Leighton Smith Podcast #313 - December 3rd 2025 - Dr William Happer

Dr William Happer is an American physicist, author of 200 plus peer-reviewed scientific papers and co-founder of the CO2 Coalition.

Dr Happer will assure you that there is no climate emergency. If you think otherwise, “you have been mislead”.

Happer’s analyses of 'Net Zero’ is timely for a country where politicians perpetuate ill-informed attitudes, and reject the opportunity to meet with him.

Dr Happer delivers much more on podcast 313.

And we finish up with The Mailroom with Mrs Producer.

File your comments and complaints at [e-mail]

Haven't listened to a podcast before? Check out our simple how-to guide.

Listen here on iHeartRadio

Leighton Smith's podcast also available on iTunes:
To subscribe via iTunes click here

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks B. Follow
this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
It's time for all the attitude, all the opinion, all
the information, all the debates of.

Speaker 2 (00:22):
The sis, now.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
The Leighton Smith Podcast powered by News Talks ed B.

Speaker 3 (00:28):
Welcome to podcasts three hundred and thirteen for December three,
twenty twenty five. Headline News. Doctor William Happer is coming
to New Zealand. In fact, he might already be here
as we speak. Let me set the stage for doctor
Happer before we dive. In two years ago he toured
Australia's capital cities, most of them and addressed very large crowds.

(00:53):
After his speech in Brisbane, he talked at some length
with Jennifer Murrahasse, who is a scientist, and she wrote
the following. As the emeritus professor of physics at Princeton
University and an expert on radiative transfer that concerns, among
other things, the absorption of infrared radiation by carbon dioxide,

(01:15):
Willhapper has the competency to calculate equilibrium climate sensitivity from
first principles. And then she added this, Indeed, Professor Happer
is perhaps more qualified, better credentialed than anyone I have
ever met and ever likely to meet, when it comes
to calculating the likely effect of a doubling of atmospheric

(01:37):
levels of carbon dioxide on the Earth's temperature. Not that
we have a doubling yet, but that this is something
that technocrats obsess over. But we're not finished. From a
slightly different angle, Chris Mitchell is a very good journalist.
He's been such for decades in various parts of Australia
and ended up as the editor in chief of The

(01:59):
Australian for a good period of time. But he still
writes for The Australian. And this is what he wrote
and published on the thirtieth of November. Media asleep as
labour Botcher's energy policy. The world is waking up to
what's really happening to the climates and in electricity grid's
reliant on intermittent renewable energy as usual, Most Australian environmental

(02:25):
journalists remain asleep. They were strangely quiet about the failure
of last month's COP thirty climate meeting in Vellum and
Brazil to map out a new higher path for global
emissions reduction. Targets. Journalists who'd been desperate for COP thirty
one to come to Australia have been silent about the

(02:46):
failure of one point eighty of the one ninety five
nations signed up to the Paris Emissions Reduction Accord to
submit their twenty thirty five targets ahead of the latest
COP as required. Climate Change and Energy Minister of Australia
Chris Bowen released Australia's in September, saying Australia would lead

(03:07):
the world with a twenty thirty five target of between
sixty two and seventy percent reductions on two thousand and
five emissions. This column ast on November the second Why
Australia would want to lead the world and imperil its
own heavy industries. But you get the picture. Now, let's
go back to doctor William Happer. Doctor Happer is the

(03:29):
Cyrus T. Fogg Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton University.
He is the founder and longtime board member of the
CO two Coalition. He's published over two hundred scientific papers,
including those on his pioneering work on the interaction of
light and atoms. Now, as for the CO two Coalition,

(03:50):
it was established in twenty fifteen as a non partisan
educational foundation operating for the purpose of educating thought leaders, policymakers,
and the public about the important contribution made by carbon
dioxide to our lives and the economy. The Coalition seeks

(04:11):
to engage in an informed and dispassionate discussion of climate change,
human's role in the climate system, the limitations of climate models,
and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO two emissions.
In carrying out our mission, we seek to strengthen the
understanding of the role of science and the scientific process

(04:32):
in addressing complex public policy issues like climate change. Science
produces empirical, measurable, objective facts and provides a means for
testing hypotheses that can be replicated and potentially disproven. Approaches
to policy that do not adhere to the scientific process

(04:54):
risk grave damage to the economy and to science. The
Coalition is comprised of more than one hundred and sixty
of the top experts in the world who are skeptical
I repeat, skeptical of a theoretical link between increasing CO
two and appending climate crisis. While embracing the positive aspects

(05:15):
of modest warming and increasing CO two. They include physicists, chemists, engineers, geologists, economists,
and more. More than seventy percent of the members hold
doctorates or commensurate degrees, and include three members of the
National Academy of Sciences. Now with that in mind, I

(05:35):
spoke with doctor Will Happer before he departed the States
to come here. He is due in on the fourth,
so if you're listening to this on release, let's tomorrow.
But otherwise he's here for a lengthy period of time.
He is traveling the country, and I willed at the
end of the interview, I will quote you everywhere that

(05:59):
he's appearing, starting in Auckland, while starting in Clevedon as
it happens as part of Auckland at four pm on
the fourth, and he finishes at Wanaka on Saturday the thirteenth,
and every day in between. I don't think they've missed
any Every day in between he is speaking or appearing somewhere.

(06:19):
I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion we had, apart from one fact,
two facts. Actually, the zoom dropped out on a couple
of occasions and caused a bit of chaos, but I
think we recovered o'caane. You'll barely notice it so Dr
William Happer after a short break. Leverix is an antihistamine

(06:45):
made in Switzerland to the highest quality. Leverix relieves hay
fever and skin allergies or itchy skin. It's a dual
action antihistamine and has a unique nasal decongested action. It's
fast acting for fast relief and it works in under
an hour and lasts for over twenty four hours. Leverrix

(07:06):
is a tiny tablet that unblocks the nose, deals with
itchy eyes and stops sneezing. Levericks is an antihistamine made
in Switzerland to the highest quality. So next time you're
in need of an effective antihistamine, call into the pharmacy
and ask for Leverix l e v Rix Leverix and

(07:26):
always read the label. Take as directed and if symptoms persist,
see your health professional. Farmer Broker Auckland, Laighton Smith, William Happer,
Welcome to the Laton Smith Podcast. More importantly at advance,

(07:47):
Welcome to New Zealand the country.

Speaker 4 (07:52):
Well, thanks, Layden, where I'm looking forward to the visit.

Speaker 3 (07:55):
You were in Australia two years ago and they took
you around I think to three major cities was at Perce,
Melbourne and Sydney. There may have been more, but that's
what I I remember the journey.

