There is no such thing as ‘settled science’ when it comes to climate change. One of the biggest lies spruiked by climate activists is that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are directly causing climate change and global warming. The John Cook survey that was conducted to arrive at this outlandish claim resulted in 32.6% of surveyed scientific papers ‘took a position’ on AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) i.e., that they expressed a view on the connexion between climate change and human activity. The other 67.4% either had no view on this or rejected it outright.
Of the 32.6%, 97.1% endorsed the view that humans are causing global warming …. and that’s where the 97% rate of scientific agreement was arrived at. Clearly, the real percentage of surveyed scientists who believe humans are to blame is 97.1 x 32.6 which equals 31.65%, which is a lot less than 97% !
We also shouldn’t overlook earlier scientific ‘expert’ opinions that included the belief that the Earth is flat and is also the centre of the Universe around which the Sun and stars revolve.
Or that cholera and the black death plague were caused by miasma i.e., bad smells.
Or that blood-letting cures many diseases.
Or that heroin is a good remedy for coughs.
Or that drilling a hole in someone’s head would “let bad spirits out” and cure them.
Remember all the above when next you hear the words: “We should listen to the Scientists.”
A. Cancel all major funding that subsidises renewable energy. Renewable energy measures should be cost effective and therefore capable of sustaining themselves without taxpayer funding. If government funding is thought necessary then a detailed cost/benefit analysis should be mandatory and agreed to prior to approval for taxpayer funding.
B. Cancel funding for jaunts that purport to be in the name of ‘saving the planet’. If people want to meet that’s their right to do so, but they shouldn’t receive taxpayer funding. Participants in such jaunts should also consider their own impact on carbon emissions, especially when travelling great distances to attend them.
C. Cancel the charitable status of feral activist groups like Greenpeace and GetUp!
D. Change the Corporations Law such that green activists, environmentalists, unionists, and lobbyists abide by the same conditions of probity as company directors.
E. Treat the Paris Accord and the follow-up talkfests with the contempt they deserve. It was purely a PR exercise to con the people of the world into thinking that the world’s leaders were doing something positive about climate change. There are no performance guarantees and no punishment if promised results are not achieved.
F. Build modern coal-fired and nuclear power stations.
G. Decree that energy companies that provide electricity to the grid must maintain 90% availability 24/7.
H. Encourage entrepreneurship to find cheaper and better ways of utilising energy from the sun and water.
I. Encourage the planting of trees, digging of dams, installation of rooftop solar panels, and use of household water tanks. Cost effective measures aimed at reducing real pollution should be actively encouraged.
J. If global warming increases sea levels, as would occur due to melting land ice (but not sea ice), then government funding would obviously be required to move people and property to higher ground. This is where money would need to be spent – not on ridiculous attempts to reduce the impact of human activity that might only account for as little as 3% of the perceived problem and that certainly will continue to adversely impact on people’s lives as well as the economies of Australia and many other nations.
To spend the enormous amount of money proposed by governments and climate activists on alternative sources of energy would require far higher levels of taxation and would also result in vastly increased energy costs as solar and wind renewables are far more expensive in the short term than coal and gas and far more expensive longer term than nuclear.
Moreover, renewable energy measures will not in the short term be sufficient to satisfy our growing energy requirements. It should also be obvious that developing countries such as India will desperately need coal and gas-fired power for many more decades in order to help raise their people from acute poverty.