By Marica Micallef
Here is Professor Ian Plimer, an Australian geologist; Emeritus Professor at The University of Melbourne where he was Professor and Head between 1991 and 2005; Professor of Geology (University of Newcastle 1985-1991) and Professor of Mining Geology (University of Adelaide 2005-2012), while addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) 2022, explaining how the climate models supported by climate grifters, on which their absurd doomsday predictions are based, have no supporting data and zero evidence to back them up. Since his speech is a long talk, I have divided his speech into separate blogs, to facilitate your understanding of such a matter told by a knowledgeable expert in the field:
“I don’t have opinions. I have demonstrable facts. These facts are validated, and these facts are repeatable. Fact number one: no one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming; never been challenged. And if it could be shown, then you would have to show, that the 97% of emissions which are natural, do not drive global warming. Game over. We are dealing with a fraud. That’s the scientific fraud from day one. We hear the propaganda that increases of the gas of life, a trace gas in the atmosphere, will bring a disaster and that we will have runaway global warming. Sorry folks. We’ve known for 200 years from chemistry that it’s the exact inverse. Now I’m sure some of you tried this last night at dinner with champagne or a beer – you forgot to drink it and it warmed up and it kept bubbling and bubbling and bubbling. And that is the inverse solubility of carbon dioxide. We’ve known that for 200 years.
We see it from the ice cores. When we drill into ice, we have chemical fingerprints that tell us what the temperature was and we have little bits of trapped air and we can show that when we had natural warming some 650 to 6000 years later, we had an increase in carbon dioxide. It’s not carbon dioxide that drives temperature. It’s the exact inverse.
Another fraud: we never hear about the major greenhouse gas which is water vapour and water vapour has a remarkable property. This weird water – when we evaporate water, we need energy to do that. Now the greens don’t know this because they never get up with sweat and when you get up with sweat you feel that your skin is cool because you’re taking energy to evaporate that water. And when you precipitate that water, it rains, snows or ice and it gives out exactly the same amount that it took up. It is water vapour and water, clouds, whatever form it’s in – the air conditioner of our planet’s atmosphere. It isn’t a trace gas which is why the 115 models don’t work. This is because they are trying to create a model that proves that carbon dioxide is doom and gloom.
And we’ve had these sorts of predictions for a very long time, and then there is this absolutely wonderful time, I have a chapter devoted to predictions, and I’ve looked at 2000 years of predictions. People predicting the end of the world. And we’ve had thousands of highly qualified imminent people predicting the end of the world. If just one of these was correct, we wouldn’t be here! So, there is only one type of prediction you can make which is correct: and that, if someone is predicting the end of the world, knocks on your door, seal the dog onto them, because you’ve got History on your side. And we hear about climate scientists – whatever that is. Now in geology, we have a 250-track record of arguing about climate. Textbooks are full of it. We’ve been labouring about climate for a long time and then there is this sudden, new invention of climate scientists. And I had some of these when I was the head of department of the University of Melbourne, and these are embittered, obscure, unemployable, academics, funded by your taxes, and those taxes are to fund these people’s hobbies, and the end result of that is that they put good people out of work, and they cost our nation trillions. So, there’s one group of people that use models. Another group of people – I mean this is really sinful – we use evidence. And the two are not in accord. And if they’re not in accord, you’ve got to throw out all those models which we’ve seen time and time again, are incorrect.“