Tas makes a good point about recent population growth and its inevitable outcome. More CO2 creating power and fuel needed than ever before and massive cities/heat sinks pouring heat into the immediate adjacent atmosphere.
Alan B.

This article’s entire premise is false.

So far as I know, no-one has argued achieving net zero will mean that “global climate will become serene - not too warm, not too cold. Wild weather will cease, and there will be no more droughts, floods, cyclones or snow storms and no more plant and animal extinctions.”

Nor would anyone argue that with the statements that “even when nature was in full control, it was not a serene place”, or that “long before the first steam engine puffed along the first railway, earth was periodically battered by natural disasters – earthquakes, tidal waves, pole shifts, magnetic reversals, volcanic eruptions, wild weather and droughts.”

The fact that the climate always was and probably always will be variable, unpredictable and sometime dangerous and deadly in not in dispute. Nor is the fact that, compared over millennia, we are in an unusually warm phase that has been beneficial to life in general and humanity in particular. And one day, this interglacial period will probably end.

In the meantime, we are observing rapid and accelerating global warming that is a result of human activity, and which many experts expect to do significant and possibly catastrophic harm to the environment and human welfare. The next ice age is perhaps 50,000 years away. I’m worried about the next few decades.

WTF?

Indyvidual states: "Net Zero is merely a Woke term for 'let's get our grubby fingers on their money" !"

Just who is the "their" you are talking about?

Let's look at the facts.

According to OECD Revenue Statistics for Australia 2022:

In 2020:
Revenue from taxes on personal income, profits and
gains was 40% of total taxes.

Revenue from taxes on corporate income and gains was 19%.

Payroll taxes?: 4%

Property taxes?: 10%

GST and other value added taxes?: 27%

Now keep in mind that just over 50% of people who are paying tax are NET tax payers - that is they put in more than they take out.

A substantial number of Australians are suckling on the public teat even though they may have employment.

So who are the "their"?

Well I am one and my retirement will be self-funded also.

No pension or health care card for me.

So if I am one of the "their" then I say by all means take my money and look at ways of improving the future for Australians in a less carbon-dependant world.

WTF?

All of the different revenue percentages listed above are above the OECD average.

The OECD average revenue for Social security contributions is, however, 27% of revenue.

Want to guess what that revenue is for Australia?

If you know your Maths it is 0%.

So while in other OECD countries specific taxes are being collected to provide for social security over the working life of a person this does not happen in Australia.

It seems to me that many of the boomer whingers on this forum should think about their own financial contributions in relation to how much the rest of us support them before commenting

People that wake up in the morning and worry about the weather, exhibit mental illness traits.

For such an anxiety neurosis, there are establishments to visit and seek help, staffed with experts in OCD and the host of other mental illnesses with a core value of panic and anxiety.

At Davos, Al Gore spoke of "boiling seas" and a "billion climate refugees". If this bloke was not a hugely rich big mouth, he would be in residential care, heavily medicated. As it is, the climate hoax made him a billionaire.

The whole climate narrative is "absurd" says Richard Lindzen. He can't believe that "something so absurd could gain such universal acceptance".

The whole thing was born in dishonesty, and the lies have been growing bigger ever since