A damning indictment of the Net Zero political project has been made by one of the world’s leading nuclear physicists. In a recently published science paper, Dr. Wallace Manheimer said it would be the end of modern civilisation. Writing about wind and solar power he argued it would be especially tragic “when not only will this new infrastructure fail, but will cost trillions, trash large portions of the environment, and be entirely unnecessary”. The stakes, he added, “are enormous”.
Dr. Manheimer holds a physics PhD from MIT and has had a 50-year career in nuclear research, including work at the Plasma Physics Division at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. He has published over 150 science papers. In his view, there is “certainly no scientific basis” for expecting a climate crisis from too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the next century or so. He argues that there is no reason why civilisation cannot advance using both fossil fuel power and nuclear power, gradually shifting to more nuclear power.
There is of course a growing body of opinion that points out that the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to all the fashionable green technologies. Electric cars, wind and solar power, hydrogen, battery storage, heat pumps – all have massive disadvantages, and are incapable of replacing existing systems without devastating consequences.
Manheimer points out that before fossil fuel became widely used, energy was provided by people and animals. Because so little energy was produced, “civilisation was a thin veneer atop a vast mountain of human squalor and misery, a veneer maintained by such institutions as slavery, colonialism and tyranny”.
This argument hints at why so many rich, virtue-signalling celebrities argue not just for Net Zero but ‘Real’ Zero, with the banning of all fossil fuel use. King Charles said in 2009 that the age of consumerism and convenience was over, although the multi-mansion owning monarch presumably doesn’t think such desperate restrictions apply to himself. Manheimer notes that fossil fuel has extended the benefits of civilisation to billions, but its job is not yet complete. “To spread the benefits of modern civilisation to the entire human family would require much more energy, as well as newer sources,” he adds.
The author notes that the emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a “tragedy for modern civilisation”, which depends on reliable, affordable and environmentally viable energy. “The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none of these qualities,” he states. This falsehood has been pushed by what has been termed a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists and legislators. Furthermore, he continues, this grouping has “somehow” managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on Earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison.
In Manheimer’s view, the partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners, “truly is an unholy alliance”. The climate industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everyone. “We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act,” he added.
Perhaps one of the best voices to cast doubt on an approaching climate crisis, suggests the author, is Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen of MIT, one of the world’s leading authorities on geological fluid motions:
What historians will definitely wonder about in future centuries is how deeply flawed logic, obscured by shrewd and unrelenting propaganda, actually enabled a coalition of powerful special interests to convince nearly everyone in the world that CO2 from human industry was a dangerous planet-destroying toxin. It will be remembered as the greatest mass delusion in the history of the world – that CO2, the life of plants, was considered for a time to be a deadly poison.
Much of Dr. Manheimer’s interesting paper debunks many of the fashionable nostrums surrounding politicised ‘settled’ climate science. It is an excellent read. Discussing some of the contrary opinions that debunk obviously false claims, he says it is “particularly disheartening” to see learned societies make definitive claims when so much contrary information is readily available. He points out that over the last 10,000 years, the Earth has almost certainly been warmer. There have been warmer and colder periods, just like today.
To find the off-narrative information, even Google can be used, Manheimer says – though he does note that the company warns it will not provide information on “claims denying that long-term trends show that the global climate is warming”.
Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic‘s Environment Editor.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“Net Zero Will Lead to the End of Modern Civilisation”
I expect that’s a feature, not a bug.
Beautifully put.
Absolutely, beautifully put indeed, and all the while we’re cheating by instead shipping in all the necessities, including that which enables us to claim a supposed ‘net zero’ status (or something near it), i.e: the batteries, solar panels, windmills which are all made in the industrial nations (not to mention raping Africa and the like of its resources) who are seemingly exempted from the same political forces & agenda, at least at the moment. What happens once these industrial nations are also to comply with nonsensical net zero dictates? .. “The end of modern civilisation.” C’mon people.. this is obviously a scam whilst credible solutions such a nuclear are left to the wayside.
