A country betrayed: less than 1 in 3 trust CSIRO and half the nation don’t want to pay a single dollar for Net Zero

A failure of democracy, of scientific institutions, of public servants and the media

Barely 28% of Australians believe the experts at our premier scientific establishment. It’s a sad state.

The CSIRO have burned through 60 years of goodwill and scientific branding. They may have invented Aerogard, WLAN and broadcast the Apollo 11 moon landing, but most of the country don’t trust them on Net Zero. They make pronouncements about the complex science of climate change, but even with a media parroting the climate propaganda on their behalf, the unwashed masses can still see through the hypocrisy, the jargon, and the biodegradable shopping bags.

A generation of great scientific work, used up like cheap branding.

Trust in science took a savage beating during the pandemic. Then CSIRO staked their reputation on “cheap renewables” and they bombed. Now the truckdrivers, the plumbers, and burger-flippers know that renewables are *not* cheaper and their electricity bill is not $275 dollars less. The smug lectures by the experts are a bore, but the glory flights to holiday resorts for the UN just make that message burn.

Half the country (still) doesn’t want to pay a single dollar more to achieve Net Zero

It was the most skeptical option anyone could pick in this survey and half the country picked it.

If there was a choice to have the cheapest electricity possible (emissions-be-damned) it might have changed the whole graph. But we are not even allowed to consider that option — the one where we stop trying to control the rain with our power plants. The one where we join the giant economies of China, the USA and India and go hell-for-leather to burn fossil fuels and make cheap electricity. The ABC would call that a “fringe” position.

So this giant voter pool has been ignored by both major parties for years. Way back in 2019, 4,000 star scientists all swore climate change was real, yet 54% of Australians thought they were wrong, and said climate change was not predominantly man-made. The vast skeptical vote has been there all along and conservatives ignored it until One Nation dragged them kicking and screaming to the table. Dear Angus, it’s not leadership when most of the country got there before you.

The Liberals have still not renounced the Paris Agreement. Dan Tehan, in the Shadow Cabinet, vowed the Coalition will absolutely, definitely spend “less” than the Labor Party on the Net Zero Quest. Is that all?

They still don’t get it.

Ponder that nearly half the country think the CSIRO is not trustworthy, and yet the organization still gets a billion dollars a year.

Jo nova writes:

Bargain: Make the whole world “Net Zero”, spend a quadrillion dollars, and cool the world by 0.3 degrees!

By Jo Nova

The deadliest climate question: How many degrees cooler will that be?

Ask it now, ask it later, before breakfast and while watching “the news”. Teach the children to ask in kindy.

We know the IPCC wildly exaggerates, but pretend they’re right and it still doesn’t make any sense. Richard Lindzen, Will Happer, and William van Wijngaarden took the IPCC at its word and calculate that even if we get to Net Zero by 2050, will only make the world a tiny bit cooler, assuming they’re right (which they’re not) and assuming the rest of the world joins in (which they aren’t).

Say we stop all coal, oil and gas, redesign our energy grids, cull the cows, give up our holidays, our cars and ride bikes to work, fill the oceans with windmills, and turn our thermostats down. We spend a quadrillion dollars on a Moonshot to stuff a perfectly good fertilizer in holes underground, and instead of getting to the moon, the world is barely 0.28 degrees C cooler. That’s a half of one lousy Fahrenheit less that it would have been. This ladies and gentlemen is the best case scenario for the global action plan against the 6th mass extinction.

This is why 100,000 people in private jets meet each year in Egypt, or Doha, or Azerbaijan. (Or so they say).

The whole United States of America could go Net Zero by 2050 and it would, at best, change global temperatures by three one-hundredths of a degree, which we can’t even measure. Rounded to the nearest tenth of a degree that’s a big 0.0°C. And if the Sun does a bit more, then it’s even less.

Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

R. Lindzen, W. Happer, and W. A. van Wijngaarden

Abstract:

Using feedback-free estimates of the warming by increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) and observed rates of increase, we estimate that if the United States (U.S.) eliminated net CO₂ emissions by the year 2050, this would avert a warming of 0.0084 ◦C (0.015 ◦F), which is below our ability to accurately measure. If the entire world forced net zero CO₂ emissions by the year 2050, a warming of only 0.070 ◦C (0.13 ◦F) would be averted. If one assumes that the warming is a factor of 4 larger because of positive feedbacks, as asserted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming averted by a net zero U.S. policy would still be very small, 0.034 ◦C (0.061 ◦F). For worldwide net zero emissions by 2050 and the 4-times larger IPCC climate sensitivity, the averted warming would be 0.28 ◦C (0.50 ◦F).

Read the entire short paper here at the CO2Coalition: Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase

And Christopher Monckton points out the cost to benefit ratio for this $2 Quadrillion dollar project is every billion dollars we spend cools the world by 20 millionths of a degree.

So let’s keep all the national science institutions that pointed out what a terrible deal this is for all our nations, and shut down the rest — NOAA, NASA, Hadley, CSIRO, NIWA, BoM, Potsdam, NRC, ARC, and while we’re at it — the ABC, BBC, the CBC because they should have asked better questions, like “how many degrees will that cool us?”

New Life Narrabri

Blogging about faith and life in rural Australia

Net Zero

Jo Nova: Less than 1 in 3 trust the CSIRO