West’s net-zero weapon of self-destruction

by DAVID FLINT – PUTIN’s criminal aggression demonstrates that all net-zero emissions can ever achieve is to advance the interests of the Beijing-Moscow-Tehran Axis. 

The war has exposed the foolishness of American, EU and British politicians in making their countries dependent on Russia for fossil-based energy. 

IPCC modelling is no more than the average of models which ‘disagree wildly with each other’…

The mainstream media should now admit Donald Trump’s wisdom in making America energy independent and in blocking the Nord Stream Two gas pipeline from Russia to Germany.

They should also concede that they were at best naive and at worst complicit in giving such ridiculous credence to the Democrats’ and Mrs Clinton’s fabrication about Trump’s alleged collusion with Putin.


Politicians and big-business executives by now must surely realise that the net-zero emissions exercise is not only pointless, it requires the West to commit suicide.

Along with many others, communist China will never significantly reduce her emissions.

And with Boris Johnson now being realistic and talking about a “climate change pass”, it is surprising that more politicians are not expressing reservations about net-zero.

So far, politicians are acting as if nothing relevant has happened in Ukraine.

They are still resorting to their favourite device to stop discussion, whether it be about the Wuhan virus or global warming.

This is to precede some totally unacceptable conclusion with the phrase “the modelling says…”. 

With that, press and people are expected to react as Ancient Greeks did to the Oracle of Delphi.

Such modelling involves computer programs that purport to produce mathematical simulations of whatever is being discussed such as the climate system. This is impossible.

As Professor George Box, “one of the great statistical minds of the 20th century” and “the Grand Old Man of Anglo-American statistics” famously said of models, all of them are wrong, but some are useful.

And not only are IPCC models wrong.

Professor Steven E Koonin, who in 1985 wrote one of the first textbooks on computer modelling, reveals in his recent book, Unsettled, that IPCC modelling does not involve, as you might hope, the careful selection of the model which on past performance has been shown to be most correct.

Rather, IPCC modelling is no more than the average of models which, he says, “disagree wildly with each other”.

The simulated global surface temperature among these models varies by about three degrees celsius, three times greater than the observed value of 20th century warming they claim to describe and explain

It is difficult to avoid the suspicion that this is only to avoid damaging public debates among modellers.


In the meantime, adherents of net-zero emissions have a convenient distraction from the war in the latest of our “droughts and flooding rains”, each one of which is now officially described as an “extreme weather event”.

This is to suggest that this is not what it is, a normal occurrence.

This also hides the fact that the task of the politicians was once accepted to be not one of elimination, which is impossible

Their task was mitigation associated with water harvesting which was being achieved in Australia until a disaster in public administration which occurred forty years ago.

Mitigation and harvesting have been well achieved elsewhere, for example, in the Netherlands, Singapore, Israel and surprisingly Libya.

The term “extreme weather event” is yet another example of the introduction of newspeak, predicted by George Orwell in his novel, 1984.

Newspeak is a language with a restricted vocabulary introduced to narrow the range of thought.

Another example is when politicians and business executives talk of the form of electricity they are eliminating as “dispatchable” electricity.

This is cheap and reliable electricity available 24/7. It is not difficult to see why they want to disguise this as dispatchable.

The surprising thing is that the mainstream media go along with this fraud.

They even show film and photographs of steam emitted from coal-fired power stations knowing that this will be seen by some as CO2 emissions which are, of course, invisible.

Whenever you hear the other term used, “renewable” electricity, know that this means electricity which is unreliable, must be heavily subsidised and where the means for making this have been cornered by the Chinese communists who are laughing all the way to the bank while they use our coal for their electricity.

And whenever you hear any of these terms, know one thing.

You are being deceived for the purpose of supporting a policy which will only benefit the dictators and especially Xi Jinping and the CCP.


Unsurprisingly, the recent floods in NSW and Queensland have been blamed on climate change.

Politicians have chosen this to disguise the fact that they have abandoned their duty to their constituents to mitigate the effect of floods.

This occurred after that duty was suppressed by the Hawke government working with activist judges who completely emasculated the constitutional protection of farmers’ access to water.

This is discussed in detail by Alan Jones in the 2018 Neville Bonner Oration “Drought-Proofing the Nation”.

Predictably, we are told that we are living through a “one-in-a-100 (or 500 or 1,000) year flood”.

But as hydro-climatologist and former professor of environmental engineering, Professor Stewart Franks, explained to Luke Grant on 2GB, to get an accurate estimate of the significance of such an event, you would need many samples, not just one.


And as Dr Jennifer Marohasy points out, Australia’s climate records have been subjected to industrial-scale remodelling by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

The people will have an opportunity to make a judgement on all this in coming elections

Common sense surely is not to elect those who support net-zero emissions, or if there is no choice, support those less attached to that doctrine.PC

David Flint

MAIN PHOTOGRAPH:  Federal Energy Minister Angus Taylor with the Prime Minister. (courtesy Inside Story)
RE-PUBLISHED: This article was originally published by The Spectator Australia on March 18, 2022. Re-used with permission.

6 thoughts on “West’s net-zero weapon of self-destruction

  1. Noel, you truly are a thug. You represent the worst of Australia. You offer no respect, no common decency and zero ability to argue your cause.
    It’s nasties like you who scare people away from your republican ideal. (Have you experienced puberty?)

    1. It is fun watching the colonial minions and sycophantic monarchist grovellers gush about how fabulous Elizabeth Windsor is, all while her so-called subjects reject her and her apparently unbroken crown.
      I wonder who will be next….Jamacia? Or perhaps Scotland?

    2. How odd. Apparently calling out the failure and the rejection of a foreign monarch is showing no respect for Australia.

      So says a monarchist who is too gutless to back Australia and thinks a foreign monarch reigning over us is all we deserve.

  2. Hey Pro. Flint, what do you reckon about Jamaica? Seems the little royal visit hasn’t gone so well, huh.

    I figure Jamaica will be the 19th country to abandon the British crown on QE2’s watch, is that correct?

    1. Funny, I thought Wills and Kate were ever so popular. Apparently they were the hope of the side.

      Oh well, time for a Plan C.

      1. No. The only way some people can get world-wide publicity is to raise a republic during a Royal visit. Unlike Barbados, Jamaica’s politicians can’t impose a politicians’ republic without asking the people. Jamaicans are unlikely to give their politicians even more power.

Comments are closed.