Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
But the election results in Australia have provided the government a mandate for renewables, apparently.
"The term 'silent majority' was popularised by Richard Nixon the best part of 60 years ago. But it’s a term that could easily be applied to the 2025 federal election results,” Mr Bowen wrote
So, maybe it’s the ‘silent majority’ whom we need to contend with…
Excellent set of articles, Chris. I have worked in the energy industry for 50 years now, and I have the solution to all of the problems you highlighted. Simply repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As long as we blindly comply with the Second Law, Net Zero is impossible. A second option, favored by some environmentalists, is to reduce energy demand by engaging in World War 3. ;-)
Great response, Patrick. The people who run Western countries (and Australia particularly) are the gullible victims of a mass societal delusion the likes of which humanity has never seen before. The fact that this delusion is not being challenged by the high-priest ‘$cientists’ who understand the Second Law and who also control peak academia points to their corrupt and amoral ethical value systems - and the fact that they are simply gutless wonders.
The best source of information on "anti-human" philosophy related to energy demand is from Alex Epstein. You should get his books The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future.
This post is a very competent summary of the inanity of the net zero fantasy. A broader question: why are so many people who are competent in matters of policy, business, and politics so determined to persist with an objective that is so obviously unachievable, something that can be demonstrated easily and conclusively? Progress will only be made if efforts are directed to finding new technologies that can substitute for fossil fuel dependency (a major challenge on current knowledge), and/or effective adaptation strategies are developed. But the main saviour will be the obvious: the modelling of climate change attributable to man made CO2 emissions proves over time to have substantially overshot reality. If that eventuates, the current generation will be recorded by history as one of the most naive and incompetent.
The mainstream media-activist class has some responsibility here. Instead of an honest debate about costs and benefits, anyone in a position of influence who questions net zero is branded a "climate change denier" (i.e. "holocaust denier") by activists, whose view the media is more than happy to promote as outrage bait.
Chris, these articles are too good to remain in relative obscurity on substack. I find them simultaneously to be a balm of sanity and also incredibly frustrating at the same time.
Finally credible journalists are writing the truth about climate change and the folly of net zero. Thankyou Chris.
Years ago I knew it was a hoax because the scientists who were advocating for lower carbon emissions were on the government payroll and if they disagreed with the mantra they were fired. Also there were some scientists willing to debate this same mantra but were never given a platform or find willingness amongst the scientific community to find the truth.
Also if as Kevin Rudd said about it being a great moral responsibility our country had, what justification was there for continuing our export of coal to China? Oh, that’s different I suppose that’s where the government got their money from, not to mention the deals done on the world stage. Our government isn’t in control of Australia anyway, it’s all a charade.
It’s purely a wealth redistribution scheme and it’s working very well to achieve its purposes, our country should be wealthier than anywhere else but we are just a pawn.
I get pissed off whenever I read a AFR article that says things along the lines of “old and unreliable coal power stations...”. No mention whatsoever about “brand new and unreliable wind and solar farms” . If only they allowed comments on their articles like say the UK Telegraph. The journos there might learn something but I suspect that have been told to push the green ideology
The transition hit the wall years ago, it was isn't working, it can't work, it was never going to work due to the conjunction of wind droughts and lack of grid-scale storage.
How the discovery of wind droughts last century could have saved trillions of dollars that have been spent on getting more expensive and less reliable energy with massive enviro impact.
Australia is always behind… watching the mistakes of other countries… and then choosing to invest double or triple effort on those same mistakes. Chumps lead by chimps.
Well said Chris. Pleased to see you've joined the ranks of the climate & energy realists of Australia. Perhaps now with your 'pen' (mightier than the sword as it were), we might now see a return to common sense, especially when it comes to CO2 which is not a pollutant, nor primary driver of so claimed climate change, aka global warming. On the contrary, it's a minuscule, colourless, invisible, odourless, tasteless atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on planet Earth! Adoption of a 'sensible Energy Policy', to replace the flawed version currently in place, would be a handy 'next step'.
Fantastic article Chris. There could be so much to say in response to all this carry-on over climate change, climate alarmism, etc., but I think this article says it best. I was a public speaker on science and philosophy with Creation Ministries for many years and a consumer of their resources for almost 40 years...and still going. Dr Don Batten has written an incredible paper covering the history, science and worldview associated with climate change. Whilst it is clearly from a Christian worldview, we should remember that everyone has a worldview which drives everything we do, including scientists, media and politicians. I strongly encourage everyone to have a read, consider what your worldview is and whether it 'forces' you to take a particular side in this debate, and then attempt to see the true nature of the forces involved. As some have said here, there is more at play than actual climate change...
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
But the election results in Australia have provided the government a mandate for renewables, apparently.
"The term 'silent majority' was popularised by Richard Nixon the best part of 60 years ago. But it’s a term that could easily be applied to the 2025 federal election results,” Mr Bowen wrote
So, maybe it’s the ‘silent majority’ whom we need to contend with…
The silent majority have been hoodwinked by a government who have no idea.
