The political leader who unmasks and debunks the false premise on which climate alarm is built will change the world. I say this apropos the global headlong rush into economic disaster favoured by fanatical climate alarmists like UN Secretary-General Antonio ‘boiling earth’ Guterres, King (and climate change book author) Charles III, Energy and Climate Change Minister Chris ‘renewables are cheap’ Bowen … and the Teals.

In the Teals’ most recent major public statement, they attacked the Albanese government for reneging on its commitment to declare a 2035 emissions-reduction target pre-election and demanded that the government commit to a full 75 per cent target in just over a decade. Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is committed to Net Zero by 2050 and has a plan to get there, while keeping the lights on, by using nuclear power.

Net Zero is the fly in Dutton’s ointment; he could start by dismantling that absurdity, simultaneously tabling a report to Parliament which debunks the hysterical and unscientifically dishonest climate alarmism. It’s not that hard to do, given the crowd of credible climate scientists not bound by the ruling orthodoxy who are more than happy to provide good evidence that there is no climate emergency; fossil fuels do not drive global warming; carbon dioxide is a clean trace element in our atmosphere essential to life on this planet; and that the claim of a consensus (‘the science is in’) is false – and blatantly anti-scientific.

Don’t listen to me, check the evidence as provided by hundreds of scientists. But the starting point from a policy point of view is that the climate change debate has long ago shed its skin of climate science and revealed the raw political agenda underneath: economic revolution, empowering the new elites, such as the economic carpetbaggers on the renewables gravy train.

Am I seriously suggesting that debunking climate alarmism would change the world? I am. Just as climate change hysteria has changed the world, calming the alarmism would, too. Think of the plethora of panicky policies enacted to chase emission reductions. Think of the reckless manufacture and installation of wind turbines and solar panels across the land – around the world. That’s just the top-line policies … most readers (especially in the regions) would be aware of many others.

I recognise that any political leader embarking on such a mission would require powerful arguments – and powerful nerves – to face down a well-embedded climate of orthodox catastrophism. And that’s just within their own party.

But everything is at stake. From the mental health of school children to the economies of the Western world.

So let me kick start the thinking with some observations from scientists working in the subject field:

Writing in June 2022 on clintel.org, petrophysicist Andy May reported:

‘Recently, the Biden administration has tried to use the powers of the SEC to force companies to disclose information on their supposed climate-related business risks through a proposed SEC rule. Two esteemed members of the CO2 Coalition, Princeton Professor, emeritus, William Happer and MIT Professor, emeritus, Richard Lindzen have reviewed the proposed rule and filed a critical comment on the rule with the SEC. In addition, they have filed an amicus curiae court brief with the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stating that they do not believe there is a climate-related risk related to burning fossil fuels, and the resulting CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.’

Happer and Lindzen also make the observations:

Elites are always searching for ways to advertise their virtue and assert the authority they believe they are entitled to.
They view science as source of authority rather than a process, and they try to appropriate science, suitably and incorrectly simplified, as the basis for their movement.
Movements need goals, and these goals are generally embedded in legislation.
The effect of legislation long outlasts the alleged science. The Immigration Reduction Act of 1924 remained until 1964.
As long as scientists are rewarded for doing so, they are unlikely to oppose the exploitation of science.

Politicians (perhaps a coalition of world-changers?) willing to tackle this consequential issue must be good scouts: be prepared. And brave.

Andrew L. Urban is the author of Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson Publishing).