"Net Zero is a pointless and destructive target, and CO2 emissions do not need to be curtailed, nor does CO2 need to be 'captured' and buried underground".

Amen.

“The only achievement Labor has been able to show for its increased spending of $75 billion on renewables is emissions reduction at a rather paltry rate of 0.24% a year”. (David Hughes, ‘Stuck at 0.24%’, 27/11/25) Power prices are up 40%. The economy was growing at 4.8%. It's now growing at 1.8%. At a cost to taxpayers of $70 billion.

WTF?

This appears to be a reworking of Kalmanovitch's ideas.

And those ideas have been debunked.

The simple explanation, the conversation starter, an introductory explanation of the greenhouse effect is to start with a statement somewhat along the lines of "as Carbon dioxide levels increase so does temperature." And this is true in a closed system.

It has always been known that a doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the greenhouse effect.

The current science understanding is as the amount of man-made CO2 goes up, temperatures rise but not at the same rate. To suggest that science is stating that "If human emissions of CO2, which are largely from fossil fuels, cause global warming, there should be a clear correlation between them" is a clear and deliberate misdirection.

The most obvious error in the author's article is to confuse temperature with the Global Energy Inventory.

Argo data have shown the upper 2,000 metres of the oceans has captured roughly 90% of the anthropogenic change in ocean heat content since the programme started in 1999.

Temperature cannot be used as a proxy for heat energy.

Just wondering.
Surely an increase in CO2 does not mean an IMMEDIATE increase in temperature?
The world is rather good at being a heatsink.
There would be a delay of (perhaps many) years?
Same with cooling when CO2 reduces?
So if these things are not strictly in step, this is understandable?

Dear WTF, look at the data, show me that the numbers are wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own data

Dear IF
LOOK at the data. CO2 increases 11 months AFTER each change in temperature

What is Net Zero meant to fix? Well, young people have been taught to experience high levels of "climate anxiety", and then the fairy story of Net Zero helps them deal with this crippling condition.

Hello #petroalbion,

I have looked at the data and I am not disputing it. In fact, I appear to have considered even more data than the author.

This is how I am able to speculate that the author is confused about the difference between temperature and heat.

The author is correct in stating the lack of correlation but no scientist is disputing that.

The correlation exists with the Global Energy Inventory.

This is not my opinion - this is the conclusion reached by the scientific community.

That there is no correlation between CO2 increases and alleged temperature increases has been established for several decades now, although the climate industry fought tooth and nail to deny it. Right up to the time it became undeniable ie around the time of the second temperature pause earlier this century.

It was around that time that the activists simply decided to stop arguing the science and just agitate for action which ultimately led to the net zero madness.

That CO2 increases have an influence on temperature is clear. What is unclear is the level of that influence and how much of the post-Little Ice Age temperature increases are natural as opposed to anthropologic.

What we do know is that the current temperatures are not in the slightest unusual. Indeed its likely that, since the advent of the Holocene around 10000BC, temperatures have been higher than the present for 25% of the time ie around 3000 of the last 12000 years have been hotter than the present. And unless you're prepared to argue that burning Christians at the stake caused the warming, all of that previous warming was natural. (Quick, queue the claims that its warming faster than the past - a claim that can't be proven but is used to try to hide embarrassing facts).

Whatever the cause (or causes) of the post-1970 warming the more information we get the clearer it becomes that there is no cause for concern and that, indeed the warming and the CO2 fertilisation effect, may well be beneficial to mankind.

Nonetheless, entire industries, careers and political movements have been built around the scare and as such, resiling from that will take a long while. Perhaps new technologies will make the entire issue mute, but more likely the need to place the economy ahead of the scare will result in it being quietly shelved.