Speaker 4 (08:10):
That's correct. I also went to Brisbane, yeap.

Speaker 3 (08:13):
The journey here is somewhat different because you've had days
between your speeches presentations. Here you're getting one day after
the other sort of down the spine of the country,
and they're certainly getting the most out of you that
they possibly can, and I don't blame them for doing that.

(08:37):
It is a pleasure, I have to say, to actually
speak with you, as I think I mentioned to you
in an email I interviewed as I say, your compatriot
will one Garden what would be three years ago now,
And I don't know what's taken so long to get
to you, but by George, I'm glad you're here now.
The history of you and climate matters, where did it start?

Speaker 4 (09:02):
Well, it started really because in nineteen ninety tonty three,
I was appointed Director of Energy Research to US Department
of Energy, and so I had all of the basic
research funding and Department of Energy everything except nuclear weapons.

(09:23):
So it was a huge portfolio. It was a lot
of money, and it included everything from high energy physics
to the Human Genome Project, and also work on climate.
And until then I hadn't paid a lot of attention
to climate, but I knew a lot about how the
atmosphere worked from my work with the Defense Department and

(09:46):
with Department of Energy. And I decided to defend my budget.
You know, I had three and a half billion dollars
that I was spending of taxpayers money. That's probably ten
or more today with inflation, and so I wanted to

(10:06):
be able to explain to Congress and the American people
what we were spending their money for in terms of research.
So on once a week I would have someone come
in from some research group and give me a little
seminar and my assistant directors and we would ask questions

(10:26):
and try to make sure we understood why this particular
research was going on. And most researchers were absolutely delighted
to be invited to come to Washington. They thought it
was you know, maybe we would get some more money
next year. You know, the Washington bureaucrat is interested, and

(10:47):
so it was usually easy to get people to come.
And I learned a lot from these seminars. But there
was one exception, and that was the people working on
climate and the environment, and we would invite them to
come to Washington because we were funding them. They would
often be reluctant. Sometimes they would refuse, and then I

(11:08):
would have to explain to them that, you know, I
was paying for their research, and part of their contract
was that they were obliged to explain what they were doing.
And so they would reluctantly come and complain and send
letters to al Gore saying that they were being harassed.
They weren't being harassed at all. Everyone was invited to come,

(11:28):
and most other people thought of as an honor. But
then when they would give the seminarm, when you would
ask questions, they were very evasive. They would not give
a straight answer. And and then they remember one said
why you know, why are you asking this question? We
always ask questions at seminars. You know, how do you
calibrate that instrument? You know, how accurate do you think

(11:51):
the calibration is, etc. You know, natural things that you ask.
So that was when I really realized there was something
funny about this branch of science, that it wasn't like
all other science, that it was highly political. There was
a sort of a scripted answer you were supposed to

(12:11):
give to everything you know so that it fit the narrative.
And so I was surprised, but I didn't pay a
lot of attention. And when Al Gore and Bill Clinton
won the election, al Gore couldn't wait to fire me
because I had been harassing his scientist, and so I

(12:32):
was glad to be fired. I was, you know, eager
to go back to doing research myself, and so I
didn't hold it against him. I was quite grateful, actually
to get out of Washington. But that's how I got
started in climate. And after I had left Washington, I
was busy doing out there things for a number of years.

(12:53):
I had a little startup company that I needed to
get going. But on the evening news broadcasts on television,
I would sit there with my wife and every now
and then there would be some absolutely nonsensical report about climate,
and I would get angry and I said, you know

(13:14):
this is nonsense. You know they're mine. I founded that research.
I know exactly what they results were. And my wife said, well,
you know, how am I supposed to know that? Or
how is the average American going to know that? Because
you know, all they know is what to get from television. Yes,
why don't you speak out? And so that's when I
began to speak out. You know, it was a result

(13:34):
of this acquaintance with climate research when I was a
bureaucraft and then my surprise at how it was being
described about the mass media.

Speaker 3 (13:46):
Tell me this where you arrived at that point. Was
it all your own thoughts and effort and work that
got you there or were you influenced by anybody else?

Speaker 4 (13:57):
No, I don't think I was influenced when by anyone else.
I mean I felt it was important that research on
climate be done. When I was at Department of Energy,
I helped to fablished a number of ground based observation centers.
It was called the the Arm Project, and so I
was very much in favor of understanding the climate. But

(14:21):
it just seemed to me that in the long run
this would hurt all of science. If we had this
rogue branch of science which had become heavily politicized, and
sooner or later it was bound to collapse, and in
doing so, it would hurt all of science. So that

(14:41):
was really why I was initially interested. I didn't want
it damaging the reputation of science.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
Well, science has been damaged them along the way. Of course,
there was a book that came out in I think
the seventies, Betrayers of the Truth. But it showed the
history of shall we say, cheating, lying, and falseness in
various aspects of science. I have actually some centuries. Why

(15:12):
do you think that that book and there's other sense
much more recent that have exposed or attempted to expose
the fakeness of so much of science to the point
that it's out of hand. Down there's a headline like
that just just very recently, that the corruption in science
is running away with things. How did they get away

(15:35):
with it?

Speaker 4 (15:36):
Well, they're protected by their institutions who earn a lot
of money taxpayers money from managing scientific research at universities,
national laboratories, private foundations, and so there's huge amounts of
money flowing in and anything that threatens that flow of money,

(16:00):
you know, is viewed with great alarm by the people
of benefit from that. So I think the availability of
lots of government money has made it much worse than
it used to be. You know, in the seventeen hundreds
and eighteen hundreds, there were only a few people who
did science, and many cases they paid their own way,

(16:21):
so they were typically sort of odd ball, you know,
children of wealthy families just like science, and so there
was no incentive for them to really falsify anything. The
results did not affect their income in one way or another.
But that's changed completely now and so many people feel

(16:43):
obliged to get results which they think their sponsor won'ts.

Speaker 3 (16:48):
I wasn't going to introduce this this earlier in our conversation,
but I will a I I read something a few
days ago that suggested that with the amount of corruption
that exists at this point of time, it can only
get it can only get much worse under the influence
of AI. Would you agree with that?

Speaker 4 (17:12):
No, I think I think reforms can be made because
there's some branches of science, for example, that were just
find still. You know, they're typically things that don't have
very much to do with public policy or politics, and
so mathematicians are still being mathematicians and discovering every new

(17:37):
things that many of them very interesting. I think things
like for example, cosmology are absolutely fascinating. You know, of
the recent work on gravitational waves. That's good, solid science,
it's traditional science, and so you can go down the
list and find many areas of science that are quite healthy,

(17:59):
but there are many others, those that are connected with
public policy, climates, vaccines, that kind of thing is in trouble,
you know, because it's heavily politicized, and I don't know
quite how to cure that. Simply taking away a lot
of the money would solve many of the problems, because

(18:22):
then only the people who are genuinely interested in the
topic itself, you know, would continue to operate, and they
will tend to be more honest because they're working in
the field because it just fascinates them.