Net Zero won’t lead to the end of Modern Civilisation, as numerous countries such as China and India refuse to subscribe to the ideology and know that they need to continue increasing fossil fuel use to maintain their civilisation. The worst that can be said about net zero is that it will lead to the end of modern civilisation in those countries that try to achieve it.
The idea that humanity’s carbon emissions are harming the planet is obviously a delusion, but compared with religion it’s hardly the greatest mass delusion in history.
True. Maybe the end of Western Civilisation.
The difference between Net Zero and religion is arguably that the people pushing Net Zero claim they are backed by science, whereas religion is explicitly based on faith – that’s the whole point, or a large part of it.
Didn’t we all know this when we where kids?
Our human race gave up windmills and water wheels because they are just not efficient enough for a prosperous life for all the peoples on earth!
Of cause, they are perfect if you only need enough energy for the self chosen few, and you’ll have plenty of eager prolls to serve you on your new spacious,clean planet, all just for you and your billionair mates, how nice
https://www.netzerowatch.com/net-zero-is-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/
When we are naked in the forest, foraging for berries, even that will ‘not be enough’ for the green totalitarians (look they will moan, you are breathing and emitting the dreaded Co2…)
“Google warns it will not provide information on claims denying that long-term trends show that the global climate is warming”. Most people on the sceptic side would not dispute that temperatures have risen since the mid 19th century following the end of the Little Ice Age.
Some may dispute that rises since the beginning of the 20th century are not as significant as claimed – due to a number of factors such as urban heat island effect, changes in measuring equipment, increased night-time temperatures, manipulation of the datasets by vested interests and so on; however, even if you acknowledge warming, the MSM and social media companies will suppress articles from people and organisations who do not believe that man-made emmissions are the primary driver of changes in climate.
The climate has warmed over the past 175 years, but claim that this is not primarily caused by anthropogenic CO2 emmissions and your views are at the mercy of the full force of state and bigtech censorship.
“Google warns…”
We’re in a war and Google are part of the enemy alliance. They are actively working to harm us.
There are options available. https://spreadprivacy.com/why-use-duckduckgo-instead-of-google/
For the Duckduckgo down voter maybe they would prefer Ecosia as an alternative search engine. Maybe they would like to try alternative browsers to Chrome with such as Brave or Vivaldi. Protonmail is alternative to GMail. Not forgetting that You Tube is owned by Googlewe can support the following where possible – Nordvpn, Bitchute, Odysee and Rumble.
Perfectly written summary. I’ll copy that for future use myself. Google of course now are a regime mouthpiece whose main aim is to collude with government agencies like the CIA to convince ppl of things which are untrue.
I missed the MSM from the list of perps. The BBC, for example, is an utter disgrace on the CO2 / climate change narrative. This blog post from 2014 is quite nostalgic; most of the comments are interesting too.
https://biasedbbc.tv/blog/2014/04/20/that-settled-science-bbcs-approach-ignorant-and-medieval-to-debate/
The BBC is an utter disgrace.
Idem on excess deaths. Poor old Evan Davies gave it a tentative try last night on PM, gone again by this morning.
“The climate has warmed over the past 175 years”
I think it has warmed since about 1600. In fact, a multi-pronged question I ask those who buy the man-made climate catastrophe narrative is as follows: how much has the earth’s temperature risen since the 1850s (i.e. post industrialisation)? To which I answer “around 1.1C” and they argue that this is mainly due to man-made emissions. Then I ask: how much did the earth warm from 1600 to 1850? To which I answer “1.0C”. Then I ask – and what was this increase caused by? To which the answer is … silence, of course.
Jordan Peterson did a long interview with Richard Lindzen recently, from which this quote might derive.
Reading his Ivy League credentials took him almost 5 minutes.
I just wonder where these people have been over the last decade.
If they had opened their mouths earlier, this enormous public brainwash and its resulting disastrous policies might have been prevented.
