"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.