‘Net Zero Is a Scam,’ Top Atmospheric Scientists Confirm

Three of the world’s leading atmospheric scientists have declared that the so-called “Net Zero” agenda is nothing more than a globalist “scam.”

Distinguished atmospheric scientists Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and William van Wijngaarden warn that complying with “Net Zero” targets will do absolutely nothing to “save the planet” from “climate change,” as globalists claim.

They note that “Net Zero” targets, as laid out by the World Economic Forum (WEF), United Nations (UN), and their globalist allies, are not backed by real science and rely only on fearmongering.

The three scientists’ recent calculations suggest that if the entire world eliminated net carbon dioxide emissions by 2050 it would avert warming of an almost unmeasurable 0.07°C.

Even assuming the climate-modeled feedback and temperature opinions of the politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the rise would be only 0.28°C.

The scientists note that, even if the world met the WEF’s target, billions of humans would likely die and humanity as we now know it would be lost.

Year Zero would have been achieved along with the destruction of economic and social life for eight billion people on Planet Earth.

“It would be hard to find a better example of a policy of all pain and no gain,” note the scientists.

WEF-controlled governments around the world have committed to outright warfare on hydrocarbons.

To comply with “Net Zero,” governments will attempt to “decarbonize” the electricity grid by the end of the decade, without any realistic instant backup for unreliable wind and solar except oil and gas.

Hardly any scientific knowledge between them, they even believe that they can spend billions of other people’s money to capture CO₂ – a perfectly good plant fertilizer – and bury it in the ground.

Globalist government bureaucrats have no understanding of how a modern industrial society works, feeds itself, and creates the wealth that pays their unnecessary wages.

All will be vying to save the planet and stop a temperature rise that is barely a rounding error on any long-term view.

They plan to cull the farting cows, sow wildflowers where food once grew, take away efficient gas boilers and internal combustion cars, and stop the general public from traveling by plane.

On a wider front, banning hydrocarbons will remove almost everything from a modern society including many medicines, building materials, fertilizers, plastics, and cleaning products.

It might be shorter and easier to list essential items where hydrocarbons are absent than to produce one where they are present.

Anyone who dissents from their absurd views is said to be in league with fossil fuel interests, a risible suggestion given that they themselves are dependent on hydrocarbon producers to sustain their enviable lifestyles.

Unlike politicians the world over who rant about fire and brimstone, Messrs Lindzen, Happer, and van Wijngaarden pay close attention to actual climate observations and analyses of the data.

Since it is impossible to determine how much of the gentle warming of the last two centuries is natural or caused by higher levels of CO₂, they assume a “climate sensitivity” – rise in temperature when CO₂ doubles in the atmosphere – of 0.8°C.

This is about four times less than IPCC estimates, which lacks any proof. Understandably the IPCC does not make a big issue of this lack of crucial proof at the heart of the so-called 97% anthropogenic ‘consensus’.

The 0.8°C estimate is based on the idea that greenhouse gases like CO₂ “saturate” at certain levels and their warming effect falls off a logarithmic cliff.

This idea has the advantage of explaining climate records that stretch back 600 million years since CO₂ levels have been up to 10-15 times higher in the past compared with the extremely low levels observed today.

There is little if any long-term causal link between temperature and CO₂ over time.

In the immediate past record, there is evidence that CO₂ rises after natural increases in temperature as the gas is released from warmer oceans.

Any argument that the Earth has a “boiling” problem caused by the small CO₂ contribution that humans make by using hydrocarbons is “settled” by an invented political crisis, but is backed by no reliable observational data.

Most of the fear-mongering is little more than a circular exercise using computer models with improbable opinions fed in, and improbable opinions fed out.

The three scientists use a simple formula using base-two logarithms to assess the CO₂ influence on the atmosphere based on decades of laboratory experiments and atmospheric data collection.

They demonstrate how trivial the effect on global temperature will be if humanity stops using hydrocarbons.

After years wasted listening to Greta Thunberg, the message is starting to penetrate the political arena.

In the United States, the “Net Zero” agenda is dead in the water if Trump wins the presidential election.

In Europe, the ruling political elites, both national and supranational, are retreating on their “Net Zero” commitments.

Reality is starting to dawn and alternative political groupings emerge to challenge the comfortable insanity of “Net Zero” virtue signaling.

In New Zealand, the nightmare of the Ardern years is being expunged with a rollback of “Net Zero” policies ahead of possible electricity blackouts.

Thankfully, most of the Western world now realizes that “Net Zero” is a globalist scam to strip the public of basic freedoms and tax the hell out of them for the privilege.