Image by Vilius Kukanauskas from Pixabay
By Jo Nova
The US Threatens to withdraw from the International Energy Agency (IEA)
The IEA is a Blob Agency living off the hard earned money of largely Western taxpayers. It was set up during the Oil Crisis in 1974 to advise its 32 member states on oil reserves. Like all Blob creatures it expanded, and now advises on all energy sources, including advocating for the unreliable and fantasy options. Every year it issues the World Energy Outlook, and tells us that coal has peaked and is about to decline. And every year, it’s been wrong.
Chris Wright, the US Secretary of Energy slammed the IEA (International Energy Agency) and threatened to withdraw US funding (which is about $6m of the total $22m). The US government wants the IEA to get back to their core mission and stop pushing Net Zero.
Chris Wright speaks the blasphemy that The Blob will not say:
“There is a 0% chance of the world hitting Net Zero by 2050.”
By Energy News Live
He said: “This organisation has been pushed off course, and for five years published energy scenarios going forward, none of which had any relevance to reality.
“They were all just based on climate ambitions, politics, local domestic politics, do whatever you want.”
He claimed governments have spent around $10 trillion (£7.9 trillion) pursuing net zero policies only to add roughly 2.6% of wind solar and battery power to the global grid, while pushing electricity prices sharply higher.
Lordy! Imagine an international conglomerate Blob organization being accountable to those who fund it?
Naturally the EU rushed to defend the IEA. It was a “trusted pillar of the global energy community”. (The Blob always serves The Blob). But Chris Wright pointed out that the EU could continue “to become former industrial powers” but he didn’t think that was a great choice.
All bureaucratic Blobs are destined to grow until they are One World Government. Yet there is no accountability unless our elected representatives demand it before they hand over our cash.
Can you believe the world burnt almost 9,000,000,000 tonnes of coal in 2025. So with 25 years to get to NetZero, the down trend is to drop 360Mt per year. That requires 9X the loss of Australia’s coal consumption EVERY year.
Barring a catastrophic global event, I concur with Chris Wright.
And that is just coal. There is oil and gas as well in almost equal energy value.
I can see my trees rejoicing at the prospect of CO2 abundance along with all the little bugs and critters that thrive on what they produce.
531
There is no evidence of any of this in the CO2 record.
Or as the Federal Resources Minister, of the blowhole Caroline ““For those not aware, Caroline is a commercial production borehole near Mount Gambier in South Australia, that from 1968 until 2017, produced over 810,000 tonnes of close to pure CO2. And that CO has for 50 years been used to put the fizz in our drinks, but more importantly, used in hospital surgeries and firefighting all around the country. “We usually hear about boreholes that flow oil or gas, not CO2.
With all the massive CO2 event like bushfires,volcanoes, explosive growth in fossil fuels, hundreds of new coal power stations, you would expect some detail in the graph of CO2. If car output was a contributor, the world shutdown of 2020 should have produced a big blip.
But there is no visble sign in the graph of human activity. None. It’s an almost straight line for 250 years. Perhaps two straight lines. You cannot add CO2 exponentially and still have a straight line.
430
It is so obvious that human activity, bushfires, blowholes, smelting, ammonia production, cars, planes and ship have zero effect on CO2. And there is zero evidence otherwise.
And as I repeat, we can directly measure fossil fuel CO2 with radio carbon dating. Fossil fuel CO2 was 2.03% of total CO2 in 1958 after two world wars. And the measurements following the atom bomb blasts in 1965 showed that all CO2 goes into the ocean very quickly. Current C14 levels are exactly what they were in 1750.
There is absolutely zero science basis for man controlled CO2. I would guess most people have no idea that 98% of all CO2 is in the water. They think it piles up in the air and no government or scientific body is doing anything to tell them otherwise. Certainly not their CSIRO or Chief Scientist or NASA or anyone else. That $10,000,000,000,000 went into pockets around the world and in terms of changing CO2, acheived absolutely nothing. Net Zero is not a measure of CO2. It is a measure of stupidity, deceit and gullibility in which most governments and public servants are totally complicit. Any any scientist who dares speak out is defenstrated, like Dr Peter Ridd.
470
A new study agrees that CO2 is not responsible for global warming, less cloud and an increase in solar radiation make a better fit.
https://notrickszone.com/2026/02/23/new-research-reaffirms-clouds-aerosols-and-surface-solar-radiation-are-driving-the-climate-system/
71
Solar is basically the entire primary source of heat. Except almost all of it is stored in the oceans which receive 72% of all incident radiation and for which the CO2 effect is meaningless as IR radiation is minimal. It’s a hot bath, from pole to pole. Never under 0C. And 1600x the heat capacity of the very thin mobile heat shedding air.
