) to achieve Net Zero goals requires transportation.
Also forget how important CO2 is for plant growth and food production.
Well written. Truth, plain and simple.
I started reading it the other day, while to me ( an archetypical climate change denier) it is great and reinforces and educates my knowledge, but we already know that climate change is a scam.
The eco loons (including politicians) regard climate change as a belief and nothing, particularly science, is going to change that.
It would be akin to the Pope, denying the existence of God, think of the anguish and ramifications of that.
Net Zero is going to cause significant damage to the economies of all nations that are implementing the UN/COP27 guidelines for reducing carbon (dioxide) emissions from combustion.
At some point in time the Net Zero mission will fail, we can see examples appearing… Sri Lanka, Holland, Canada, New Zealand, even here in the UK with highest electricity costs in Europe.
This Winter has been fairly mild with only 2 weeks of real cold separated by a month, giving time to replenish our gas stock, I had hoped 4 months ago for a severe winter, so rolling power cuts would alert the the people to the erosion of our electricity security. It is going to happen, the sooner the better.
Even if one accepts greenhouse theories of climate, for CO2 increase to matter it has to cause a significant increase in water vapour, the main so-called greenhouse gas. Where’s the evidence for that?
Evidence ? We don’t need no stinkin facts.
Science and logic mean nothing to the Thermaggedonistas. We science/engineering based spectrum people need to see that. What seems obvious to us is of no interest to ‘them’. Appeals to reason make no impact. Emotion might but that seems unlikely given the insouciance to the obvious plight of the poor denied affordable energy and doomed to slavery to ‘solve’ imaginary first world problems.
I have always enjoyed listening to Professor Happer, He seems to talk sense to me.
Government risks being sued for failure to meet its own climate laws!
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/04/revealed-cabinet-ministers-warned-of-legal-action-over-uks-failure-to-tackle-climate-crisis
Sounds like an ideal time to scrap the climate laws.
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.’
Once again large corporations N£TTING Z£RO£S !
All with nothing of worth to show for the expenditure, here’s a local example :-
Recently departed Bristol Waste Managing Director Jason “Benny” Eldridge certainly had an interesting approach to doing business with our money.
One of his great ideas was to spend south of £100k buying some dodgy old milk floats off a mate. More public cash was then splashed renovating the ridiculous old rust buckets.
All but one has never been used and they are now mothballed at Days Road tip.
The Bristolian 3rd March, 2023
” One of his great ideas was to spend south of £100k buying some dodgy old milk floats off a mate. More public cash was then splashed renovating the ridiculous old rust buckets.
All but one has never been used and they are now mothballed at Days Road tip. ”
Unfortunately, it doesn’t defy belief. Is Eldridge facing a charge of misconduct in public office? Although his role might not have been defined as “public office” .
And there’s always the excuse of “he was working hard” .
You only have to read the main messages of the major science and technology Institutions and Institutes (including those of our Armed Forces) to see that their main function is to support The Narrative to de-carbonise our world. A focus is on the energy-intense industries, such as cement making (mostly off-shored now) and steels, and electrify everything without a clue how that can be achieved.
Where is the questioning and challenging from their supposedly science-based educational prerequisites? There is none. Some individuals such as I may have alternative, contrarian, views but there has been no impartial survey of members’ views as far as I have discerned. Speaking out has achieved nil responses, other than to be told to go back into my box. So very sad.
They are all angling to destroy our energy sources – and, therefore our economy. None of these projects is costed, nor alternatives considered.
Rather than wasting OUR money on Unreliables, they ought to be pushing for MORE oil and gas until nuclear can come to the rescue.
Although there have been nuclear reactor problems, there haven’t been many, and their impact (although not nice) seems to have been lower than was expected.
Our wonderful civil servants shoed away Moltex* and have now tried to kick Rolls Royce’s Small modular reactors into the long grass, by (suddenly) deciding to set up a framework for assessing which ones to go for. You just couldn’t make it up: RR have assembled their team for an end-to-end project. RR “only” have 60+ years of building these reactors for the Royal Navy. As I understand it, the RR SMR could probably be ready before Hinckley Point C, and produce electricity at around half it’s cost.
Meantime, Moltex (originally of Swindon, I think) are getting on with their first 40MW implementation in New Brunswick, Alberta, Canada. With NO UK government support, as far as I’m aware. They were told by the government that there was no capacity to process their case.
The RR proposals is claimed to create 40,000 regional UK jobs by 2050 and generate £52bn in economic benefit. Buying wind and solar from China will create jobs for the Chinese.
You couldn’t make it up
“… the economic and social calamity of Sri Lanka which had banned the use of fertilizers and pesticides made from fossil fuels. ”
Even the UN recognises the level of damage inflicted on Sri Lanka by the believers.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/08/1125522
“families are skipping regular meals as staple foods become unaffordable. Children are going to bed hungry, unsure of where their next meal will come from.”
” Where is the questioning and challenging from their supposedly science-based educational prerequisites? ”
Non-believers have been de-platformed, see the BBC and LBC as examples.
Non-believers in the scientific community risk ostracisation and unemployment if they question the belief.
Net Zero, Climate Change and MANY other current political movements are RELIGIONS.
There is no point trying to influence a religion by scientific appeal to data. You might as well try to get the Pope to forsake Christianity on the grounds that we can prove that water cannot be changed to wine.. ..
Assuming that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is caused by emissions, then one cannot foresee a date by which the ‘West’ will have succeeded in forcing the ‘south’ and ‘east’ to give up their livelihoods. So relax.
There tends to be confusion about the correct interpretation of Net Zero. It does not mean all anthropogenic CO2 emissions must be eliminated, but rather that the rate of CO2 released by man should not exceed the rate of natural absorption.
This equilibrium can be established at any particular steady state of CO2 concentration. For example at 420ppm, 500ppm, or lower or higher. The statement of “Net Zero” should be accompanied by a clear definition of the intended target level, since this will define the permitted level of CO2 emissions.
I don’t know whether you are right or not, but I do know no politician could understand what you just said. They act on their concept of wonderful, glorious, liberating Net Zero.
George has decided
Billions will die.
What melting? Appears to be net zero melting, worldwide.
Another excellent paper (s) worth reading have been published by Dr. Roy Clark,that you will find on his site:-Ventura Photonics.
He is a very clever scientist,and is quite scathing of those who think that CO2 has any effect on C.Chg as presented.
I did wonder if Joan Gibson knows him,or knows of him?
Why isn’t this report (and others published by organisations like the GWPF) available in hard copy? I can’t afford the ink to print them off but if I could buy copies I could distribute them to the family and others all of whom believe in the climate cr@p. I sometimes feel quite lonely except when I’m on sites like this!!
In the short time the disastrous Mrs May was in office, She did more damage to the economy and progress of this country than any previous prime minister by forcing through the ridiculous net zero programme into law before she was forcibly removed from office. She should hang her head in shame together with all those enviro fanatics who supported her. It’s high time that disastrous law was removed from the statute book allowing the country to progress it’s economy before we sink into the abyss of a truly third rate nation.
Along with the Cimate Change Act introduced by the useless idiot Millipede.
The science is settled – there is no CAGW aka Climate Change and Net Zero policies are already causing catastrophes. (Our next door neighbours in Johannesburg have recently arrived from Sri Lanka.)
However, policy, propaganda and power in the US and its dominions in the ‘West’ are also settled – we need unchecked global power to impose an unworkable solution to a non-existent problem.