Speaker 3 (18:39):
I want to ask you about about Tim Bull. Doctor Ball,
who died a few years ago, was one of the
earlier influences well on me anyway, and I did interview
him a couple of times. His relationship with a fellow
called Michael Mann was very unsavory. Leaving the legal aspect

(19:03):
of that aside, what's your opinion of Michael Mann's pilosophy.

Speaker 4 (19:09):
Well, Michael Mann is sort of the quintessential, you know,
climate science opportunist. He's made a very very good living
from promoting climate alarm. If you want to understanding better,
you can read the climate Gate papers where even in
his colleagues thought he was going too far. But he's

(19:35):
been very successful. He's been supported by people who want
the message as he's promoting. He's had a lot more
trouble recently. He's lost a number of court cases. He's
lost the court case to Jim Ball one that he initiated.
He's lost court cases to Mark Stein, to the National Review.

(19:59):
So I think, you know, it must be a kind
of a discouraging time for doctor Man.

Speaker 3 (20:05):
Now what do you think of his science?

Speaker 4 (20:10):
I don't think there's much science there. You know, he's uh,
you know, he's an operative, you know, and he brings
in a lot of money. But I don't when I
look at what he's done, I can't see anything that
strikes me as creative or groundbreaking. You know, he's been

(20:32):
a son supporter of the alarmist narrative, and you know,
he's most famous for this hockey stick curve that erased
the medieval warming, which was obviously there. And so it's
no wonder that many people criticized him, including poor Tim Ball,
who was you know, viciously attacked by Man.

Speaker 3 (20:56):
But it was, it was, it was, it was good.
One has to say it was good to see justice
prevailed in the end.

Speaker 4 (21:03):
Well, it's kind of meager justice, you know. When he
doesn't pay up, you know, yeah, he's back. None of
it comes out of his pocket. He's backed by dark forces.
Nobody knows quite who's funding him, you know, but I'm
sure it's not coming out of his own pocket.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
All right, So let's let's concentrate on CO two for
a bit and I'll present I'll present an opinion to
you that the greatest thing that the study of CO
two has done by the people who think or suggest
or push the fact that it's going to kill the

(21:43):
planet one way or the other is grip think, groupthink,
and brainwashing and the and that famous walk through the institutions,
in particular of the schools. The kids come out of
school these days, and I'm not telling you anything, but
the kids come out of school these days brainwashed the heck.

(22:05):
And some of them have made it through university and
even into politics in this country, having gained their footing
and their belief system in education, and there is no
changing their minds. I tried once, and it was a

(22:28):
totally futile. Unfortunately, well I suppose fortunately, actually the Green
Party benefited from it. In this country. But that's where
that's where it stops. The point that I'm driving at
is how do we reverse this belief that is now
so widespread? How can we How can that be done?

Speaker 4 (22:52):
Well? I think you start with the young people who
are being educated. Now. It's interesting that many of them
are not the climate catastrophe narrative. We're all successful processors
in school, so, at least in the United States, if

(23:12):
you pull young people, they're quite skeptical, many of them
of the climate narrative. The ones who are already brainwashed,
I don't think there's very much you can do with
some of them. Some of them can be deprogrammed. It
reminds me a little bit of the Soviet Union. I
remember visiting Soviet Union soon after the collapse. I guess

(23:38):
it was Russia by that time, but we were in
Khazan and our guide was a young woman who took
us through Linen's.

Speaker 3 (23:52):
You've dropped out, Uh huh, coming back?

Speaker 4 (23:55):
I mean back?

Speaker 3 (23:56):
Okay, right, so you.

Speaker 4 (23:59):
Do you see? It bought everything that had ever been
said by the communists propaganda, and now all of a
sudden it all collapse, and it was clear that most
of it had been a lie, and she was explaining
to us that she just couldn't believe it. She couldn't
understand first of all, how she believed it herself, but

(24:21):
secondly how it could all have been so phony. And
so I think that the people who've bought the climate
alarm narrative will be like these sincere believers in communism
in the Soviet Union, when it finally collapsed, it was
clear that it was nonsense. You know, some people, you know,

(24:41):
they I guess it was Chesterton who said that when
you stop believing in God, you know, you don't in anything.
You believe in everything. And so that's what happened to
these people. You know, they have no ability themselves to question.

(25:02):
And you should always question your beliefs, especially your own beliefs,
and other people's beliefs too. You know that that's the
way science has always worked, That's the way mankind has
always worked. You know, successful societies have worked that way.
And so we've got to we've got to teach younger
people to be self critical to you know, the old

(25:24):
Russian proverb trust but verify. The problem has been the
second part of that. Nobody verifies anything in the climate area.
If you trying to verify it doesn't work.

Speaker 3 (25:36):
You know, well, it's the kids that come out of
school and they're still doing it. Here, come out of
school on a Friday, for instance, halfway through the day
or whatever, would take the whole day off and encouraged
by teachers, go on demonstrations. And it's it's spread a
little broader than just climate because now it's it's moved

(26:00):
to some degree, their attention has moved to some degree
to the Middle East. But still you'll get kids with science,
for instance, on on all fronts, and the television use
covers it. They feel famous and they feel fabulous and
what have you.

Speaker 4 (26:17):
Yeah, let me just respondence. It's always been possible to
mislead children.

Speaker 1 (26:24):
You know.

Speaker 4 (26:24):
One of the worst excesses of the period of the
Crusades where the Children's Crusades, where they persuaded all these
poor little children in Germany and France who joined the
crusade you know, to save the you know, the True
Cross or whatever whatever it was. And it was a
complete disaster. Very few of the kids survived these crusades,

(26:49):
most of them were killed. And so you know, it's
it's actually shameful to abuse the trust that young people
have in their elders in the way that's been done
with climate and some of these other issues. But it's
an old, old sin that has cursed humanity forever.

Speaker 3 (27:09):
You're going to be speaking on a number of things,
particularly carbon dioxide CO two and of course methane, and
I don't want to I don't want to steal from
the presentations or the audience that you'll be talking with.
But I'm looking at a headline that says more carbon

(27:29):
dioxide cannot cause catastrophic global warming or more extreme weather.
Net zero policies will have disastrous effects on people worldwide.
Sticking with the global warming and more extreme weather. Whenever
there's a weather crisis, whether it's in the States, whether

(27:51):
it's here, climate change gets blamed, and they keep blaming it.
Could you justify for us briefly why they're wrong.

