From Professor Ian Plimer's book:
It has never been shown that human emissions of the gas of life drive global warming. Large bodies of science that don’t fit the narrative have been ignored by IPCC, COP and self-interested scientists paid by taxpayers. A huge subsidised industry of intermittent unreliable wind and solar electricity has been created based on unsubstantiated science. The same hucksters now want subsidised hydrogen, costly inefficient EVs, subsidised mega-batteries and other horribly expensive tried and failed schemes to impoverish people, create unemployment, transfer wealth and enrich China. Germany, Texas, California and the UK had a glimpse of Net Zero with blackouts, astronomically high electricity costs and hundreds of deaths. We once had reliable cheap electricity and now that governments have gone green, we are heading for hard economic times.
In this book I charge the greens with murder. They murder humans who are kept in eternal poverty without coal-fired electricity. They support slavery and early deaths of black child miners. They murder forests and their wildlife by clear felling for mining and wind turbines. They murder forests and wildlife with their bushfire policies. They murder economies producing unemployment, hopelessness, collapse of communities, disrupted social cohesion and suicide.
They murder free speech and freedoms and their takeover of the education system has ended up in the murdering of the intellectual and economic future of young people. They terrify children into mental illness with their apocalyptic death cult lies and exaggerations. They try to divide a nation. They are hypocrites and such angry ignorant people should never touch other people’s money.
The greens are guilty of murder. The sentence is life with no parole in a cave in the bush enjoying the benefits of Net Zero.
(scroll down for transcript)
Bonus Q&A snippet
The Q&A content is just as good as the main presentation as the questions being asked (and answered) are what the people are desperate to know, but we normally don't record that section for various reasons. Got a question you'd like to get answered? You have to be there on the night (and unlike the ABC we won't arbitrarily throw you out, not even for generating publicity).
TRANSCRIPT:
(This is derived from an automated process. The video recording is authoritative.)
Well, thank you folks for coming out. I don't need it (hand held mic) for the audience. Thank you, folks, for coming out on this dreadful, miserable night. But I believe a while ago, we were told that the dams were never gonna fill, so we must be living in a parallel universe.
The reason I wrote this book was because our system has been totally contaminated, and I start by looking at how good it is to be a human in today's world.
In today's world, we live longer.
Now we've had about 20,000 generations of humans. It's only the last four generations when we've been getting older and healthier and wealthier and eating better and having fewer diseases.
It's been four generations outta 20,000 generations. We are the luckiest generation that has ever lived on planet earth. And yet, [can I get you use the mic? Just people, the back and yet gotta use my hands.] And yet we are told we are facing doom and gloom, and yet we are told that the end is nine. Now, I'll go through some of the areas, and these are un figures telling us that things are better.
The world gross product has gone up, the global population has gone up, but we've got enough food for 10 billion people, not the 7.7 billion.
The number of democracies has gone up. The number of autocracies has gone down, but that's probably changing at present.
And the worldwide wars have gone down. Uh, the people living in slums that's gone down, the births per woman have gone down. The deaths in childbirth have gone down, and I've got about 28 things that I list there.
The world is a much better place than it was. And for you, younger ones over here, talk to your grandparents, get them to tell you what it was like.
I had a chat when my grandson, he lives in Canada, and he was talking about his iPad and his father, my son chipped in and said, well, you know, I didn't have an iPad when I was your age, and the kid was gobsmacked. And my son said, no. I looked out the window of the car and then I said to him, well, do you know what I had instead of an iPad when I was a kid? And the grandson said, no. I said, well, we didn't have a car. I, I went out in the bush and created havoc. So the reason for writing this book is to provide a very, very comprehensive essay on where we are at present in the world.
It starts with a trigger warning. It starts with a being. It's good to be alive. And some of the, the facts that we live in today, we could not be better.
Now if you look at past climate changes every time it was warm. We had wealth, we had great empires every time it was cool. These were natural coolings. We had starvation, we had the plague, and uh, we had warfare. We are living in terrific times.
I've got a section here called No Coal, no doll. Um, I think you know what that's about. But one of the things I'm very passionate about having been an educator for many years is the long march through the schools and the universities.
Now we have people who graduate from university or who leave school who cannot write. They certainly can't, uh, write cursively. They cannot do mental calculations in their head. They cannot systematically hold a lot of information in their head and commit a lot of information to memory. They cannot critical analyze, they cannot synthesize.