Lindzen has been opposing this a long while, avd Peterson has always been opposed to net zero when questioned.
Lindzen has been active in the climate realist movement for thirty years or more.
The fact that you seem unaware of that, suggests that you have only just woken up.
All part of the plan to usher in a new era of technological feudalism. Your WEF appointed digital overlords will have you tagged and assigned to your local prefecture in due course.
An excellent article, these econuts do not realise that everything we touch or need in todays society has been made from, with, or by fossil fuels, cloths, food, housing everything. The UK will replace fossil fuel generated electricity with solar and wind turbines made with fossil fuels, and these methods will be imported by shipping methods using fossil fuels, installed on foundations created with machinery and materials, made with the use of and by fossil fuels…………….Lemmings off a cliff comes to mind.
spot on …
Time to release the real Kraken: Nikola Tesla’s free energy devices. And LENR.
At the root of this is a utopian desire for a depopulated world where the super-rich do what they want and everyone else is a slave class. In essence, the Net Zero mob wants Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, even down to the workers physically producing the power they use to live!
We are hearing all the time about the risk of fossil fuels, but we never hear about the risk of NO FOSSIL FUELS. That risk far outweighs the use of fossil fuels —— Coal Oil and Gas are what empowers the world. 90% of the world’s energy comes from fossil fuels, and along with Nuclear are the only form of ON DEMAND energy. They are what has doubled life expectancy, freed up people from a miserable life of back breaking labour and has given us the lifestyle we now enjoy, with warm homes, labour saving appliances, leisure time, holidays, computers, television, cars and infact everything that can be associated with modern civilisation. ——— NET ZERO policies that want to eliminate fossil fuels because the use of them causes CO2 emissions were never put to the public. No MP asked a single question as to the cost/benefit of this ideologically motivated nonsense that will impoverish people. Politicians and bureaucrats actually have no idea whatsoever how any of this can possibly be achieved and many would have great difficulty in explaining to a bunch of primary school children the so called “science” that they hide behind. Far from destroying the world, fossil fuels make the world a far more liveable and hospitable place. Without them we are in the Middle Ages. The apocalypse will come from getting rid of fossil fuels, not by their use.
An excellent paper, well worth reading. It certainly shows, if we needed any further evidence, than the Net Zero crowd are barking mad.
It is worth noting that a lot of sceptical climate science comes from retired but well qualified scientists. Could this be because those still in employment are scared of losing their position or grant should they criticise the eco-madness of anthropogenic climate change?
There is nothing here that has not been said before. The problem is that the politicians, encouraged by celebrities and school children, refuse to accept it. Why?
What is most important is free speech so we can debate the issue without being censored, demonized and smeared.
First create the utopian ‘Green’ economy and environment and then, if it’s so great, people will choose to move from fossil fuels.
But first create the ‘Green’ option.
“A damning indictment of the Net Zero political project has been made by one of the world’s leading nuclear physicists.”
The man is a nuclear physicist. Precisely. No chance whatsoever of conflicts of interest here, right? No chance that at some point he got to hate Greenpeace so much that he became a rabid anti-climate change politicised activist, right?
From the abstract of his paper:
“Radiation forcing calculations by both skeptics and believers show that the carbon dioxide radiation forcing is about 0.3% of the incident radiation, far less than other effects on climate.”
Here is a graph of radiative forcings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg
They aren’t what he is saying at all. He is straight-out lying about the science in his so-called “paper”, written for a “private for-profit organization”, by their own admission. Not an academic institution.
And if you wanted to know about the science of climate change, there is no shortage of correct information on the Internet, written in actual peer-reviewed academic journals. Or the popular versions of them, if you don’t have the level of education needed for a proper academic paper.
You could begin by learning that the greenhouse effect was discovered by 19th century physicists. Yes, you read 19th century correctly.
That’s because in the 19th century, people didn’t have the Internet or video, so they were much better educated and informed on average. The Internet and videos don’t help you be better informed, they feed your addiction for rubbish that will erase things from your memory and make you stupid.