Focus on the science

Climate Change: The Facts 2025 brings cool heads together on a hot topic, writes IPA Senior Fellow Kevin You.

Climate activists and proponents of the net zero energy transition would have you believe that the use of hydrocarbon energy for human economic development has resulted in what they have termed a ‘climate emergency’. The establishment line, parroted by politicians and the media, is that the use of hydrocarbon fuels increases the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to unsustainable levels, which artificially increases the temperature of the Earth to the point that it gives rise to catastrophic weather events such as floods and droughts.

The call to action is to reduce anthropogenic (man-made) carbon and carbon-equivalent emissions to net zero. Absurdly, the service-based economies of the West—not Asia’s manufacturing hubs—are expected to lead the way. This is to be done through transitioning our energy supply away from coal, gas, and oil to, primarily, wind and solar.

According to its proponents, the transition must be done with lightning speed. In July 2023, the United Nations General Secretary António Guterres declared:

The era of global boiling has arrived … It is still possible to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the very worst of climate change. But only with dramatic, immediate climate action.

Good public policy requires that such a massive endeavour as reaching net zero emissions be based on very convincing scientific argument, a well-considered plan, and a realistic timeframe. But the supposed urgency of the situation has pushed all of that aside in favour of a rushed decarbonisation effort across the globe.

SCIENCE VERSUS DOGMA

NASA’s website states that 97 per cent of “actively publishing climate scientists” agree humans are causing global warming and climate change. And proponents of rapid ‘climate action’ extrapolate that the link between anthropogenic carbon emissions and natural disasters is, therefore, no longer up for scientific debate. Rather than a reflection of genuine scientific consensus—if ever there were such a thing—the very high level of agreement among climate scientists actually points to the toxic environment in which scientists operate today.

Climate alarmism is like Lysenkoism.

To illustrate, a 2022 peer-reviewed study by Alimonti, Mariani, Prodi, and Ricci: ‘A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming’, published in the European Physical Journal Plus, was forcibly retracted by the journal’s publisher, because the study dared to question the orthodox narrative that the Earth was in the midst of a climate crisis. The retraction occurred after intensive campaigning by activists and academics who have built their careers on exaggerated climate predictions.

If high compliance with the prevailing narrative is achieved by weeding out dissenting voices, then the high level of agreement among those climate scientists who are still allowed to publish is no more than a demonstration of groupthink in support of a sanctioned dogma. Emeritus Professor Aynsley Kellow, from the University of Tasmania, certainly thinks so. He argues that today’s climate alarmism is comparable to the 20th century’s Lysenkoism: a state-sponsored pseudoscientific agricultural philosophy that contributed to the famine that killed millions in the Soviet Union, Poland, and Czechoslovakia among others.

In the latest volume of Climate Change: The Facts, Professor Kellow joins 16 other scientists, engineers, and public policy experts in calling for greater scientific rigour and more scientific debate surrounding climate change, rather than simply assuming that the science is already ‘settled’.

Climate Change: The Facts 2025 reviews cutting-edge research and presents insightful analyses which challenge the narrative that catastrophic climate change is occurring predominantly because of human activities. It highlights key issues surrounding the simplistic general narrative of the climate lobby, which is that CO2 emissions work as a dial that can effectively control the Earth’s temperature and weather events.

A chapter by geologist Professor Ian Plimer, for example, casts serious doubt on the fundamental assumption that there is a causal relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and the Earth’s temperature. Professor Plimer’s research concludes that “past climates were not driven by atmospheric CO2 but were driven by an interplay of orbital, solar, galactic, and tectonic processes”. This is consistent with Dr John Abbot’s study of the Earth’s long-term temperature fluctuations, which is also featured in the book.

A chapter by two renowned physicists, Professors Tom Quirk and Michael Asten, exposes the falsity of associating increases in CO2 solely with anthropogenic industrialisation. The chapter highlights the fact that fluctuations in oceanic net carbon emissions (degassing) is also a major contributor to the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, which currently sits at about 420 parts per million or 0.042 per cent, far below the level it was before the dawn of mankind, when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth.

Earth scientist Dr Arthur Day, in his chapter, highlights the tremendous impact that volcanic activity has had on changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate. Dr Day’s conclusion reads:

Many people are concerned the (slight) global warming observed over the past 100 years is unnatural and caused by human activity. But sudden unexpected global cooling triggered by volcanism would be far more difficult to adapt to than gradual mild warming. This risk is being ignored in public discussions because of an obsession with CO2.

This politically driven obsession with CO2 among scientific institutions—such as universities, research centres, and journal publishers—needs to be addressed if they are to regain the public’s trust.