Now we don't have a problem with the planet and we are not leaving a planet, um, for this generation to inherit that has been ruined. What we're leaving is people of this generation who have not been trained to solve the inevitable problems that we face.
That is the real crisis we face.
Our education system has been totally taken over and our education system is not equipping people to look after themselves for the rest of time.
I go into a little bit of science in this book and there's a a few fundamentals. Climate has always changed. We have cycles of climate and these cycles can be over extraordinary long periods of time. Every 143 million years, we have a bad address in space, um, that happens. And when we have it happen, we have an ice age, we have cycles of orbit where we are closer or further from the sun. And that's every a hundred thousand years, 40,000 and 20,000 years.
We have solar cycles and the sun is not constant. We have cycles of 1500, 217 and 22 years. We have other cycles where we go into Grand Solar minimum and Grand Solar, um, maxima. And we are look as if we are approaching a solar minimum.
We look as if, if you look over a long period of time, we're coming into cool weather, not into warm weather at all. We have cycles that are based on the lunar tidal node. We have cycles that are based on the behaviour of the ocean.
And yes, we have these extraordinary events that happen every now and then like an asteroid impact. But over the history of time, and it's only 4,567 million years, we have had cycles of climate during that period of time.
We've had ice age for 20% of time. The planet has been covered by ice. We are living rare times. We're actually living in an ice age. We are living in one of the sixth great ice ages that this planet has enjoyed. The current ice age we're in started on a Thursday, 34 million years ago. And this is when we pulled away from, or South America pulled away from Antarctica and set up a circumpolar current. And we couldn't have warm water come down to Antarctica.
So we are living in an ice age during which time when the ice expands, that's called a glaciation. And when it retreats, that's an interglacial. We are in an interglacial within an ice age and it's overdue to finish.
The warmest period in our current interglacial was about a four or 6,000 years ago. And just look at the airports here in Queensland. Cairns Airport, Townsville Airport, Brisbane Airport, 6,000 years ago, they were underwater. Sea level was a couple of meters higher than now. That was the peak of our last interglacial. And it's been cooling for about 4,000 years. We can also see, we look up the east coast, we can see nicks under the cliff where waves have been, uh, eroding. And that is telling us that we've had either the land level rise or the sea level fall.
Now people have conniptions about sea level change in the geological record. We have sea level changes of only 600 meters. That's a sea level change. And we also have land level changes. Of course we do. What are the rocks on top of Mount Everest? These are limey rocks that formed in shallow warm water.
So the land goes up and down and the sea goes up and down and we can measure it. We can measure it by looking at history. For example, properties in Finland were waterfront bordering under the water. And they were surveyed by the King of Finland, obviously to raise taxes. Now, Finland has been rising and the, uh, waterfront property has been getting bigger.
And we know that and we know, uh, Scandinavia is rising because we put five kilometres of ice on top of it. We've removed it, it's now rising. So when someone talks about sea level, immediately you say, well, what was the land level doing at that period of time?
So we are fed a lot of untruths about sea level change and about climate, which is cyclical, and the dim distant past that tells us some interesting stories we are breathing the third atmosphere that this planet's had. The second atmosphere was carbon dioxide rich. And the first atmosphere was pretty toxic with a lot of acid and methane and carbon dioxide in it.
We have had six great ice ages. Each one of these ice ages started when we had more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than now. So wait a minute, we've got a problem. If we had high carbon dioxide, shouldn't we have had warming? No. So over the long distance of time, we can see that there's no relationship between carbon dioxide and temperature or look at a shorter time scale. Look at some of the ice cores in Antarctica.
And as the snow falls and eventually gets compressed to ice, it tracks bits of air. So we've got samples of ancient air in ice and we can use chemical fingerprints in that ice to work out what the temperature was. And we can see that every time the global temperature has increased between 650 and 1600 years later, the atmospheric carbon dioxide content increased.
So it's not that carbon dioxide's driving temperature, it's the exact inverse. When you warm the planet, you actually increase the carbon dioxide content. And that is one of the many, um, mistruths that spread around.
We have a group called Extinction Rebellion. Now these people have no idea that we have had five major mass extinctions of complex life on earth, and we've had more than 20 mass extinctions, but these are minor mass extinctions.