Speaker 4 (28:03):
Well, first of all, you can. There are many reasons
why they're wrong. One of the straightforward things is you
can look at past climates in geological history and do
that there's not a good correlation between CO two and temperature.
So there's no geological historical support to this myth that

(28:26):
the control knob of Earth's climate is CO two. But
that's been hammered into people's head now for fifty years,
and so it's very hard for most people to realize
that it's just completely wrong. But CO two is indeed
a green house gas, but it's not a very potent one.
It's what astronomer's astrophysicists would call a very saturated situation.

(28:55):
You know, we've got so much CO two in the
atmosphere now that it almost doesn't matter if you double
it or quadruple it. It makes if you double CO two,
you only reduce radiation to space by one percent. So
percent increase of CO two is a one percent effect
on radiation transfer, and that's an even smaller effect on temperature.

(29:19):
So if you put in the real numbers, you know
there's nothing alarming about increasing COEO two. And that's quite
clear from the basic physics. It's very well established physics.
It works for stars, it works for nova and it
works for the planets, works for Earth. So people have
simply been misled.

Speaker 3 (29:40):
Again and they continue to be misled. And this is
the frustrating part. But the second part of that headline
was net zero policies will have disastrous effects on people worldwide.
Take it from there.

Speaker 4 (29:55):
Well, look, for the time being, the prosperity, the good
health that so many people in the world are experiencing
now for the first time has been due to the
use of fossil fuels. You know, using coal to make electricity,

(30:16):
to heat homes, to run industry, using oil for transportation,
for automobiles, for airlines, all of that has been an
enormous blessing, not to mention the use of hydrocarbons for fertilizers,
so that you know, the real problem for most farmers

(30:36):
today is over production. You know, even in India, you know,
there are surpluses because proper yields have gone up so
much because of more fertilizer, and indeed partly because of
more CO two. CO two is a fertilizer just like
nitrogen or potassium or prosperous. So getting rid of all

(31:00):
of those benefits will drive humanity back into poverty and misery.
Who who wants to have that? You know, we've got
plenty of time to centuries of fossil fuel available, and
during that time we'll have an opportunity to figure out

(31:23):
what to do when fossil fuels finally run out. But
it's going to be a long time before that happens,
and we should enjoy their benefits as long as they last,
and they'll last a long time.

Speaker 3 (31:33):
A matter of interest. Bill Gates then his appearance of
turning the table. Do you believe him?

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Well, I don't know Bill Gates. There are a lot
of people like Bill Gates out there who were suckered
into timate alarmism. I think. You know, Bill Gates doesn't
really know very much physics or chemistry or geology. And
he made a lot of money, you know, marketing software,

(32:04):
so he thinks he's a genius, is a genius in
terms of marketing, but he doesn't know very much science,
so he was I think, misled into alarmism long climate.
If you read what he wrote five or six years ago,
it's nothing like what he recently wrote and this little
essay of disavowing alarmism. There are others like that, you

(32:30):
know who you know, they can't bring themselves to say
that the whole thing is a lie. You know, how
could so many people be wrong? You know, how could
ninety nine percent of all scientists be wrong? It's of
course not true that ninety nine percent of all scientists
support this alarmism but that's the that's the mean. Well,

(32:52):
I don't know what to say about that.

Speaker 3 (32:54):
Well, the ninety nine percent of the ninety seven percent,
which whichever figure doesn't matter, but what does What does
matter is that the and I'm going to put it
as I see it, the ignorance and stupidity of much
of the media, individuals in particular I'm thinking of and

(33:15):
so as a lot of my audience as they hear
that terminology, because it's it's it's well understood in some circles,
they are simply not interested in getting to the truth
and this is this is one of the great guys.

Speaker 4 (33:34):
Right, that's right. But in my country. Maybe it's different
in New Zealand, but there's a whole generation of journalists
who've been trained to spread climate or armism. You know,
that's that's their job. You know, they were trained to
do that. They've got talking points and you know, they
get up in the morning and they start doing that
and they continue until they go to bed the next side.

(33:57):
So it's hard to compete with someone like that, you know,
who's just so fixated on pushing this message. It's a
false message. But are enough people pushing a false message?
After a while it begins to have an impact.

Speaker 3 (34:13):
Indeed, I want to refer to Max Planck, the German physicist.
Can you give us a brief on his achievement.

Speaker 4 (34:23):
Well, Max Planck is a real hero to all of
physicists and really to all of science. He was the
person who finally figured out what was wrong with classical
physics and introduced quantum quantum mechanics. So, you know, in
the late eighteen hundreds there was a dirty little secret

(34:47):
that very few people understood outside of a few scientists,
and that was a classical physics really didn't work. You know,
if you, for example, use the classical theories of thermodynamics
and electricity and magnetism, you found that there ought to
be infinite energy emitted from any warm body. It was

(35:10):
called the ultra violet catastrophe. And so it was clearly absurd.
That wasn't absurd, but nobody quite understood what was wrong
with the theories of classical physics. And Max Planck, a
German physicist, was the one who finally recognized that if

(35:31):
you assume that radiation has to be emitted in little
quantsa discrete amounts of energy, it can't be infinitely small
that you could solve this problem. So the problem was
that radiation was quantized, and then it turned out that
all sorts of other things were quantized, not just radiation,

(35:51):
you know what we would call photons today, but also
the motions of electrons and atoms or protons and nuclei.
And so that really was a turning point in our
understanding of physics. And it was all due to Marx Plank.
It was early nineteen hundreds when he finally published his

(36:13):
paper pointing this out, and nothing has ever been the
same since. He was a great man. His son was
executed by the Nazis for supposedly being an enemy of Hitler.
I'm sure he was. Anyone with common sense would have been.

(36:33):
But Marx Plank's name will be up there with Isaac
Newton and Galileo for as long as people are around,
and remember history.

Speaker 3 (36:45):
Shame there aren't more. When we had to drop out
a short while ago, I was I was. I made
mention of nit zero because it was in the headline
that that I that I read a couple of times
net zero will do major damage to the citizens of
the planet. How does that work?

Speaker 4 (37:09):
Well, you know that zero means that you have to
get rid of all coal fired plants. You have to
get rid of natural gas oil and replace them with
solar panels and wind turbines. And we can already see
where that's leading. If you look at countries like Germany

(37:31):
and Denmark and the United Kingdom, which have lots of
wind turbines, the cost of electricity is going through the roof.
You know, many people are in energy poverty, they can't
afford to heat their homes in the winter. Industry is
running away from those countries, you know, closing down factories,

(37:52):
people are out of work, and moving productive capacity into
countries with common sense, like China, India, where people still
believe that you need a prosperous population and you need inexpensive,

(38:13):
reliable energy. So what you get from that zero is
extremely expensive, very unreliable energy, and poverty and misery, unemployment.
You know, who needs that?