RESTORING FAITH IN SCIENCE

In an article in The Spectator in 2023, IPA Adjunct Fellow Dr Peter Ridd exposed another of our key scientific institutions’ deep-seated problems:

Detailed checks show that roughly 50 per cent of the recent scientific reports, which have been peer-reviewed, are wrong. It is called the ‘replication crisis’. All the big science institutions have known about it for a decade, but they do not like to talk about it. It is too embarrassing.

It is unsurprising that people are losing faith in what is coming out of our research institutions. Too often ideology clouds the outcome of what is meant to be dispassionate and unbiased analysis.

The hysterical narrative surrounding the study of the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and the Earth’s temperature, for instance, has become intertwined with calls to action that defy logic. For example, Victorian families are being asked to electrify their homes to cut emissions even though IPA research (‘Wire Consequences: Analysis of the cost and impact of nationwide electrification’, September 2024) found household electrification in Victoria will actually increase greenhouse gas emissions in the immediate term. We are told that drastic action is needed to cut emissions and save the planet; but its proponents in Australia insist that emissions-free nuclear and low-emissions natural gas cannot and should not be a part of the solution.

The Earth’s climate has always changed.

Given the shaky foundation on which the call for rapid climate action stands, it is no wonder that Australians are hesitant to make further sacrifices to reduce the already miniscule one per cent contribution that we make to global anthropogenic emissions.

A survey of more than 1,000 Australians commissioned by the IPA and conducted by polling firm Dynata found that only two per cent of respondents are willing to pay more than $500 per annum for Australia to reduce its emissions to net zero by 2050. Yet Australia’s per capita income has fallen by double that amount: equivalent to roughly $1,000 per annum between October 2021, when Prime Minister Morrison committed Australia to net zero, and the September quarter of 2024, the latest available data as of the time of writing.

Preliminary analysis by the IPA estimates that, should the federal government achieve its goal of reducing emissions by 43 per cent by 2030, in accordance with its nationally determined contribution to the Paris Agreement, then per capita income risks further decline by three per cent. This could take the Australian economy back to the depth of the pandemic. If Australians are asked to make such a drastic cut to their standard of living, there needs to be a strong scientific justification for the decision.

Climate Change: The Facts 2025 shows the scientific case for rapidly cutting emissions has not been made. The notion that human action is determinative of change in global temperatures and the Earth’s climate is highly contestable. The evidence and analyses in this book suggest the Earth’s climate has always changed and will continue to change, independent of human influence. It is a mistake to assume anthropogenic factors can be adjusted to stop or materially slow natural climate and temperature fluctuations.

This book also offers a glimpse of how AI technology can be employed to address issues associated with commonly used climate predictors, such as general circulation models (GCMs), in forecasting the weather and estimating the warming effect of the doubling of CO2 concentration on the Earth’s temperature (the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity, ECS).

Dr John Abbot’s analysis, based on the Artificial Neural Network methodology (a subset of AI), estimates ECS to be in the range of 0.6°C to 0.8°C, far lower than GCMs’ estimated range of 2°C to 4.5°C—the range often used to fan the flames of climate hysteria. This warrants a pause in the climate-panic and calls for further investigation into the discrepancy between the estimates. Unfortunately, as Dr Abbot observes:

The uptake of AI methods in climate science, specifically ANNs, has generally been slow by official agencies such as the Bureau in Australia. This is in part due to

the heavy investment in physical models, particularly GCMs, and the importance of these to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Restoring faith in science necessitates keeping an open mind to new technologies and studies, while re-establishing a culture of dispassionate and rigorous research in our scientific institutions. Any academic endeavour in which the conclusion is pre-determined, and dissenters to which are silenced, is merely an exercise in propaganda.

A myriad of factors contribute to variabilities in the Earth’s climate, including the vast oceans and volcanic activities. That mankind holds the dial, specifically through our carbon emissions, is a monumental claim that should be thoroughly investigated. Strong evidence contrary to the hypothesis needs to be taken seriously, along with new, cutting-edge technology—such as AI—which can help scientists analyse the validity of the claim. The scientific establishments in much of the developed world, however, appear to have been captured by the prevailing narrative about the catastrophic impact of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and the notion the science has now been settled.

Climate Change: The Facts 2025 aims to bring the focus back on the science, rather than the politics and emotionally charged dogma, surrounding climate change. It is a pushback against climate hysteria, and in favour of a more objective, scientific, and dispassionate understanding of the Earth’s climate and our place in it.

Climate Change: The Facts 2025 can be purchased from climatechangethefacts.org.au as a hard cover, paperback, or bundled with an IPA membership. Go to: https://ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/books/climate-change-the-facts-2025

This article from the Autumn 2025 edition of the IPA Review is written by IPA Senior Fellow Kevin You.