Now a major mass extinction is when you lose about 70% of the species on the planet. We had one where we lost 96%. We almost disappeared. So we also have species turnover.
And every now and then a species will shuffle off and there will be a vacant ecology and another species will fill that ecology at present. And for the last 520 million years, we have been increasing in species number on planet earth. They have not been decreasing. We've been increasing. And you look at any diagram showing the history of life and it's just expanding.
We've got more life on earth than we had a hundred million years ago or 500 million years ago. And the most dominant life on earth, and not whales, it's not trees, it's bacteria, and it's a bacteria beneath your feet.
The top four kilometers of the earth's crust contains a greater biomass than on the crust and in the air. The greatest biomass are bacteria and they can survive all sorts of conditions. They live in your gut. They live in clouds, they live in snow, they live in hot springs. They like an acid, they like an alkaline, they like it. Cold bacteria are the ultimate survivors, very hard to kill them.
So we have regular species turnover. We have major mass extinctions of life. We have minor mass extinctions of life, and we are living in very benign times.
The extinctions over the last 500 years have been people introducing animals to island communities, especially the rat. And that has wiped out many island communities. But we are not living in, in a period of major extinction of life that is absolutely totally wrong.
We also have a number of factors that never get considered about climate. Never at all do people think of where the heat really comes from. Most of the heat that comes onto our earth comes from the sun, but we are on a planet that is cooling and our planet is losing heat. And it doesn't lose it through the very thick continental crust. It loses it through the very thin ocean crust. And we have places in the ocean where we are losing a lot of heat.
And very quickly, and these are places like Hawaii or the GABAs Islands or the, um, any island volcano that's erupting is above a hotspot. Now we have 1,517 volcanoes on the land and we monitor those and they release a very small amount of carbon dioxide. But under the sea we have at least three and a half million volcanoes. And those type of volcanoes can dissolve 13 and a half percent carbon dioxide in them. And that leaks out into the ocean. It doesn't boil out because of the high pressure, um, and the heat from those volcanoes warms up the ocean.
So we've missed one very important factor that some of the heat for the oceans, which drives the atmosphere temperatures and a lot of the carbon dioxide comes from below and it doesn't enter any of the equations at all. It doesn't enter any of the sums at all.
Now you'll roll your eyes and say, well, how do you, you know, I mean that, that's a great idea. But we have people who've spent their lives, and I know there are a couple of geologists here, and they, uh, they will know some of the people I refer to. They've spent their life in a laboratory getting a piece of rock and cooking it up at high temperature pressure with gases and working at what happens. Now, I couldn't think of anything more boring, but what they've been able to show is that the type of volcanoes, the basals that we have on the sea floor, there's all be huge amount of carbon dioxide.
They're almost twice the temperature of larva on the continental areas. And that's been totally and absolutely forgotten. And that completely changes the whole numbers game. And the numbers game is that we are told that 3% of all annual emissions is from human activity. It'll change that figure to about 1%.
But then you ask some questions of logic, and the questions of logic are, if 3% of all annual emissions drive global warming, why don't, why doesn't the 97%, why doesn't that do it? They're the natural emissions. You never can get an answer to that question.
And the second question, which is the most important one to constantly ask, is, and you've gotta use the word please, can you please show me that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warming? Now, I've asked that question of scientists, of politicians or people in the media. No one has provided me with a scientific paper at all on this.
Malcolm Roberts pursued this in a sentence estimate committee with the CSIRO, got no answers.
So we have this whole concept of human emissions driving. Global warming is based on science, which at best is shoddy and at worst, um, leaves a lot more to be desired.
Now we add to that the way in which we measure temperature or the way in which we measure carbon dioxide, which I'll go into in this book. And there is, there is a huge amount of temperature data that is not used.
A lot of other temperature data, the old records are readjusted. And so the old records are changed to make it look colder. And so if you've got a temperature record with it going down like this, if you make the old records colder than the temperature's going up. And this has happened time and time and time again all around the world, the climate gate emails showed this.
So I argue as do the climate gate emailers, I argue that the global temperature record is really unreliable. The global carbon dioxide record, the main measurements are taking, taken from a carbon dioxide emitting volcano in Hawaii. Um, and about 90% of all the numbers that are collected are thrown out. Uh, it's only a few that are used. So I'm very sceptical about the measurements. And when you look at the ancient carbon dioxide measurements using a different technique and the modern ones, they don't correlate.
