A few minor corrections:

--Yes, China emits more CO2 in total than any other country, but it's also investing more in clean energy than the entire rest of the world combined and has pledged net-zero by 2060.

--No one says Australia's contribution will make a significant difference, but that's beside the point.

--Net-zero by 2050 isn’t a “cult” idea, it’s the mainstream scientific consensus endorsed by the IPCC, CSIRO, and every credible climate science body worldwide.

--The science linking climate change to increased drought, food insecurity, and extreme weather is robust and widely accepted, including by Australia’s own climate agencies.

--Simon Stiell may not be a scientist, but his warnings align with the best available science, and dismissing him based on nationality or career path is ad hominem, not argument.

--Australia voluntarily exports fossil fuels and profits heavily from them, so portraying us as victims of China’s growth is both hypocritical and misleading.

--Fossil fuels are no longer the cheapest option. Solar and wind consistently undercut coal and gas in new-build costs, and global markets are rapidly shifting toward clean energy.

--Immigration is governed by Australia’s own elected government, not the UN, and emissions depend far more on energy systems than raw population numbers.

--Climate agreements like the Paris Accord are negotiated and ratified by elected representatives. The idea that they’re undemocratic ignores how international diplomacy works.

--Economic “sacrifices” for net-zero are often overstated. The transition is creating new jobs, industries, and export opportunities.

--Climate impacts disproportionately hurt poorer Australians - especially rural and regional communities - so inaction protects no one but entrenched fossil interests.

--Criticising global cooperation on climate while ignoring domestic land clearing, logging, and policy sabotage is selective outrage.

--Boofhead bogan claims of elite virtue-signalling ignore the and escalating costs, paid by ordinary people, of doing nothing.

--Suggesting Australia should isolate itself from global climate efforts is economically and diplomatically self-defeating in a world rapidly decarbonising.

At the risk of having been too critical, I will say that, yes, Australia... certainly is a country.

I trust this helps.

Albanese is an extreme Left authoritarian. Of course he wants to identify with, and kowtow to, Communist China and the UN. But, with our ridiculous voting system, ignorant electorate, and appalling me-too Liberal Party, he is what we've got into the foreseeable future.

Monotonous though it may be, I'll say it again: Australia is rooted, and we have a virtual one-part system, supported by a Pravda-like mainstream media.

Don't get off track with the idiot Simon Stiell; our own dangerous idiot, Anthony Albanese is responsible for trashing Australia.

And, he was what the idiot voters chose.

Come on, John D. The evidence that Xi [and Garnaut] want China as supreme industrial-power is overwhelming. There's little evidence, China or the rest of the planet can usefully go "net zero". All six pertinent graphs are going exactly the wrong way - and will never bend it like Beckham.

Here's the latest clown-show of "climate science", in 6 August Washington Post. "Uzbekistan’s Erroneous Data Dramatically Changed Results of Global Climate Damages." Looking as Stupid As Stiell, the "scientists" simply move the goalposts, then claim it as another victory for "science"

Steve,

Appreciate the follow-up, but citing a data error that was discovered, publicly acknowledged, and corrected by other scientists isn’t the smoking gun you think it is. In fact, it’s actually a textbook example of how science is supposed to work.

The flawed Uzbekistan data changed one high-profile study’s results until it was caught - by other researchers - in a transparent peer-reviewed process, with the original authors responding and defending their revised methods. That’s not a “clown show,” that’s accountability.

Also, one paper’s revision doesn’t invalidate the consensus - it simply highlights the importance of methodological scrutiny, which happens constantly across thousands of climate studies that continue to reinforce the link between emissions and economic harm.

Meanwhile, calling Stiell “stupid” and throwing around lines like “never bend it like Beckham” might be fun rhetorically, but it’s not a serious argument against the overwhelming evidence that inaction on climate change will cost far more than action.

This whole "climate crisis" nonsense is just globalist con to keep superior nations down. These scientists, bought and paid for by who knows, keep shoving fake stats down our throats to kill our factories and freedom. Their charts? Total garbage, cooked up to push us into those pathetic global deals that only help our enemies. If the environment is messed up, it is because of those backward countries breeding like roaches and wrecking everything. We have always respected our land. It is in our blood and roots. No lie is going to break that. We are done with their traps. Our job is to keep strong, grab what is ours, and build a future for whites. Let the rest panic about ice melting or whatever. We will stand tall, like always, guarding our heritage. No elite scheme should dim our pride or throw us off. I have seen their tricks before. They will not fool us. We are tougher than that, ready to fight for what is our's, no matter how loud they scream about the planet.

You always sound so soothing, John D, but everyone knows, you represent faith not science. Readers still amenable to reason can easily check, that all the relevant graphs are going exactly the wrong way. They quite literally would have to Bend It Like Beckham - that's not just my turn of phrase.

Nor is it the case that the incredibly naive Kotz-Levermann paper in Nature is the “only one” calling net-zero into question. Other notable examples recently are Watson et al "The Overshoot Myth" of 2024 and Naef et al "Carbon Offsetting is Limited" of 2025.

Fair cop, “stupid” isn't quite the right word for an opportunistic bully like Stiell. Devious, manipulative, fit better.