Excellent set of articles, Chris. I have worked in the energy industry for 50 years now, and I have the solution to all of the problems you highlighted. Simply repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. As long as we blindly comply with the Second Law, Net Zero is impossible. A second option, favored by some environmentalists, is to reduce energy demand by engaging in World War 3. ;-)
Great response, Patrick. The people who run Western countries (and Australia particularly) are the gullible victims of a mass societal delusion the likes of which humanity has never seen before. The fact that this delusion is not being challenged by the high-priest ‘$cientists’ who understand the Second Law and who also control peak academia points to their corrupt and amoral ethical value systems - and the fact that they are simply gutless wonders.
Can you point me to a source that makes/explains this argument?
The best source of information on "anti-human" philosophy related to energy demand is from Alex Epstein. You should get his books The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels and Fossil Future.
Great article Chris thanks!
Physics always gets the last say.
Thanks mate. Apparently in Australia politics trumps physics. That’s why they call it Oz. Stay well.
This post is a very competent summary of the inanity of the net zero fantasy. A broader question: why are so many people who are competent in matters of policy, business, and politics so determined to persist with an objective that is so obviously unachievable, something that can be demonstrated easily and conclusively? Progress will only be made if efforts are directed to finding new technologies that can substitute for fossil fuel dependency (a major challenge on current knowledge), and/or effective adaptation strategies are developed. But the main saviour will be the obvious: the modelling of climate change attributable to man made CO2 emissions proves over time to have substantially overshot reality. If that eventuates, the current generation will be recorded by history as one of the most naive and incompetent.
The mainstream media-activist class has some responsibility here. Instead of an honest debate about costs and benefits, anyone in a position of influence who questions net zero is branded a "climate change denier" (i.e. "holocaust denier") by activists, whose view the media is more than happy to promote as outrage bait.
Great summary Chris! The Liberals need to understand this and drop NZ2050
Chris, these articles are too good to remain in relative obscurity on substack. I find them simultaneously to be a balm of sanity and also incredibly frustrating at the same time.
Great summary.
The emperor is butt naked for all the world to see, but the politicians won't admit they've got it so wrong. What a pity for all Australians.
Finally credible journalists are writing the truth about climate change and the folly of net zero. Thankyou Chris.
Years ago I knew it was a hoax because the scientists who were advocating for lower carbon emissions were on the government payroll and if they disagreed with the mantra they were fired. Also there were some scientists willing to debate this same mantra but were never given a platform or find willingness amongst the scientific community to find the truth.
Also if as Kevin Rudd said about it being a great moral responsibility our country had, what justification was there for continuing our export of coal to China? Oh, that’s different I suppose that’s where the government got their money from, not to mention the deals done on the world stage. Our government isn’t in control of Australia anyway, it’s all a charade.
It’s purely a wealth redistribution scheme and it’s working very well to achieve its purposes, our country should be wealthier than anywhere else but we are just a pawn.
I get pissed off whenever I read a AFR article that says things along the lines of “old and unreliable coal power stations...”. No mention whatsoever about “brand new and unreliable wind and solar farms” . If only they allowed comments on their articles like say the UK Telegraph. The journos there might learn something but I suspect that have been told to push the green ideology
The transition hit the wall years ago, it was isn't working, it can't work, it was never going to work due to the conjunction of wind droughts and lack of grid-scale storage.
There is a parallel universe problem:)
https://www.spectator.com.au/author/rafe-champion/
How the discovery of wind droughts last century could have saved trillions of dollars that have been spent on getting more expensive and less reliable energy with massive enviro impact.
https://rafechampion.substack.com/p/the-late-discovery-of-wind-droughts
https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts
Australia is always behind… watching the mistakes of other countries… and then choosing to invest double or triple effort on those same mistakes. Chumps lead by chimps.
Sorry but the longer we go on the clearer it becomes that climate change is actually bunk. If it was real China Russia us etc would all stop emitting.
Well said Chris. Pleased to see you've joined the ranks of the climate & energy realists of Australia. Perhaps now with your 'pen' (mightier than the sword as it were), we might now see a return to common sense, especially when it comes to CO2 which is not a pollutant, nor primary driver of so claimed climate change, aka global warming. On the contrary, it's a minuscule, colourless, invisible, odourless, tasteless atmospheric trace gas necessary for life on planet Earth! Adoption of a 'sensible Energy Policy', to replace the flawed version currently in place, would be a handy 'next step'.
Fantastic article Chris. There could be so much to say in response to all this carry-on over climate change, climate alarmism, etc., but I think this article says it best. I was a public speaker on science and philosophy with Creation Ministries for many years and a consumer of their resources for almost 40 years...and still going. Dr Don Batten has written an incredible paper covering the history, science and worldview associated with climate change. Whilst it is clearly from a Christian worldview, we should remember that everyone has a worldview which drives everything we do, including scientists, media and politicians. I strongly encourage everyone to have a read, consider what your worldview is and whether it 'forces' you to take a particular side in this debate, and then attempt to see the true nature of the forces involved. As some have said here, there is more at play than actual climate change...
https://creation.com/en-au/articles/climate-change
It's a long read but exceptionally well argued.