So from my perspective, I have huge reservations about the whole theory of human induced global warming. But let's just say, okay, well let, let's, let's just not worry about that at this stage. And let's look at some of the things that might be extreme like fires or weather or hurricanes, tornadoes.
And in this book, I go over the history of bushfires, not only in Australia but in the US and in Africa. We've had native people for 90,000 years burning out the forests in Africa. We've had them for less time in Canada and the us we've had them for about 50,000 years on this continent with fire stick, um, hunting.
So we have a huge amount of information that the fire stick hunting method has actually kept our forests from being overgrown. And we have extremely good records of bush fires in this country. The biggest ones were in 1851 and 1939, the ones that we had in 2019, 2020. In southeastern Australia, the area of land burned was not very large at all. And in fact, if you look globally or in this country or in the us the area of land taken out in bush fires has been going down for 50 years, even though we haven't been maintaining our forests.
So, um, this story that we hear that humans are creating an environment where we have bush fires, um, yes, that's correct. Our bush fires derive from arsonists. They don't derive from climate change.
We had 221 arsonists arrested in 19 19, 19 20. Now, unless, uh, global warming affects your brain, um, it's very, very difficult to see that we have had any effect of climate on bush fires.
We also see droughts.
Now we've got a very good record of droughts in Australia, and this is going way back. Uh, the best records we've got are a continuous record in Western Australia that goes back to about 1250AD. And this is from looking at tree rings.
And we see that the droughts that we have enjoyed in the last a hundred years and not nearly as great as previous droughts. We've had droughts that went for 40 years and these were really intense droughts. So we have to get some perspective. And my problem is that someone will say, oh, we're having more droughts.
A 30 second search on this computer called a mobile phone. A 30 second search will show that that's not true yet it's not done. People do not validate the information.
We see the same with floods. We have had a lot of flooding in Australia, and if you build on a floodplain, I wonder what's gonna happen to you.
It's like if you build on the side of a volcano or build a place at the waterfront, the inevitable happens. And yet we get told that this is unprecedented.
And with a mobile phone, you can very quickly show that these things are not unprecedented. We get frightened witness about sea levels, about ocean acidity, and I've mentioned sea levels before. It's very hard to measure sea level. You can measure sea level well after the event, but during the event it's very hard there.
We had a, we've had a sea level measuring station at, uh, Fort Denison in Sydney Harbor. And that was a fort built in the middle of Sydney Harbor to keep out the Russians.
They started building it in the Crimean War and they finished it when the Crimean War had finished. But it had done a good job. We didn't get invaded by the Russian Navy, so it was terrific. But they also had a tidal measuring station there.
And I'm sorry folks, there hasn't been any catastrophic sea level change. There's been a slight sea level change, but we haven't reconciled whether that's a land level change or a sea level change. We've got Jackie's, we've got the Bustleton Pier in Western Australia where we've got 157 year record showing that there's no sea level change yet we've got the measuring station in Port Adelaide that's showing there's been a considerable sea level change. And so you have to ask the question, who measured it? How was it measured, when was it measured? And the Port Adelaide measuring station was a post which had been there for about 130 years and it's been subsiding. So we're getting a sea level rise.
So a really important thing to do is that someone quotes a number. You have to say, how was it measured? Who measured it? When was it measured? Was it validated? Um, and can you show me a reference, um, to it? Don't accept anyone telling you anything.
We have had a decrease in hurricanes over the last 50 years I've mentioned about extinction. We've had reefs on planet earth for a reasonable amount of time, like 2000, sorry, like 3,500 million years.
And reefs come and reefs go and reefs go when the sea level drops or the water temperature drops or it's inundated by volcanic ash or inundated by sediment. This is quite normal.
I go into the Great Barrier Reef showing that in the last 3 million years, the Great Barrier Reef has come and gone 46 times. And what is happening now is part of the normal biological warfare that takes place with any, uh, biota anywhere. Reefs are constantly trying to survive and being attacked.
You've got that biological warfare going on in your stomach and if one bacteria dominates, you are dead.
This is the normal thing for biological life to be constantly at war.
