They’ve had over 30 years to show us the metaphorical climate change money. Over 30 years to respond to the ‘deniers’ who simply won’t accept the assertion that carbon dioxide is responsible for boiling the planet. Nothing. Silence. Only the embarrassing lie that ‘renewable are the cheapest form of energy’. Or that there is a scientific consensus, insulting scientists en masse. That, too, has been debunked.

The latest in a long list of informed articles, researched essays, and scientific papers debunking the climate alarmist playbook appeared in The Spectator Australia (the Speccie) in the edition on sale on March 16, 2025. It’s time is written by acclaimed geologist Professor Ian Plimer.

The crucial point Plimer made was that, ‘In the geological past, the atmosphere had hundreds of times more carbon dioxide than the modern atmosphere yet there were numerous long intense ice ages with kilometre-thick equatorial ice sheets at sea level. In the past carbon dioxide didn’t drive climate change and, unless the laws of physics change because we happen to be alive, then it cannot drive today’s climate change. It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming yet carbon dioxide propaganda has been embraced with unquestioning religious fervour.’

He has stated this many times in his many books and earlier articles over the years, most forcefully in his 2021 door-stopper book, Green Murder (Connor Court).

Many others (this writer included) have debunked, with detailed scientific citations, the false narrative of fossil fuels causing warming … in my case, first back in a 2016 edition of the Speccie, The Big Con, and several times since.

If Chris Bowen, the Prime Minister, or anyone else in the alarmist camp have ever responded directly to these, or other corrections to the false narratives, I am not aware of it; and I scan the media with my climate alarmism radar in full alert mode.

I interviewed Al Gore in 2006 at the Cannes film festival, where his insufferable film, The Inconvenient Truth, was given biblical status. An English judge identified nine errors in the film but the gullibles flocked to see it. In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown to school children as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

I wasn’t the first journalist to question the ruling orthodoxy about carbon dioxide, and we were joined over the years by hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists who challenge the assertion. And as Christopher Hitchens once noted (on another matter but equally true), that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Yet in fact there is ample evidence that debunks climate alarmist claims.

So the question that we might ask is why have none of the climate alarmists in government, where policy is formulated, ever laid out the basis on which those policies are based?

For example, why hasn’t the Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen (with Departmental help) challenged Ian Plimer’s statement, ‘It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming?’ He doesn’t, which surely this tells us that there is no answer to the challenge. The claim that carbon dioxide fuels global warming is unsustainable.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that there is a massive political agenda rocking our energy policies.

In my book Climate Alarm Reality Check (Wilkinson) I collate observations from dozens of acclaimed climate scientists who are not constrained by the grant-fountain of the ruling orthodoxy.

For example, in the chapter, What the Scientists Say, I refer to two esteemed scientists: Writing in June 2022 on clintel.org, petrophysicist Andy May reported as follows:

‘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 U.S. 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.’

Back in 2010, 43 Fellows of the Royal Society (The United Kingdom’s national academy of sciences, a Fellowship of some 1,600 of the world’s most eminent scientists) wrote to its then president, to complain about the unscientific tone of the society’s messages on climate change. Eight years later, a group of 33 current and former Fellows of the Geological Society wrote an open letter to their president in a similar vein.

Melbourne based climate data analyst John McLean, whose PhD thesis is titled Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings, claims that the climate data being used to propagate warming theories is essentially unreliable. He describes carbon dioxide emission mitigation policies as ‘a solution in search of a problem’.

His lack of confidence in climate data grew out of the many weaknesses and failures of data since 1850 being used to underpin conclusions. For example:

For the first four years the number of reporting observation stations in the Southern hemispheres was one – on the west coast of Indonesia;
During the 1860s and 1870s, Western Europe supplied a high proportion of Northern Hemisphere data despite being a very small proportion of the total area;
About the same time a large proportion of Southern Hemisphere data was from the latitude bands 30S to 50S, this being much of the shipping route between Australia and Britain;
In the 1850s Europe (and maybe the rest of the world) had hardly started to emerge from the Little Ice Age, so warming is no surprise;
It’s not until about 1950 that there is ‘decent coverage’ of the two hemispheres, but it was only in the 1970s that sea surface temperature (SST) data was available for some parts of the Pacific.

Of course, there are many other books and papers disputing the alarmism. If the case against carbon dioxide as a driver of warming were shown to be scientifically valid, that would have been the first response to ‘deniers’ over 30 years ago.

I won’t labour the point because what I’m talking about here is the real agenda that drives the politics of the climate change scenario.

The Labor Party appears determined to establish a renewables nirvana, while in fact they are wrangling a socialist wrecking ball. While the government is roundly criticised for chasing Net Zero, their real objective goes undetected. It’s a cunning sleight of hand. A helpful hand for Chinese exports of solar panels and wind turbines…