Just assume, for the sake of argument, that the IPCC line of roughly one degree celsius global warming is correct, due human emissions.

What is not correct, and not science, is the primary-school idea that you can crank up the earth's carbon capture so that it "balances out" the emissions - magical net zero, here we come. Warming arrested, planet saved.

Apparently, this UN "concept" crystallised at a green activist retreat, only ten years ago. Instead of picking it apart, Australian scientists enforce it with all the fervour of earth-moves-round-sun. In effect, they are all become political activists, barracking for Albanese.

I note that CO2-is-good advocates no longer say there is no warming but that warming is beneficial. Maybe not. Just a few years ago there were estimates of how Canada's GDP could increase by 2050 through average temperature rise. As of this month
'The fires have upended oil and gas operations, reduced available timber harvests, dampened the tourism industry and imposed uncounted costs on the national health system.'
According to one source the wildfires had 6,000 ignition points which seems a bit of stretch to blame on arson. Therefore the warming is beneficial claim needs a rethink.

WTF?

The author is using the “shot-gun” approach in this article.

Fire enough comments out there and some may hit the mark. Throw in a comment about CV-19 just for good measure.

There are some interesting takeaways from this, however,:

He does acknowledge “... the ability of CO2 to transfer heat in the atmosphere” and that climate change is taking place.

Later stating: “…..that curiosity is being suppressed on the part of the science community, whose ideas, research and expressions must fall in with the existing narrative.”

The author then links to some research supporting his ideas …… so clearly not suppressed.

The linked research is provided by the “Chinese Geographical Science” journal whose aims state:
“ helps readers keep up to date with the latest worldwide geographical research achievements, and reports on new development and changes related to geography in the course of China's economic development.”

While the author claims “Climate change is still very much an evolving domain of science.” he seems to object to the way climate scientists carry out their science.

A call to action but then a rejection of said action when it does not meet his narrative?

Later stating: “Climate change is creating the conditions and opportunities to develop new industries in Australia.”

Taking wine as an example it is well known that in the southern hemisphere suitable wine growing regions are shifting southward.

One person's gain is another person's loss?

There is only so far that it can shift south.

We do understand the nature of climate change and how we humans have contributed to it in a harmful and potential species extermination, which may also include the human race.

And because we are wilfully blind, we continue to burn fossil fuels at the behest very powerful energy barons and their fawning political spitlickles.

Who by and large rule out the cure, i.e., carbon free, nuclear energy. The only viable solution on the table that will not tank the economy, but rather the very opposite!
Alan B.

Great news: nuclear appears to be firming up with modulars on the horizon - Canadian investment dollars if I heard correctly on abc thismorning.

Alan Finkel has tried to say as kindly as possible that Hydrogen technology is still in it's early days. The Japanese are getting a little tetchy about their investment in Victorian co-research.

Maybe a little ahead of myself.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.afr.com/world/north-america/for-ontario-nuclear-power-is-the-only-way-to-net-zero-emissions-20230809-p5dv01&ved=2ahUKEwiT1prS_uyAAxVpilYBHeGnCjAQFnoECBMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2N1DWtaVnTdQ27h1OxX1_H