So that is the background that I set that, um, no one has ever shown that human emissions of carbon dioxide drive global warning. And that the science that supports this, the scientists themselves who were caught out are admitting, uh, that the temperature record is useless and the carbon dioxide measurements are extremely dodgy.
But on the basis of this religious fervour, this belief, we've said, oh, we've gotta do something to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
So what do we do? Well, we kill off businesses that emit carbon dioxide. So we start to put in wind turbines. Now a wind turbine uses more energy to make it than it will ever produce in its working life. So that's a net loss process.
The second thing is that wind turbines are made of all sorts of metals, uh, which require a lot of energy to make them. They have a lot of concrete. When you make concrete, uh, to make the cement, you release a lot of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. When you make steel, it's a reinforcing in the concrete, you release a lot of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
When you make copper wiring, which comes from copper oars, you release a lot of carbon dioxide, the atmosphere and on it goes.
So wind turbines do not save you anything in terms of carbon dioxide emissions. They give exactly the inverse.
And the second thing is that the energy they give out it's net loss. But these are great for the environment. So wonderful that we slice and dice birds and bats.
Now if you did that, if you were running a factory and killed as many birds as a wind turbine did, they'd close you down. But this is a sacrosanct business now. We, we have to kill the environment to save the planet. That's what's happening.
And the wind turbine blades are a composite of some really, really nasty substances. Some of the chemicals in those like bisphenol a are highly toxic. It's banned in many countries of the world.
And what do we do when we're finished with a wind turbine blade? We chop it up and we bury it and that leaks out into the water table.
The one exception is a wind turbine, uh, area in South Australia where they chopped it up and put it into the concrete foundation for the next turbines. But that is leaching toxins into the environment.
So that surely cannot be an environmentally friendly area, but people say the wind is free. Well, of course it is, but the capital costs are huge and the environmental cost is huge.
But what about solar power? Well, solar power has its uses as does wind in various isolated areas out back where you don't have a grid. There is a use for solar, there is a use for wind, but solar has the same problems. To make the silicon plates, you have to use a huge amount of energy and the amount of energy to make a solar facility, I don't use the word farm 'cause farms are productive.
Um, to make a solar facility. It's an energy negative process. And then the solar cells have got a life that's less than 15 years. What do you do with them? You bury them. And what leaks out? Toxins, tellurium, selenium, gallium, indium, arsenic, all these things that make your hair curl and kill you. And so again, that's not an environmentally friendly process. And yes, the sun might be free, but we do have a process called sunset.
And once the sun, you cannot be generating power from a solar facility. Once the wind stops, you cannot be generating power.
Oh no, I've got this brilliant idea. I'm gonna put in a mega battery. Now these mega batteries are wonderful, absolutely wonderful. The one in the state that I currently live in South Australia, it can provide the whole state with electricity. It's just filled up with energy from solar and wind.
Well it isn't because South Australia exports your coal fired electricity. We don't have enough. And it it goes into this battery and the wind stops blowing and it's dark. And we've got electricity, haven't we, for five and a half minutes. That's it. And that's it. And these batteries are a little bit of a problem.
And we saw that in Geelong recently.
These batteries explode and you can't put them out. And if you try to put water on it to cool it down, you create hydrofluoric acid. Now hydrofluoric acid dissolves rocks, it dissolves glass, it kills you. Uh, you have to let that chemical reaction go right through to the end.
And in Geelong it was over a week before they could get near this battery that decided to show what it could really do. So these things are, are really not a substitute for the tried and proven.
And by looking at the average age around here, most of us would remember a time when we had cheap electricity and it was reliable. And that's what builds nations.
You can't have band bandaids all over the place with, uh, wind facilities and solar facilities and batteries trying to run an industrialized economy. It doesn't work.
How do Woolies keep their food frozen overnight if the wind doesn't blow and the sun's not shining? They can't do it. So we are absolutely dependent on stable, cheap, reliable electricity.
Now those countries and I go into the disasters of the countries that have tried to go down a different path like Germany and like the uk I go into the disasters, um, of California and Texas and that's a, a chapter of called Freakonomics. 'cause that's what it is. Um, in Texas we had a freezing of the wind turbines. And to unfreeze them, you have a fossil fuel fired, um, helicopter and a firing warm water at this thing to unfreeze it so it can turn.