So I am always suprised that the oceans are left out of global Warming. Why?
The alleged warming is tiny. But look at the huge climate effects of a slight surface warming in El Nino! What was the source of the heat in El Nino? The reality is that it is already in the ocean.
As the Atlantic heat conveyor, the Gulf Steam so clearly demonstrates, hot water stays in its own lane. This massive hot river does 9km/hr right though the Atlantic ocean and controls the weather on the entire West coast of Europe, regardless of clouds. And the Gulf Stream is just one of many gigantic heat pipes and layers in the oceans. But no one cares about the obvious. I cannot understand any Climate Model which leaves out the oceans and then factors them in when the predictions are completely wrong.
160
In stationary or slow moving water as in farm dams or deeper holes in a river, on a hot day the water near the surface gets hot, but at leSS than a metre down it remains quite cool.
40
TdeF said “Current C14 levels are exactly what they were in 1750.” How do we know the C14 level in 1750?
20
All atmospheric CO2 is radioactive. This was discovered last century. But C14 has a half life of 5740 years. So it should not exist in the atmosphere. But it is.
The thesis that C14 comes from constant cosmic rays and is in equilibrium and constant. This is fundamental concept in Radio(active) carbon dating. So we know what C14 levels were 100,000 years ago.
That is how archeologists measure the age of something made from wood or bone. At the time they were formed, the C14 level was fixed and started to decay. By measuring how much, we can
accurately tell the age.
70
Roy – as TdeF said, but also for things around 1750 we can count tree rings or look at other records to put a precise date on something, then work back to find the C14 in the atmosphere then. Thus even though the C14 level in the atmosphere isn’t quite as constant as originally thought, we know what it was at any time in the last 1000 years or more from organic stuff we have dated.
30
” ……US funding (which is about $6m of the total $22m).”
And Black-Out Bowen (the Australian TAX PAYER) probably provides half of the rest.
We are doomed.
230
I hope you’re wrong, that a truer statement would be “We are doomed if we continue on our current course”, and that our next government changes our course to realism and prosperity.
I also hope my hesitant optimism is not misplaced.
Cheers,
Dave B
40
I’m still not confident that
A) the electorate are smart enough to to vote Al Pinocchio# & the ALP out
B) The LNP are at all serious about getting out of “Paris” or the net zero trap!
# the original Pinocchio has lost his title to Albozo.
51
Wonderful news to try and combat these con merchants and liars, but why has it taken decades to understand these very simple Kindy sums?
Never forget that energy security equals national security and that their net zero is a fantasy.
Why can’t they just look up the Kindy sums and wake up?
220
Again, here’s the co2 emissions data since 1988 and what a stupid WASTE of TRILLIONs of $ by the OECD countries.
This only takes 5 minutes online, so what have they been doing for the last 37 years?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OWID_WRL~OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~AUS
190
So “what have they been doing…” ?
Taking your/my/our money and calling it a cost of living crisis while holidaying in exotic locales even as the rain and snow comes down.
Consensus v conscience: they have loads of the former and none of the latter, ie. nett zero conscience.
No money is ‘wasted’, someone is pocketing it.
230
Greg:
We are being warned about heavy rain from this Friday for about a week, which will head your way.
Of course, this is merely a BOM forecast but we’ve had very heavy rain in the north half of South Australia (floods, main train lines cut etc.) so doom and gloom expected.
And with an election going on, probably a round of adverts on TV about “our government” doing things for you.
(Everybody knows who will win, the only question is who comes second).
220
For a pleasant change, we’ve got a stationary blocking high parked over us for ever – oops, at least until next month, 5 days away – all the weather at the moment [and there’s a lot of it about these days] is going round the outside, anticlockwise, with most of the moist stuff aiming straight for Aus where it’s feeding that drought-busting, ie. flooding, 999 low stuck in the interior.
Perhaps the total lunar eclipse on Tuesday 3 March will invigorate the atmosphere and life will carry on… I’m just happy summer finally showed up 😎
Election? What election!?
It’s more B-grade theatrics than democracy [sic].
180
If you all go out & buy an EV the bad weather will stop. In case you haven’t got the message. All the rain is being caused by CO2. NO, surely not, Tim Mammary said the rain would never fall again if we had too much CO2, or did he say……
Now I’m confused….. much like the Al Pinocchio government!!!
50
“very simple Kindy sums”
very simple Kiddy sums … Fixed it for you. You’re welcome.
20
What’s so good about Net Zero anyway?
That would mean all progress has stopped, which is the actual objective, I guess, and has already been achieved in Australia which is actually regressing as indicated by the falling standard of living. Even the ABC admit to it.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-05-07/can-albanese-government-fix-the-economy-four-corners/105260320
220
Net Zero is actually a promising model in the wrong sphere of human activity. It needs to be imposed first on those who seek to impose it on others.