Speaker 3 (38:28):
Who needs it? Quite right?

Speaker 4 (38:31):
I mean, what's worse about it laden is it actually
is harmful to the environment. You know, I don't know
about New Zealand, but around here, I look at these
fields covered with black solar panels. You know, it used
to be beautiful green fields and now there's these miserable panels.
It's not helping the environment at all. It's actually making

(38:53):
things worse. And we have these bird chopping windmills you know,
that require a lot of space and drive people crazy
as they go, you know, and so there's nothing good
about it.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
Well, seeing you've raised the that aspect of it, both
here and in Australia, there's there's a war going on
and it's greater in Australia at the moment than here,
but I'll cover that in a second. Here we have
we have a government that is doing some very good things,

(39:27):
but they're doing some well, let's just say, there's a
lot getting past them. And one of those things is
matters to do with climate and there is no way
politicians who are who are in charge of these particular areas,
like the Minister for Climate Change, simply will not engage
in any any sort of I mean, he wouldn't come

(39:51):
to your speech, your presentation, and he'd simply he'd simply say, well,
I won't put words in his mouth. But you understand
what I'm saying. They don't want to know in spite,
in spite of what we've been experienced seeing in very
recent times and learning that this is a load of crape.

(40:16):
In fact, that's what I call. That's what I call
that most recent international meeting. It's not cop it's crap
thirty right, that's right. And to think that Adelaide in
South Australia and their minister Bowen, and he's the one
that I'm targeting here at the moment is just is
just a fool of the first order, but a very

(40:37):
very aggressive fool. He's an idiot. But I won't ask
for your opinion, you may not care to give it.
So if you had the opportunity, what would you say
to a government minister in charge of this particular area who,
as I've just explained, doesn't want to know.

Speaker 4 (40:57):
Well, you know, it's very very hard to convince someone.
You know, a man convinced against his will is of
the same opinions. Still, you know the old proverb and
it's completely true. A big problem is none of these
people know any science. You know, it's a religious belief

(41:20):
for them. For some of them, the more sincere ones,
it's a religious belief, and the less sincere ones are
if you really start following the money, you'll find that
they're making a lot of money out of it. So
it's an unholy alliance between opportunists who are earning huge

(41:40):
amounts of ill gotten gains and true believers who think
they're saving the planet. I often say it's a combination
of a religious cult and organized crime. It's a protection racket.
You know, we're going to protect the planet. You know,
you have to join us in protecting the planet. The

(42:01):
planet is more important than you are. You know, if
we have to protect the planet or worry about you,
to help with you. And so that's what we're facing with.
It's an old trick. It's been going on for a
long time.

Speaker 3 (42:14):
Would you say that, would you say that the effect
that America and China and India and Russia is having
none of them turned up for any of these conferences.
And the suggestion was that the one in the one
in Brazil, right, The suggestion was that the conference in

(42:38):
Brazil would be arguably the last one ever. I don't
think it will be. What do you say, well.

Speaker 4 (42:46):
I agree. You know, there's this enormous enterprise that has
been generated over the last fifty years, huge numbers of
people who make their living, you know, from climate alarmism,
and you can't get rid of that overnight. You know,
even if you get governments to remove the funding because

(43:07):
the voters won't support any longer. There are very wealthy foundations,
you know. They are the likes of George sous in
my country, you know, and other billionaires who will keep
it going for some time, but they will run out
of money eventually.

Speaker 3 (43:22):
Yes, they will. There is one other area that we
we must cover because you'll be talking about it here,
so at least, at least briefly, the subject of methane
was methane Was methane dug up out of out of
nowhere because CO two wasn't working?

Speaker 4 (43:45):
Yeah, I think that's part of it. But you know,
the people pushing this, you know, the control freaks, as
I mentioned, they won't complete control of mankind, and so
methane is a way to clamp down on the farming community.
In the ranching community, you know, that's where a good

(44:06):
fraction of the methane in the atmosphere come from, is
from agriculture. And it's always been there there. You know,
there have been animal belching methane for as long as
the world has existed. Dinosaurs probably belch methane. You know,
that's hard to see how they could possibly have digested
the vegetation that they ate without producing methane. They're very

(44:29):
fundamental reasons for that. It has never caused any harm,
then it won't cause any harm.

Speaker 3 (44:35):
Now, well, am I correct in assuming that humans create
me sign as well?

Speaker 4 (44:44):
Well, we don't. Humans don't breathe out methane directly. You know,
we breathe out a lot of CO two. Each of
us breathes out about two pounds of CO two today
there's a lot of CO two, and cattle breathe out
even more CO two. But they also breathe out a
fair amount of methane, you know, probably a couple pounds

(45:04):
of methane a day two as well as CO two.
That's what also their digestive system that is able to
break down fibers and cellulose. We can't do that. Humans
can't do that. Most animals can't do that. But because
of the gut flora and ruminants, they are able to
do that. But it's essential that in that process they

(45:27):
have to dump methane overboard. They have to belch methane
in order to get the food value from the structural carbohydrate.
So it's probably too technical. Well, they've always been doing that.
There's nothing new about this.

Speaker 3 (45:43):
I don't want to be vulgar. But what I had
in mind was, and I realized that I really didn't
know the answer that expelling gas from the other end
of the of the torso is not methane.

Speaker 4 (45:59):
Well, at least for cattle. Most of the methane is
from when they're chewing their cud. You know, if you
look at how the cut is a little bit frothy,
and some of that froth is CO two. Some of
it is methane. But I think the breaking wind, so
to speak, the wind, I don't think that's not a
major source of methane.

Speaker 3 (46:20):
All right, With regard to methane or methane, what is
your methane.

Speaker 4 (46:27):
Is essentially irrelevant to the climates, and the castle that
belch methane are largely irrelevant too. You know, if you
killed every cow on Earth, you know, the one and
a half billion cows, you would reduce the Earth's temperature
because of stopping methane production by zero point seven centigrade,

(46:51):
not even a tenth of the centigrade. So the whole
thing is absurd because the effects on temperature of methane
from farming are too small to measure, you can just
barely measure them, and over most of the earth a
little bit of warm is actually good, not bad.