Um, it didn't help very much because there was a great high sitting over Texas and there was no wind and there was an inch or so of snow on top of the solar panels. There was no electricity and more than 200 people died directly due to government policy.
It wasn't due to the Titanic hitting a iceberg or anything, it was due to bureaucratic government stupidity. And that is something I go into in quite a bit of detail towards the end of the book. And I go into things like electric vehicles.
Now there are some people that have a use for an electric vehicle and it is in a city, if you've got a short distance to go and like the average Australian, you average 38 kilometres of driving a day.
But if you live at Cumu, you've got two problems. Firstly, it doesn't have the range. And secondly, there's nowhere to charge it.
But there's another problem.
Those who drive the electric vehicles strut around taking the moral high ground saying how pure and virtuous they are. But there some fundamental questions you can ask them, where does the cobalt in your electric vehicle come from? 90% of the world's cobalt is mined by children who are slaves in the Congo. So do you wanna be morally about this or not?
Um, where does the nickel come from? Most of it comes from tropical areas where they're totally deforest, they're not, um, uh, put back to their original state and that nickel goes into your electric car battery.
So there is a trend for greens to take the high moral ground. And this is why I've called the book green murder because green policies end up in people dying, whether you're an old person in the uk whether you're an old person in Germany where a lot of people can't afford their electricity bill, so they go out and collect wood in the forest.
That's what Germany was like 200 years ago. It's not that modern Germany, it is a vibrant booming country. If you drive an electric car, you unknowingly having children as slaves work underground in mines in the Congo. And these companies are owned by the Chinese. And I know you're absolutely, totally, um, surprised by that.
And it's the same people who were buying the turbines from. It's the same people who were buying the solar panels from. And this creates a huge problem because this is a problem of sovereignty.
And we basically have one market in this country for our goods. We're absolutely dependent upon one nation who don't play cricket.
And we are in the position now where as a result of trying to be righteous and pure with our energy systems, we end up being beholden to others. We end up in systems that people absolutely totally control us from outside this country. Much of our water systems, our power grids and our power generation now is not owned in Australia.
And so we've got one scam sequence of scams that's the wind and the solar, which is using science, which I can argue to the cows, come home is wrong.
And they're pushing now the batteries. And now the new game that's been pushed in town is hydrogen.
Now, one of the reasons I became a geologist was that I used to break windows with hydrogen. You'd fill a balloon with hydrogen and explode it and you could break a window 50 meters away.
It is a really explosive material and you've only gotta have anything from four to about 72% hydrogen in air. And it is highly explosive. It's terrific fun to make hydrogen and set it off.
But I'm not so sure whether making hydrogen to use to generate electricity is sensible. And this is the story: we're gonna make hydrogen from renewable energies from wind and solar.
Now you pay for that renewable. So you're already getting the ticket clipped there once. And then to make hydrogen, it's an inefficient processor, second law of thermodynamics. And to make hydrogen, you actually have to extend a huge amount of energy and to uh, we have to expend a huge amount of energy to make hydrogen. And so it's a net loss process. You lose about 30% of the energy, but that's not the problem. 'cause that's subsidized by your mugs out there.
You know, you get a little slice of every electricity bill and if you've got 20 million people just one slice of each electricity bill doesn't hurt that much. But then when you get the second slice, it hurts a bit more. When you get the third slice, it's really gonna hurt. Um, but those who've got those skin in the game, like a lot of young people who haven't got assets, haven't got a mortgage, maybe haven't got a job, doesn't hurt them.
But the problem with hydrogen is it diffuses. Now from space, if we look back at earth and measure the chemistry, the gas coming off from earth is hydrogen. And that's coming from deep in the planet. And it's also coming from rock water reactions that take place on the sea floor.
And we release hydrogen, it moves through solid rock and goes into space. It also moves through metal. It's an extremely small atom and just works its way through metals. And when it's working its way through a metal container that's holding the hydrogen, the metal becomes very brittle. That's a problem and that's a problem too.
And then with hydrogen, the best way to transport it is to liquefy the hydrogen. And to do that, you've gotta have hydrogen going down to minus 253 degrees Celsius. And hydrogen has to be compressed to 700 times atmospheric pressure. Now that requires a huge amount of energy.
Now it's a trans to liquefy hydrogen. You lose energy to make it, you lose energy and to transport it. I mean you, you are creating huge potential problems in transporting hydrogen. What a terrorist target. They have a hydrogen tanker.
Now we have in South Australia, a wonderful ALP opposition wants to build a 214 megawatt hydrogen power generator. And they're only gonna be using something like about, um, 80 tons a day of hydrogen. How the hell are they gonna transport that?
So this is the same group of people who are coming in there with the wind turbines, with the batteries and now having a go at hydrogen.
The whole green movement has nothing to do with morality, it has nothing to do with the environment, it has nothing to do with the climate. It is a wonderfully creative way to shift money from poor people to the wealthy.
It will end up in destroying the middle class in the western countries and it will end up, um, having us exposed, uh, because our sovereignty has been, um, rest.
Now we hear about net zero now. Net zero. It's a wonderful thing. Net zero. Net zero. Anyone who really supports net zero, I say go for it because you breathe in 0.04% carbon dioxide, you breathe out 4%, stop emitting carbon dioxide, drop dead. That's a simple solution to it.
But I also look at the practical side of net zero. If we are to eat in this country, we need farmers, uh, to plow, to seed, to weeded, to harvest, to process and transport food to the cities and ports.
This country feeds 80 million people. Now if we have net zero, we end up feeding far fewer people. They die. We lose people.
You cannot have a country producing food without diesel. This country runs on diesel and I think, uh, a wonderful election tool would be for farmers and truckies to get together and say, sorry folks, we're not delivering food to the cities for two weeks. You're on your own. And that would really get the point home.
So I wrote this book because I was fairly depressed and angry at what had happened to young children in what was meant to be an education system.
I became apoplectic when I saw that every green solution ended up in massively high costs or killing people or both.
And that there is an army out there of people who are making huge amounts of money. And if you look at something like, um, flop 26 in Glasgow. Now, flop 26 was a collection of hypocrites.
These are people who have got skin in the game and their game is to skin you alive. So, um, this, this, this book is, is to provide you with the weapons to be able to argue and to to provide you with the weapons to fight things like net zero to fight these loopy schemes that are going cost you a fortune.
And the only types of energy that we could have in this country, uh, coal, uh, which we have 24 coal power, uh, fired power stations around the country. Gas, we have a lot of gas and we're using that. Um, we have hydro, uh, a little bit of hydro and potential for a bit more hydro on the eastern seaboard. And of course nuclear.
Now if you look at any other G20 country, they all have that mix and they have a little bit of cosmetic. China and Russia.
They have a bit of cosmetic wind and a bit of cosmetic solar. I mean, can you imagine solar power in Siberia? You've gotta be joking. Um, so we have a, we have two countries who are just laughing all the way to the bank while we are stupid.
And if you look at the position Germany's put itself in, it's got rid of its nuclear, it's got rid of most of its coal. It's dependent upon Mr. Putin for gas.
And the former chancellor of Germany now sits on the Russian company on the board of guns problem. He's the chairman of it. So, um, here we've got a country that's given away all of its stability.
It's given it all away and it's got an energy system, it's highly unreliable. And your next Mercedes, or B M W or Aldi or Volkswagen, it probably will get made in Cambodia because there isn't the energy to make it in Germany. Parts of the US have done the same.
We are doing the same in this country. So I fear for my country and I appeal to the younger ones here.
Um, you have to ask questions and there's some really simple questions. And the best question to ask is if someone claims something like we're all gonna fry and die or sea levels rising, they're very simple. One says, oh, can you please show me? Yeah, you must be able to do a search, show me.
And they can't.
So we are living in a world where facts and feelings are so far apart. We are living in a world where we have now created a generation of people who are unable to see through the b******t. Uh, totally, absolutely, Uh, not being trained in this.
And we are in a living where costs are going up and you know, you know who's gonna pay. It's gonna be you financially, and it's gonna be the nation in its sovereignty. Yes. So those are my concerns, which I've aired in this book. And, um, it took a little bit long to write. It was, um, I was out of action for a while last year, but, um, it has compiled information. I think I've got, I think this one's a bit modest compared to the other ones, but I think I've got about 17, no, not 1700 references, 1,667.
So, um, it, it's, it's not a fact free zone. Uh, this information is out there. You've just gotta spend your time looking for it. So thank you for coming on this precipitous night and I will take questions, queries, and complaints.