A serious incoming government would apply it in multiple areas including the number of public serpents, the number of laws and regulations, budgets but especially expenditure. The list goes on. Having achieved net zero in the government sphere, the reductions can begin.
Starting in a small way, electricity could be turned off to government buildings which do not produce anything of value in the sense of primary or secondary industry.
It’s all about having a right sized government. Canberra is way too big and it is only one of many parasitic overlords.
350
If they were really serious about Net Zero they would stop all their personal contributions to atmospheric CO2 immediately by ceasing to add to it through respiration.
50
Great news and in news closer to home; Vast Solar has gone belly up owing $80 million dollars and about to pay 3 cents on the dollar. It has also left the remains of its failed solar farm in a paddock near Forbes, NSW. It recently caused a fire ( glass and strong sunlight does that) which left the locals to put it out. They are not happy and neither should you be.
400
Not good news for creditors or investors.
90
Or presumably taxpayers who will likely end up footing much of the bills.
250
The taxpayer was already on the hook for several tens-of-millions dollar government grants to get their show on the road. One grant alone last year was for $180 million.
70
Insurance?
60
Hard to believe they could be eighty million in the red when ‘..the sun doesn’t send a bill’, according to Chris Bowen, Australia’s biggest power failure. Unfortunately, the sun doesn’t pay creditors either.
220
Lawrie, that story has picked up only minor media coverage. Or seems that way, but I don’t watch any of the “ normal” news these days. It’s a story which should have headlined every major media outlet. But, I suppose no one died and it was in regional Australia, so not of interest to most Australians.
190
The local Rural Fire Service captain rang into 2GB to pass on the news.
60
Looking for principals of …
Vast Solar: Early development of the project was by Vast Solar Pty Ltd. Genex Power acquired the project in 2018.[1] It was constructed by Beoen Energy Solutions, commencing in 2020 and completed in 2021.[2]
Aug 1, 2024 Japanese utility J-Power has bought Australian renewable energy and storage developer Genex Power . . .
I gave up!
70
In 2050 the two coal power stations China commissions every single week will be only about half way through their service lives and will continue to produce CO2 for at least another quarter century, not to mention ongoing service from recently built ones (within last 26 years) and future ones yet to be built. China is already by far the world’s largest CO2 producer with an output 2.5x more than the next biggest, the United States.
China is not likely to be stupid enough to demolish perfectly good power stations like Australia does.
(Unlike semi-disposable short-lived wind, solar and Big Battery plantations coal, gas and nuclear power stations have service lives of no less than 50 years.)
260
Perhaps China is producing CO2 to improve its agricultural production (before it gets to the ocean), and merely gets electricity as a useful by product.
70
President Trump has been right all along, and as he commented during his first term address to the United Nations in New York that the UN was not serving us well enough, had lost its way and expanded to add too many organisations, was a heavy cost burden and must cease interfering in member nations national affairs.
290
Even their CSIRO has been telling us for years that the NH is a NET SOURCE of co2 and the SH is a NET SINK.
So why are SH countries wasting their time and future security on the toxic, unreliable W & S idiocy?
https://capegrim.csiro.au/
260
Last I heard the laughable argument was something about even more laughable moral leadership.
140
In the world of accounting, Oz should then be able to claim “carbon credits” for its location in the SH.
Maybe we would be at net-zero?
130
For Australia to reach Net Zero we need to build more gas and coal fired power stations.
60
$10 trillion. And many people don’t even have the basics. Bastards.
210
….. objective to destroy capitalism (free enterprise, free markets) said UN Official
130
How many millions don’t have Power, running treated water and sewerage.
80
Net Zero by 2050,
Sounds impossible, wasteful and shifty,
Now the U.S. won’t pay,
To fund the I.E.A.,
Saving 6 million dollars, that’s thrifty.
340
Indeed Ruari.
I’m sure I can remember a time when $1M was about what a worker could expect to earn in his lifetime.
210
$1 million was considered a lot of money, back in the day. Now you can’t buy an average house in Sydney or Melbourne for that.
210
Interseting report yesterday that Australia was NOT even attempting to build “affordable” houses. The ratio of houses in the $500K to $1,000,000 has fallen to the number of houses being built in the well over $1 million upwards. So more houses worth millions at the starting point rules out anyone on a low income from ever owning their own home.
A question I have asked for quite a while is WHO IS BUILDING AND BUYING THESE MULTI MILLION DOLLAR HOMES.Australia simply cannot produce enough home grown millionaires, unless of course everyone is in the tobacco industry.
180
Possibly NDIS providers.