Speaker 3 (47:11):
Indeed, that's an argument that should be should be dealt with,
because it shouldn't need an argument, It shouldn't even need discussion.
And you in an article that you didn't write, written
by somebody called cap Allen, but it is a pracie
really of a speech that you made, and in it

(47:36):
it runs thirteen pages that I read it earlier this morning,
and it's now full of colorings and markings. But it's
actually a very good piece and summarizes very well where
you're at, and plenty of others and an increasing number
I think over time, the greening of the earth. And

(48:00):
you go into how it's done, et cetera, and how
it's measured, and then you get to this point, and
I tell you why I'm in advance, why I'm interested
in it, because I love Mediterranean pine. Nothing gives me
a greater thrill than guing to rhyme, for instance, and
walking through the packs there and experiencing them. This pine tree,

(48:24):
you say, are reported to say, I believe it's a
Mediterranean variety.

Speaker 4 (48:31):
Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker 3 (48:32):
The elder Rica.

Speaker 4 (48:34):
Is it Eldrica? That's exactly right, Yo. It grows well
in places like Arizona where those photographs were taken. And
then you well, let me say, it's common knowledge that
carbon dioxide is a potent fertilizer, and it's also it
should be common knowledge that there's not enough of it

(48:56):
in the atmosphere today compared to geological norms over most
of the geological history of the Earth and the Cambrian
when we have a good fossil record, CEO two levels
have been and you know, three times, four times, five
times greater than they are today, and so plants are
adapted to much higher CO two levels than we have,

(49:18):
especially land plants, and so plants are struggling today to
make a living with these low CO two levels, and
so it's been a real godsend to plants to have
this increase of CO two coming from the combustion of
fossil fuels. We're still a long way from what is

(49:38):
optimum the plants, greenhouse growers put two or three times
for CO two in the air of their greenhouses, and
it's in the air the natural air today just because
the plants like it so much more and they get
so much better flowers and fruits and better price for
their products, and so you can see the earth greening

(50:01):
from satellite studies. It's possible to measure chlorophyll from a
satellite because the technology is quite interesting, probably to detail
for this, but you basically look at a fluorescent emission
of chlorophyll and the near infrared, and with an appropriate

(50:24):
trick you can use that to estimate how much chlorophyll
there is on the surface of the Earth. You use
sunlight to do that. Yeah, and it's quite clear that
we're getting more and more chlorophyll every year, and it's
almost certainly due to the increase in CO two in
the air from burning fossil fuels. So maybe politicians don't

(50:49):
like it, but certainly the plants are very grateful to
have more CEO two to work with.

Speaker 3 (50:53):
Well, there's sometimes more intelligent, yes, indeed. Yeah, all right,
so on your tour, what are you dressing.

Speaker 4 (51:04):
Well, I'm going to first point out that farmers should
and ranchers and livestock raizors should not be embarrassed. They
actually are one of the few productive, admirable parts of
the population of the world. They're producing things that keep
life going as opposed to politicians who do nothing but

(51:27):
produce trouble and aggravation, wars and misery, So they should
be proud of themselves. Number one and number two that
there's no scientic no scientific support for these accusations that
agriculture is harming the planet or harming the environment. Quite

(51:47):
the opposite. You know, they're good for the planet and
good for the environment. But people have to stand up
for themselves. So I'm hoping that I can stiffen a
few spines during my tourers through New Zealand. Many of
them are already quite staff. I'm proud of them, but

(52:08):
perhaps to get a few.

Speaker 3 (52:09):
More, I would I would think that a lot of
people would appreciate that. Do you get much assault when
you're doing questions?

Speaker 4 (52:23):
Uh? No, I've never really had too much problem. You know,
I like questions on science, and it's very hard to
find a questionnaire that is willing to go, you know,
face to face, would be on the science because you know,
with all due modesty, I'm a pretty good scientist. You know.

(52:45):
I'm certainly not a politician, so I'm but that's that's
not where I try to fight my battles. I try
to fight my battles with the science of climate, which
is completely reassuring. There is absolutely no danger to the
climate from humanity.

Speaker 3 (53:04):
As a matter of interest, and I don't want to
be morbid, but the the best scientists in this area,
in this arena are now reaching an age where they've
either departed or they realize that life doesn't go on forever.

(53:27):
I'm trying to put this delicately. Is there a wave
coming through behind them, behind you guys, that will take
over because it seems that it seems that it's restricted
to those who have finished their university careers, their academic

(53:48):
careers and are now free to speak out and to
wage war. So what's your thought. Is there a wave
of people replacements coming through?

Speaker 4 (54:00):
Yes, I think there is, and I think it will
get much stronger, especially in countries like the United States,
where you know, government support of hysia has waned quite
a bit, you know, so you can't make a career
anymore on government funding by promoting hysyria. And so we're

(54:25):
beginning to see the results of that. For example, just recently,
a number of signists who are much younger than I
am put together what's called the Monterey Declaration. You can
probably find it on the internet, but it's pointing out that,
you know, many of the things that are being promoted
by climate alarmists are profoundly damaging to the environment, and

(54:50):
how geoengineering, you know, it's absolutely lunacy. And these are
mostly fairly young people, you know. I was happy to
sign the Moderey Declaration, but most of the signers are
twenty thirty forty years younger than I am. And I
think that in will continue well.

Speaker 3 (55:11):
I can only say that those who go to your
presentations will benefit extremely well from them, and I hope,
I hope that there is a huge turnout for you
wherever you go in the country. And I want to
thank you for and I've got no connection with it,
but I want to thank you for making the trip
down because it's.

Speaker 4 (55:32):
Not those One last issue is I didn't realize that
you need a visa to get a New Zealand. So
as soon as we hang up, I'm going online to
try and get a visa. Time to catch my flight?

Speaker 3 (55:47):
Well, I better, I better get off the phone that
you've got time and don't and don't miss your plane.
But like I said at the beginning, welcome in advance
from from this podcast, and may you have a very
successful and enjoyable tour. I know the people looking after
you are determined to do a very fine job.

Speaker 4 (56:11):
Well, thanks Satan, I'm looking forward to you guys.

Speaker 2 (56:14):
Hid thank you, sir, okay, goodbye.

Speaker 3 (56:32):
As I said, what is to follow is the full
program for doctor Happer as he tours the country. Firstly,
what will he cover. Doctor Happer will cover how greenhouse
gases actually influence temperatures, why current methane policies may be
scientifically flawed, and what this means for the future of

(56:56):
New Zealand's pastoral sector. The program has been put together specifically,
but not entirely, for those in the agricultural area one
way or the other, and they are the ones who
will get most out of it, of course, but anybody
who is interested can go to as far as I'm aware,

(57:16):
can go to any of these Any of these functions
begins on Thursday, the fourth of fourth of December, and
it's being held in Clevedon at four pm at number two.
Kumi Kumi way, k u m e k u m
e way. And that's actually the best that I can

(57:36):
that I can provide you with then the next day,
Friday the fifth, in Waikato Hamilton Jet Park Conference Center
at the Airport at seven pm. Hamilton Jet Park Conference
Center at the Airport seven pm. Saturday the sixth in
Tapo at Suncourt Hotel fourteen Northcroft Street at three thirty pm.

