The test pilot was the fourth to try and figure out why the new plane kept crashing. The previous three couldn’t pull the plane out of a dive. They crashed. It was an instinctive but death-defying decision when during the fourth test the pilot didn’t pull back on the joystick but pushed it forward. It was the opposite of the orthodox method in the manual. The plane didn’t plunge to earth: it came out of the dive. Plane and pilot survived, life-saving lesson learnt.

This is the guts of a true story I came across many years ago and now cannot find, so the details are missing.

I am reminded of this story in the midst of Net Zero frenzy, which is forcing much of the world into a nose dive. The Coalition, coal and ignition in its nomenclature, can take the example of that test pilot and present the electorate with policy settings that pull us up out of the dive by directly contradicting the ruling orthodoxy. To do so, it would rely on facts that you probably haven’t heard in the public square. The facts that debunk the whole climate alarm manual. The facts that hundreds if not thousands of scientists know from applying the scientific method in the study of climate but are restrained or blocked from broadcasting in the public square.

When did you see acclaimed Australian geology professor Ian Plimer quoted or interviewed on FTA TV? Or his books on the subject reviewed in mainstream media? Have you come across the views of Princeton Professor, emeritus, William Happer and MIT Professor, emeritus, Richard Lindzen, who say that many prominent climate scientists share an opinion (the so-called ‘consensus’) that humans are affecting the world’s climate by burning fossil fuels and emitting large amounts of CO2. They also share an opinion that this is a bad thing.

However, in the scientific world, the opinions of scientists and politicians are not relevant. ‘…no valid evidence exists to support these hypotheses.’ They state that reliable scientific theories make predictions that are later validated by observations. They are not from a scientific consensus, government opinion, peer review, or manipulated data.

In the words of Professor Richard Feynman, as quoted by Happer and Lindzen: ‘[W]e compare the result of [a theory’s] computation to nature … compare it directly with observations, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.’

Models have been created to show the hypothetical human-caused changes to climate and the supposed damage these changes might cause; the models do not compare well with observations.

There goes the science argument supporting disastrous climate change and its attendant disastrous policies.

Yet the first and greatest challenge would be to convince voters that they’ve been lied to. However, that may be a bit easier now in the immediate wake of COP27, where our own energy minister Chris Bowen has been the first to succumb to the urge to punish the west with financial penalties. Bowen champions the transfer of wealth to third world nations as reparations for causing climate change that hurt them; the ‘loss and damage’ trick. Now, at last, voters may be more receptive to hear that the climate change scenario is actually about money, not climate. (This was admitted back in 2014 by Ottmar Edenhofer, then co-chair of IPCC Working Group III, as quoted in the Zuricher Zeitung.)

The Coalition would be smart to dump on the now officially stated policy of climate (not so small) change. That was never a policy promise … so nobody voted for it. That any serious, intelligent person or persons can support such a proposition is as confounding as the belief that 0.0012 per cent of CO2 in the atmosphere (the man-made component) drives global warming.

With the combination of debunking climate alarmism and ridiculing the ‘loss and damage’ reparations proposals, the Coalition would be offering a rational, well-informed, sensible and demonstrable alternative to the mass delusional and hysterical cultism of policies nose-diving to Net Zero.

Resistance to the idea within the Coalition of making a 180 degree policy turn is understandable; it requires conviction and courage. But it can be argued that the Liberals have already done so once, foisting Net Zero on the Coalition … after winning ‘the climate change election’. Can’t help with courage, but conviction can be supported by the facts, all readily available if you want to find them.

Just look at the work of an ocean of credentialled scientists who can provide such facts. For example: Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, Ian Plimer, Craig Idso, S. Fred Singer, Bob Carter, Kesten Green, and Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon, William Happer, Javier Vinós, Andy May, Richard Feynman, David Evans, John McLean, Chris Landsea, John Christy, Michelle Stirling, Jennifer Marohasy, Ansley Callow, Darrell Ince, Hendrik Tennekes, Michael R. Fox, Hamish Campbell, Ivar Giaever, Guus Berkhout. Marcel Crok PLUS: 1,100 + signatories to the Climate Declaration; 300 signatories on a letter to the US President; 33 members of the Geological Society.

The campaign based on the new policy platform could begin by highlighting the history of dishonesty that has underpinned the ‘climate change’ claims from the start. The anthropogenic global warming scenario was launched on June 23, 1988 in the US Senate committee with the testimony of James Hansen of NASA. The Senate, a political organisation, not a scientific one; did we miss a clue?

To emphasise the ‘warming’ at the session, Hansen’s Democrat ally, Senator Tim Wirth, scheduled the hearing on a day forecast to be the hottest in Washington that summer. Wirth sabotaged the air-conditioning the previous night, hoping to ensure the TV cameras could show everyone sweating. Wirth later told Deborah Amos (NPR News): ‘We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the hearing occurred … it was really hot…’

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

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in