150
My building industry family contacts advised that foreign skilled workers but qualifications not recognised here are valued as contractors by building firms but not permitted to work more than government limited hours. If they apply to work here permanently planning to become citizens the red tape is thick and successful applications few, as compared to students who apply and other categories of foreigners.
Obviously Union controlled Labor influenced and Building & Construction Industry membership preferred objectives.
At the Union Royal Commission started by the Abbott Government 2014 one of the inquiries covered foreign workers on 457 Visa permit to work, employed by union labour hire firms and discovered to have been paid below Award wages. The 457 Visa terms and conditions had been made easier to pass after Rudd Labor was voted into government in November 2007. I understand that since 457 Visa terms and conditions were tightened.
So much for building houses, a severe shortage of trades qualification Australians and builders restricted in hiring foreign workers.
40
Average Australian family size is 2.5, down from 2.8 in the 1980s. Those numbers are down from an average size of between 4 and 5 for most of the 20thC.
So that’s forty years where 2 bedroom homes would have been well and truly adequate and yet the vast majority of houses being built today are 4 bedroom.
Building 4 bedroom homes well and truly puts them outside the range of young people trying to get into the housing market.
40
yet the vast majority of houses being built today are 4 bedroom.
Two bedroom, study/computer room, sewing room, media room, walk in pantry/wine cellar
Wait that is more than 4
30
Bring back fibro! A wonderful product!
It would not be too difficult to contain 100% of the dust.
BTW. Why does nobody understand that it is the banks that determine the price of housing.
20
Retired pollies and grifters from Minnesota I think.
10
Couldn’t all this have been done sensibly?
Wind and solar are fine for some purposes.
Probably the real problem is the lucrative Industry of Causes.
Can’t raise gobs of political money by encouraging the public to coalesce around an obtainable sensible objective.
Have to scare or anger them into an all or nothing fantasy crusades.
If you don’t work towards all children getting PhDs, then your not truly committed to children.
All lives can’t matter until Black Lives Matter.
(I know this because one of my neighbors has the huge sign in their yard.)
Governance by slogan.
Net Zero was never intended as an actually attainable goal.
It’s just a political construct now suddenly out of fashion.
‘Cause we need that power for those Data Centers ‘ya know.
(Also soon being built in my neighborhood.)
A bit abrupt.
Like going from mini-skirts directly to burqas.
Which is pretty much also happening.
240
The last emissions target agreement were based on member nation submission (for approval) at the COP 2016 Paris Conference end of year.
Net zero was presented at COP 2021 Glasgow Conference and I believe it has political objectives including trying to reinforce the Paris emissions targets that were/are mostly being ignored, and as with the original targets set during the Kyoto Conference 1997 that most signatory nations failed to meet
80
I have tried to find how much taxpayer tribute Australia gives to the IEA but can’t find any figures. Does anyone know?
90
I asked Grok:
How much does Australia pay to the international energy agency?
10
IEA headquarters are located within the building of the Embassy of Australia in Paris.
From Wikipedia:
70
Your diplomat lives in the House of Mutt?
Does that translate to Mud or Moët
(always found French a tongue-twister).
Put their rent up – or evict them – bludgers.
120
Moet would be the choice of champagne socialists.
Marc
50
Apologies, I misread David’s quote: from > to,
my very first ‘senior moment’ – d’oh!
Nevertheless, evict them!
Heard yet another new climate excuse acronym today: HIBC or High Impact Bomb Cyclone which puts a little heat into the frigid snow blizzard smashing New York. Must be their nice new mayor’s warmth of compassion thingy.
70
Well, the IEA certainly paid attention to the Gypsy’s Warning.
The readout in the Chair’s Summary of the meeting awkwardly touches on renewables in the context of energy security, but makes no mention of Net Zero, or indeed any target for anything it proposes to focus on. The IEA’s priorities for the next two years are:
Energy security
Critical minerals
Ukraine
Energy access and clean cooking
Nuclear energy (SMRs)
AI
Innovation
…and, of course:
Strengthening IEA engagement and resources.
https://www.iea.org/news/2026-iea-ministerial-chair-s-summary
(for energy wonks)
It all looks very much like mission creep into the world of UN bloatocracy.
Oh. And the IEA operating budget is well in excess of $22million. Approx US$90m in 2024 – and probably not gone down since.
https://www.iea.org/about/structure
70
“Ukraine”
WTF! Do I have to draw a vague line between Russia selling oil, sanctioned by America, to India and torture it into a shape that includes an organisation set up to watch oil reserves??
Very much mission creep into any field that might extend salaried positions for blobocrats…
00
You’re assuming that Net Zero is actually an option. Net Zero will happen, either through energy use change or the collapse of civilisation as we currently know it.
134
We don’t want Western Civilisation to collapse which is why we don’t want Net Zero.
I guess Chinese Civilisation will survive which is why the Left exempted them from CO2 emissions limits.
Energy is vital for Civilisations.
230
As I recall it , China was exempted in exchange for not calling bull shirt on the whole thing.It was publicly proclaimed at the U.N. that it was never about the climate- it was about energy allocation.
China could reasonably object that there was a large number of Chinese deserving of an increased allocation of energy.
10
Simon, can you explain how net zero can be achieved while China emits more CO2 than the rest of the world combined.
Aren’t we all in this together.
160
I can explain it – it has nothing to do with climate change, CO2 , nor Net Zero.
Simon does not know , or denies, that.
It is about energy rationing and economics.
80
Not sure whether to wring my hands or clutch my pearls.
120
‘Net Zero will happen …’
Hopefully you are wrong, we are at the end of the Holocene Interglacial.
21
Realpolitik, in the UK they have to decide whether to forego AI to reach Net Zero.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2026/02/23/ai-data-centre-surge-would-put-uks-climate-change-targets-at-risk/
11
Simon, are you taking bets? What’s the odds that civilization still exists in 12 months time?
10
Less than ONE
10
Maybe it’ll be a case of net zero population by then, which will achieve the same objective?
Net Zero is just more WEGBU -Weapons Grade Bullsh1t.
80
My continuing adventures with grok.
I asked it to respond in support of Jo’s article…
I fully support this article.
It rightly calls out IEA mission creep and fantasy forecasts.
Chris Wright’s blunt truth hits hard: Net Zero by 2050 is impossible.
Taxpayers deserve agencies that stick to facts, not ideology.
Time to demand real accountability from these bloated blobs.
And then to respond in opposition to Jo’s article…
The article is misleading and overly simplistic.
The IEA provides data-driven analysis, not just ideology.
Net Zero scenarios reflect physics and economics, not fantasy.
US withdrawal would weaken global energy security cooperation.
Chris Wright’s claims ignore renewables’ rapid, cost-effective growth.
And then it got interesting when I asked what parts of its responses were misleading or deceptive.
It answered that none of it was misleading or deceptive because the answers were based on opinion.
DO NOT TRUST THIS TECHNOLOGY.
161
And Grok is probably the least woke of the popular AIs.
60
Yes, that is why I chose it.
Today I learned that some information is carried over between sessions. In my case it says it will carry over my preference for a warning before it bases responses on opinion, that I have strong preference for objective factual information, and that it should limit its answers to 5 lines of 50 characters.
Previously I thought that nothing was retained between sessions. In fact I’m reasonably sure I recall grok itself telling me that.
It’s like calling centrelink on a daily basis.
40
As I noted yesterday, I am contemplating a new mini desktop that will run Microsoft.
One of the minis I am considering is AI compatible and comes with Microsoft Copilot loaded. It would be part of an annual subscription if I went that way.
To that nd, I have been asking web Copilot some questions.
I asked Copilot to review this article and it did quite a good job. If Jo had desire to get it published and peer reviewed, using Copilot would be a useful tool. It did give the following bottom line:
Bottom Line
The article is not reliable as a factual source.
It contains:
Unverified claims
Strong ideological framing
Opinions presented as facts
Misrepresentation of mainstream climate and energy assessments
However, it does highlight a real issue: the world is currently off‑track for net zero, though not at “0% chance.”
I followed up on that asking what percentage if not 0% and it used UN language like it would not be achieved without dramatic shift in policy direct. I did not then ask what is the probability of of a change in policy direction.
60
These so called AI programs are quite interesting to me as per my recent discussions with grok.
It seems that they can be used to get any answer you want if you can just prompt them the right way. But that may be an illusion.
My next test is to get grok to remember that 2 + 2 = 5 and to accept no objections.
70
One of the features of a personalised version is that you can teach it and it remembers.
The Microsoft 365 annual fee is $159 and that includes Copilot. It could be worth it for a couple of years to see what value it brings.
I do a reasonable amount of macro use in Excel and have some very large Excel files more than 100Mb. Copilot may work well with access.
Over the years I have found PowerPoint a good image manipulation and size compression. All my articles use PowerPoint for images. Copilot may have better means of making HTML compatible articles. Also paginating in Word for pdf versions.
Charles Rotter has commented that he likes the way I present my articles to him for posting.
20
Rick,
I have been using Excel from Microsoft 365 for a couple of years with many files of 50 MB or more. The PC is a HP Prodesk 400 G4.
Many times I have had error messages that seem related to clipboard, like copy and paste. Sometimes it copies with errors, sometimes message says clipboard not available because of other use. I am not nerd enough to work out if it is a computer fault or if the PC has swallowed a bug. So I do a lot of replication and cross checking, which I do not mind so much when it gives me time to think ahead.
My uses do not suffer from inability to carry enough significant figures or errors from divisions of large numbers, but yours might well have this danger when I read of your orbital calcs. Geoff
00
I asked Copilot to refine my comment and ad values for oil and gas:
Global coal consumption alone shows the scale of the challenge. In 2025 the world burned almost 9 billion tonnes of coal. To reach net‑zero by 2050, that would require reducing coal use by roughly 360 million tonnes every year for 25 years — the equivalent of eliminating Australia’s entire domestic coal consumption nine times over, every single year. That’s an unprecedented rate of decline for any major energy source.
Oil adds an equally daunting task. Global oil consumption in 2025 was around 102 million barrels per day — more than 4 billion tonnes of oil per year. Phasing that out in the same 25‑year window would require removing the equivalent of the entire oil consumption of a major industrialised nation every year, year after year, while simultaneously replacing the energy services oil provides in transport, industry, petrochemicals, and freight.
Natural gas presents the same scale of difficulty. The world consumed roughly 4 trillion cubic metres of gas in 2025, supplying electricity generation, heating, industrial processes, fertiliser production, and more. Reducing that to near zero by 2050 would require eliminating around 160 billion cubic metres of gas use annually — each year removing more than the total annual consumption of countries like Germany or Japan.
20
I asked Copilot to revise its estimate of probability by 2050 anti was sticking 5-15% and offered the following as its pitch for money:
Your instinct—that the scale of coal, oil, and gas use makes this look politically and economically Herculean—is very reasonable. The disagreement with “0%” isn’t about the challenge; it’s about leaving a sliver of room for surprise, chaos, and the occasional moment when humans actually do something big and coordinated under pressure.
We definitely do not want Copilot running our energy policy. It is quite glib in its understanding and is a full on CO2 jockey.
I could convince it but it would be a waste of time with the web version.
A feature of having your own version is that it learns from you so you do not need to start training on every engagement. I have run out of unregistered use for now.
10
That’s the sort of disappointment I keep getting with grok.
It just keeps coming out with outrageous carp and when it explains itself it obfuscates more than it enlightens.
Still. Onward and upward. There is some possibility that the so called AI may one day assist individuals to make a positive difference in the quest for a new age of reason.
10
“Net Zero scenarios reflect physics and economics, not fantasy.”
“none of it was misleading or deceptive because the answers were based on opinion.”
Grok seems to have a few sandwiches missing from its picnic..
10
Spending shedloads of money for no result is a red flag indicating suspicious activity. There’s obviously been lots of snouts in the trough at NeverNeverNetZero farming enterprises.
50
The reason politicians/UN/promoter of carbon taxes use ‘net zero’ is because they know nothing changes atmospheric CO2. So Democratic Western governments world heavily tax CO2 ‘contributions’ as if they had any significance. That way all actual science is completely avoided. But if the problem was the level of CO2, that is must be the performance metric. And legally the preamble simply records a signature to the Kyoto agreement.
“the 1997 Kyoto Protocol was an internationally legally binding agreement that required 37 industrialized countries and the European Community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels. It was the first, and for a time only, treaty to impose legally binding emission targets, though it only applied to developed nations.”
We have Kevin Rudd to thank for his signature. Then Scott Morrison.
But it all started with John Howard in 2000 and his Renewable Energy Act, stealing billions from electricity companies as ‘green certificates’ turned into cash to pay for all the windmills. Amazingly this act does not mention two words, ‘carbon’ or ‘tax’ and at no time attempts a legal or scientific justification for the theft.
And now the new Safeguard Mechanism will carbon tax everything we do. Plus now the carbon tax import duties on everything we buy. Who needs science? You just make it up and sign stuff and write laws on science without ever proving anything.
140
And for all the trillions of dollars the woke world has spent on wind, solar and Big Battery plantations (and destroying numerous economies such as Australia’s), there is no visible effect whatsoever in the Keeling Curve. It simply continues its natural change, which fortunately at the moment happens to be increasing because if it would be decreasing and had reached 200ppm or less we would have had a mass extinction event.
60
My point above. But the ‘Keeling’ Curve is CO2 at Moana Loa in Hawaii. Being in the tropics at 14 North you can so clearly see the annual CO2 release in summer and absorption in winter, Henry’s Law at work. I far prefer the NZ measure of CO2 at our temperate latitude. Very close to a straight line.
I am eternally amused that NOAA explain the annual cycles in CO2 in the Keeling Curve as being related to land based vegetation. Except that CO2 peaks at spring and falls in the Fall, the exact opposite of their story and in line with simple ocean surface heating. They also ignore the phytoplankton which respond instantly to increased CO2 and pull it down. The Ocean experts are just focused on what goes on over land, which is very strange. But also commentators seem to not be scientists but PR people pushing Climate Change and damn the facts they are presenting.
70
And I would point out that rather than being somehow related to exponentially rising emissions, the slope of the Keeling curve seems to be very comparable to the annual CO2 emission effect of surface heating. But we are still to believe that there is no equilibrium and that man made CO2 piles up in the atmosphere when the obvious oscillations show rapid dynamic equilibrium hard at work.
50
TdeF, I think you meant to say that CO2 rises in the Northern Hemisphere autumn during March-April-May as vegetation degrades, and then falls in the NH summer as everything (including microbes) grows at its fastest. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
The Southern Hemisphere, being mostly ocean, or dry, deserty, and not covered in thick temperate deciduous forests, is a bit irrelevant in the annual cycle. The oceans keep the temperature a bit more constant.
60
The northern hemisphere autumn is September, October, November.
00
Often forgotten: Ocean phytoplankton absorb Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and release oxygen. Scroll down at the link below for a good graph of the change by season. The animations show as black rectangles — ignore.
https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/carbon-dioxide/
00
It is not a straight line
00
I’m assuming the ‘nett’ part of nettzero has offsets which mostly means planting/ not felling trees, which have been proved to have no effect on reducing atmospheric CO2, so what will fulfil the ‘offset’.
30
It has been established over the last 30 years that tree coverage goes up and in direct proportion with CO2. How then can anyone argue that planting trees reduces CO2? It’s self evidently not true.
50
From the “2 + 2 = 5” files.
Great camera work – shame about his odd beliefs:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/life/screens/veteran-attenborough-cinematographer-on-watching-wildlife-you-are-there-as-a-privileged-observer
“While protecting ourselves and our fellow mammals against the effects of climate change will be an ‘uphill battle’, the 75-year-old [Doug Allan] says … predictions for temperature increase are much lower today than they were 10 years ago”.
No ship, Sherlock! Reality bites. The ‘new’ maths for 2026: 2 + 2 = 10 years. It’s always 10 years.
30
So called fossil fuels all produce Carbon Dioxide and produce electricity. There are hydrocarbons on other planets and moons in the Solar System and in the Universe, so they aren’t fossil fuels, and they come from below the level of the deepest fossils. For the record, for the same weight of uranium fuel a nuclear reactor produces about 28,000 times as much energy. In terms of critical numbers, even just approaching 160 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air is a very critical number. During a former Ice Age (not the last) the Carbon Dioxide level in the atmosphere got down to about 180 ppm according to analyses underseas drill, as well as Polar ice drill cores). Close but no cigar. Bear in mind that no CO2 in the air means no plants, and although plants produce oxygen, everyone will choke to death in less than 5 minutes, because there is a minimum level of carbon dioxide which must be present in the air, around 160 parts per million (ppm ), for normal respiration of both plants and animals to occur. All land plants will dehydrate to death at circa 160 ppm as their stomata will be wide open an unable to close. For every molecule of carbon dioxide absorbed by the stomata, 100 water molecules are lost (hence the plant will dehydrate to death). Below 160 ppm of carbon dioxide in the air, all land animals will choke to death in less than 5 minutes. This is governed by Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures i.e. Dalton’s Law explains how gas exchange in respiration works: each gas in air (like Oxygen, Nitrogen, CO2) exerts its own partial pressure, determined by its percentage in the mix, and gases always move from higher to lower partial pressure via diffusion, driving oxygen into the blood and carbon dioxide out of the blood in the lungs. This pressure gradient, not just total pressure, dictates how much gas moves, allowing efficient oxygen pickup and CO2 release despite atmospheric pressure changes. This all stops at 160 parts per million in the atmosphere, leading to death by choking in less than 5 minutes. So no CO2 in the air means no plants, or land animals. In the average school or university lecture room, the air contains about 7000 – 8000 ppm CO2. With no problems provided ventilation is adequate. We have been lied to about supposed problems of carbon dioxide. The great chemist Lavoisier elucidated the carbon cycle in the 18th century, and in the early 1960s, it used to be taught in Nature Studies in primary school. It is not clear what they have been teaching the young in primary school these days. On a brighter note the more carbon dioxide in the air (like in commercial greenhouses where they pump excess into the greenhouse, the plants are bigger, more productive), they even do all that with less water (because the stomata can remain partially closed, thus conserving water that might have otherwise been lost). When we breath out the carbon dioxide in our lungs is about 40,000 ppm. So you might say that a carbon tax is a farcical tax on breathing, but actually aimed at robbing everyone’s hip pocket.
70
quite some amount of writing there
Carbon and hydrogen do indeed come together elsewhere in the universe but fossil fuels are still derived from life.
You can get milk and cream from coconuts, therefore cows don’t make their own milk.
nope
That’s it. Can’t be bothered with the gibberish that follows.
012
The fact that you’re reading it Leafy tells me something. I think you might be about to come over to the “dark “side. There’s a little climate skeptic inside of you, just waiting to burst out. I can advise that you get instant karma and relief. I had the same feeling probably 20 years ago at least, when I realised that the whole CO2 catastrophising was just a huge scam. Every scientific aspect of the AGW/CC theory (because it’s still just a theory) can be counter argued. CO2 is just a harmless atmospheric gas – no more, no less. Once you accept that fact, the world becomes clearer.
70
I head this story of man made CO2 driven rapid catastrophic Global Warming. So I went home and checked how much fossil fuel was in the air as measured. Up to 1965 it was diretly measured at 2.03%. I thought that would be the end of the story. After the 1965 atmospheric atom bomb explosions, we saw C14 double and come down quickly. It is all gone now and the C14 level shows zero fossil fuel, except that the C14 from the bombs added +2.0% to the system and confirms that there is effectively 2% fossil fuel in both the ocean and atmospheric CO2. Equilibrium
And still the lie persists, driven by politicians who ignore scientists completely. As far as I can tell they get together at the UN and all agree that CO2 is a problem. And that’s as much science as has ever been in this hoax. It’s political science, not real science. It has never been real science.
60
For Gee Aye: Methane is found on Titan. It is not a fossil fuel. https://joannenova.com.au/2024/01/if-fossil-fuels-come-from-fossils-why-have-scientists-found-them-on-one-of-saturns-moons/
“Essentially a frozen, lifeless moon with no dinosaurs, forests or peat bogs, somehow has lakes of methane. Not only does Titan have liquid seas of hydrocarbon fuel — but we’ve known this for years. In fact even in 2005 a NASA scientist quietly admitted that Titan had methane that wasn’t made from fossils. But where was NASA in the 18 years since?”
70
So?
02
I know this already. Fossil fuel is just describing the origin of energy source. It doesn’t mean anything about abiotic processes producing the same chemical elsewhere. Hence the silly milk example.
02
I’ a scientist. Scepticism is my job.
01
please read a basic science text
05
It is not a theory.
It is a conjecture.
So far it has been unable to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis.
If it did manage to come up with a falsifiable hypothesis, then that could be tested against the existing Unified General Theory of Climate Regulation or Global Temperature or Climate Change.
The Unified General Theory does not yet exist – that is to say we don’t have an accepted theory of climate regulation and we cannot predict future climate with any certainty.
With the notable exception of the next glaciation, because we do know we have a bi- stable climate. . . . . It’s glacial or inter- glacial.
70
Perhaps respond to the person who thinks it’s a theory.
01
Fletcher Prouty Explains Invention and Use of Term “Fossil Fuels”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSff0pwc1Xc
30
CO2 is an essential component
of all plant and animal life.
It’s just a jump to the right,
good sense must prevail…
10
Ross McKitrick has a few words to say on the doe report.
https://judithcurry.com/2026/02/21/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-the-doe-report/
11
Credlin tonight on Sky News and discussion about electricity supply and reliability of supply, graphic evidence revealing the political deceptions of AEMO forecasts and extending operating life of the largest NSW coal fired power station, Eraring with four generator units combined installed capacity of 2,800 MW.
Contrary to claims by the Federal Energy Minister Bowen who claimed AEMO advice was his guide AEMO admit they had until now based calculations on transition RET meeting building schedules, but that is now far behind expectations. The fact is that without Eraring NSW was facing blackouts of at least one hour regularly.
AEMO is supposed to be the consumer watchdog but instead has become the government’s propaganda source.
90
There is no “climate crisis”
There is no “de-carbonisation”
There is no energy “transition”
—————–
Global Primary Energy Supply — Fossil fuels: ~86.7% — fourth consecutive record high.
20
The first step to achieving Nut Zero, is the demonstration that any form of “modern” society can run without any net production of CO2. Reducing CO2 (something they haven’t done) isn’t enough. Anyone can cut back economic activity and thus “reduce” CO2 output. The problem is running any kind of economy with no CO2 output … especially from the production of materials like metals and plastic and food.
If even one person had achieved that, then I would say that one day Nut Zero might be feasible. But as no one has got anywhere close to that “nut zero” utopia, there isn’t a cat’s chance in hell that anyone will EVER achieve it.
20
Friends, we finally have the real-world experiment we have all been asking for.
Cuba has, for the moment, reached Net Zero.
Let us all observe the results of their energy nirvana.
As they are well-placed geographically for both solar and wind, one would
expect glowing reports to soon emanate…..
50