(57:59):
Sun Court Hotel, fourteen Northcraft Street in Tapo. At three
point thirty Sunday the seventh, Hawk's Bay, Havelock North, George's
Restaurant two more that'll be a placed to go at
two point thirty. Now that's been updated from twelve o'clock,
so it's no longer twelve o'clock. Obviously, it's at two
point thirty Saint George's Restaurant, Havelocked North. Now, each one

(58:22):
of these has an attachment to it, an email attachment
that you can respond to. But I can't go dishing
them all out. That's the problem. Monday the eighth Masterton
Slash Wellington, Masterton at one thirty one to order order

(58:43):
road and I have a feeling I didn't pronounce that correctly.
But one thirty one day order order road at twelve
midday and that's at Kensley Agvets in Marsterton. Tuesday, the
ninth in Wellington at Parliament Actually, and I'm not sure
that that's not just for parliamentarians. For Wednesday the tenth

(59:06):
in christ Church, Sudima Hotel at five hundred and fifty
Memorial Avenue, Sudema Hotel, five fifty Memorial Avenue at one pm.
Wednesday the tenth, Timaru filap Raceway Grayway Lounge at seven
thirty pm. Filap Raceway Greyway Lounge in Timaru at seven

(59:27):
thirty pm. Thursday the eleventh, in Duneton, it's a rest day.
I'd say that actually, after the program that I've just
read out, he deserves a rest day. Friday the twelfth,
Belclus Slash Gore Belclosa Town and Country Club in Yarmouth Street,
one thirty pm. Belcluster Town and Country Club, Yarmouth Street,

(59:50):
one thirty pm and Gore RSA Bowler Avenue at seven
thirty pm. Gore RSA Bowler Avenue seven thirty And then
finally Saturday, the thirteenth of December and Monica Good Place
to Finish Community Hub at thirty four McDougall Street at

(01:00:12):
one o'clock one pm. Wanaka Community Hub, thirty four McDougall Street,
one pm I'm asking you to, if you are at
all able to go to any of those talks from
doctor Happer, to please attend. Why Because I'd like to

(01:00:32):
see a good turnout in this country. Had it in Australia,
I'd like to see it here, and I think there
is I don't. It doesn't matter how much you think
you know at the moment, and I include myself here.
There is much you can learn from doctor will Happer.
He also has quite a good sense of humor when
he's delivering. When he's delivering and utilizing the screen, So

(01:00:58):
do it, enjoy it, learn from it, and take people
with you if you can. I went to the mail
room for number three hundred and thirteen, missus producer at

(01:01:22):
the end of the year closeth in.

Speaker 5 (01:01:25):
I know where's it gone?

Speaker 3 (01:01:26):
Later down the tubes of time as always, it's very
fall down there. Would you like to lead m Yes.

Speaker 5 (01:01:35):
I will, Chris, says Lord David Wilson, and three eleven
was puzzled as to why our values aren't being fought
for and strongly defended. This is because we haven't clearly
codified them, so there's nothing tangible to fight for. Whenever
a value is highlighted by a lone individual, it is
quickly shot down as racist, old fashioned, hateful, or undemocratic.

(01:01:58):
In short, our society now has nothing left to stand on.
We've become so afraid of offending our enemies they no
longer need to fight us. King Solomon observe that wounds
from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy makes
you comfortable. When our highest aim is personal comfort, our
enemy will hand that to us on a plate until

(01:02:20):
we're so weak that we can't fight back. The winner
in this fighter is the one who can clearly articulate
the most hopeful values and withstand the greatest temporary discomfort
while doing so.

Speaker 3 (01:02:31):
That's from Chris. Excellent, Thank you Chris. Now this one
refers to the John Elcock discussion, and it reads like
this just listened. Wow. Frighteningly informative, totally resonates, very thorough,
believable on every level. Should be a major warning shot

(01:02:52):
across everyone's bow. I'll be forwarding the link to a
few I know who will be so interested. Regards from Evan.
Evan appreciate it greatly, Thank you, and let's have more
of that.

Speaker 5 (01:03:05):
Leaden Jin says for people who think that You've got
nothing to hide, got nothing to fear. I believe John
Alcock has a terrifying wake up call for them when
he said, you should be afraid of the things they
want to get you for, because they will just make
it up. In the age of AI, deep fakes have
real world consequences. In May twenty twenty three, a deep

(01:03:26):
fake Pentagon explosion went viral within minutes and was immediately
reported by mainstream media, causing a short dip in the
US stock market. In the same year, a deep fake
video call from a CEO instructed an employee to transfer
thirty five million to a specific list of accounts, only
to vanish in thin air. In March twenty twenty three,

(01:03:49):
deep fake images depicting Donald Trump being forcefully arrested caused
a frenzy of real public outrage and confusion. Sure today
we're on the cusp of embracing robots, algorithms, and cbdc's.
If we thought that we have inadvertently exposed much more
of our privacy than we'd like to Google, Facebook, and Instagram,

(01:04:10):
We're about to expose much much more when we willingly
clone ourselves on the internet with AI, our thoughts, our voice,
our looks and our works. Over use of AI reduces
the perceived value of our soul. Perhaps computer scientist Steve
Polyac was right when he said, before we work on
artificial intelligence, why don't we do something about natural stupidity?

Speaker 3 (01:04:33):
Yes, that's a thick and beautiful That's good, isn't it?
From Steve to Here is such a respected and authoritative
medical figure as emeritus Professor Robert Clancy talking about the
orchestrated COVID catastrophe on this week's podcast this goes back
a couple of weeks. It was a hugely welcome and

(01:04:54):
important breath of fresier news talks. NB is, after all
mainstream media, and I for one, have never heard such
an expose of the truth from any such media. He
mentioned so many things of relevance to the decline of
the medical profession, but I particularly welcomed your reference to
Ashley Bloomfield and Professor Clancy's citation read the Japanese study

(01:05:18):
of twenty million people comparing health outcomes between vaccinated and
unvaccinated populations. Despite endless efforts via FIA requests and other avenues,
the New Zealand Ministry of Health refuses to divulge such information.
Can there be any justifiable reason for such a stance.

(01:05:39):
The underlying truth is that COVID was one big lie
after another, and the powers that be in New Zealand
and elsewhere are continuing that lie relentlessly, as it seems,
with impunity. Where is the accountability, because accountability is the
first step toward ensuring that such an outrage can never

(01:05:59):
happen again. Bes wishes to you both and thanks again.
And Steve, I might add, has some appropriate qualifications to
write Leighton.

Speaker 5 (01:06:10):
Another one from Steve, and he sang, after the event,
I hope you're going to be able to have the
opportunity to interview Will Happa, who's coming here at the
invitation of the Methane Science Accord. I would have hoped
that even the most died in the wall media entities
would not be able to ignore the presence of such
an acclaimed authority in New Zealand.

Speaker 3 (01:06:28):
That's from Steve. Now this one is this one's a
bit tricky. Z Let me read its been sent to
me by somebody who had it sent to them. Great
feedback from a successful, well informed, good friend of mine,
says Jim. And David wrote to Jim and said that
last podcast by Layton with Professor Clancy was beyond being excellent.

(01:06:53):
The truth is slowly coming out. The lies and deceit
are incredible. Some though we'll never accept the real scientific truth.
David spot On, you didn't need too many words to
make that point. And there's one more I think I
might squeeze in if you don't mind. From Brett, I'd

(01:07:13):
like to put forward Brian Leyland, Michael Kelly and Katherine
Porter for the top rolls. Read the energy portfolio and
simply delete the net zero carbon policies and related taxation
while we're at it, which is required to straighten out
this country. Let them loose with a free hand to
solve New Zealand's energy issues in all aspects. Is the

(01:07:36):
bold action we need. The consumer and economy would benefit greatly.
These people know what they're about and bring the global
expertise of the energy sector, understanding of the problems and
the solutions to the job. If you want something done,
well put those that know what they are doing in charge.
I have already told the government, says Brett. I've already

(01:08:00):
told the government to fire the current Energy Minister. Shane
Jones might be worth keeping on if he can work
with and support the above appointments, and he concludes with
Don Brash did a sound job of the Reserve Bank
in his time, and maybe a contender and level head
for the financial portfolio if you know someone equally suitable

(01:08:21):
for the supportive role. Brett, thank you appreciate it. And
that's the mail room for I think the second last
podcast of the year, missus producer. You got to be
here for the final.

Speaker 5 (01:08:34):
Oh look, I'm contracted.

Speaker 3 (01:08:36):
Well it's either without you here, it's just the final.
With you here, it's the grand Final.

Speaker 5 (01:08:40):
Oh, Layton, you're such a sweet talker.

Speaker 3 (01:08:45):
I practice every day you do. Layton Smith now in
conclusion of Podcasts three hundred and thirteen, jeez, I could
have done so much here, could have included so much,

(01:09:07):
but I've elected to quote from a release that was
made on July nineteen, twenty twenty four, published by Richard Linsden,
the Professor of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Emeritus, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, and William Happer, Professor of Physics Emeritus,
Princeton University. The United States and countries worldwide are vigorously

(01:09:29):
pursuing regulations and subsidies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to
net zero by twenty fifty on the assumption best stated
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC that
the quote evidence is clear that carbon dioxide CO two

(01:09:49):
is the main driver of climate change close quote and
is responsible for more than fifty percent of the change.
Very confident sort of statement, you'd say. The authors go on,
we are career physicists with a special expertise in radiation physics,
which describes how COO of hex heat flow in Earth's atmosphere.

(01:10:11):
The physics of carbon dioxide is that cotwo's ability to
warm the planet is determined by its ability to absorb heat,
which decreases rapidly as CO two's concentration in the atmosphere increases.
This scientific fact about CO two changes everything about the
common view of CO two and climate change. They continue,

(01:10:33):
carbon dioxide is now a weak greenhouse gas at today's
CO two concentration in the atmosphere of approximately four hundred
and twenty parts per million. Additional amounts of CO two
have little ability to absorb heat, and therefore is now
a weak greenhouse gas. At higher concentrations in the future,
the ability of future increases to warm the planet will

(01:10:56):
be even smaller. This also means that the common assumption
that carbon dioxide is the main driver of climate change
is scientifically false. The implications referring to additional atmospheric CO
two as carbon pollution is complete nonsense. More CO two
does no harm. Quite the contrary, it does two good

(01:11:19):
things for humanity. Number One, it provides a slight and
beneficial increase in temperature, much less than natural fluctuations. And secondly,
it creates more food for people worldwide, which we cover
further below under the sub of implications. First, net zero

(01:11:40):
efforts will have a trivial effect on temperature. More of
the atmospheric greenhouse gas CO two will increase temperature, but
only slightly. How changes in atmospheric greenhouse gases effect radiation
transfer are described by precise physical equations that have never
failed to describe observations of the real world. We applied

(01:12:01):
these formulas to the massive efforts by the US and
worldwide to reduce CO two emissions to net zero by
twenty fifty. In a paper that we recommend to those
with a technical background, we show that all the efforts
to achieve net zero emissions of carbon dioxide, if fully implemented,
will have a trivial effect on temperature. They then enclose

(01:12:22):
figures for the US net zero by twenty fifty and
the worldwide net zero twenty fifty, which are too difficult
to convey this way. These numbers, they say, are trivial,
but the cost of achieving them would be disastrous to
people worldwide. So all the above was the first implication.
The second implication net zero policies will be disastrous for

(01:12:44):
people worldwide. In the United States and worldwide, net zero
regulations and subsidies will have disastrous effects. Chief among them
would be the proposed elimination of fossil fuels, which would
mean doing away with the internal combustion engines for transportation
and other uses, the power plants that provide most of

(01:13:05):
the world's electricity, gas, space heaters, and cooking stoves, and
the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers that enable the feeding of
nearly half the global population. The resulting economic devastation would
include massive job losses, which already has occurred in places
where net zero subsidies and regulations have diverted capital away

(01:13:28):
from investments into productive assets and into ineffective technologies. Such
as wind and solar energy. Those hostile to fossil fuels
ignore overwhelmingly evidence that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
from their combustion has significantly greened earth and boosted crop production.

(01:13:52):
It goes on to nominate some other repercussions or implications,
but that will suffice very convincing. What isn't convincing is
the attitude of specifically politicians who make the decisions that
govern us all sometimes failing to recognize their own ignorance,

(01:14:12):
and that will take us out For podcasts number three
hundred and thirteen. It's been an effort, so if you
would like to write to us Latent at NEWSTALKSIB dot
co dot nz or Carolyn at NEWSTALKSB dot co dot nz.
We shall return next week with Podcasts three hundred and fourteen.
So until then, as always, thank you for listening and

(01:14:35):
we look forward to talking soon.

Speaker 1 (01:14:44):
Thank you for more from News Talks B. Listen live
on air or online, and keep our shows with you
wherever you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio