Here is why science and observations DO NOT support net-zero

Mon Jul 27

So much of what we are confidently told about climate change by activists, the press, and governments is either completely wrong or simply not well enough understood to allow us to reach reliable conclusions. Have carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases been the primary drivers of climate change in the past? No, they have not.

Will a doubling of the concentration of these gases lead to problematic temperature rise in the future? Radiation physics modeling of heat emission to outer space for a clear sky (i.e., no clouds) shows that they will not. Do we understand the physics of clouds well enough to meaningfully forecast what impact they will have on future climate? We do not.

What about forest fires? Surely, they are getting worse, especially in Canada? The graph below shows that this too is a mistake. These sorts of errors crop up over and over across the climate debate—ocean acidification, glacier and sea ice melting, hurricanes, tornadoes and other extreme weather.

None of the real science and observations of these phenomena justify the dangerous net zero policies being imposed on much of the world.

In this important interview with Professor William A. van Wijngaarden of the Physics Department at York University in Toronto, Canada, Dr. van Wijngaarden explains what science and observations really show concerning climate change. He clearly demonstrates that there is no human-made climate crisis and futile efforts to “stop climate change” will cause enormous damage to our society.

Dr. van Wijngaarden graduated in 1982 with a BSc in Computer Science and an Honours BSc in Physics from the University of Windsor. He then went to Princeton University and obtained an MSc in 1984 followed by a PhD in Physics in 1986. After a year at Yale University, William joined the faculty at York University in Toronto in 1988. William has studied applied/interdisciplinary topics such as laser isotope separation, electromagnetically induced transparency for use in optical switching, environmental monitoring of pollutants and climate change. From 2003 to 2004 he was a Visiting Scientist at Environment Canada. Recently, he has studied radiative heat transfer through Earth’s atmosphere, which is a topic we get into today in this interview. William has more than 80 refereed publications and has given over 200 conference presentations and invited seminars.

Tune in today to learn from Professor William van Wijngaarden what is really going on with our climate and the dire consequences to our way of life if the climate scare continues!

Climate policy has drifted far from the discipline that should guide it. When a field begins with an answer and then hunts for evidence to support it, science is no longer driving the debate. It is being used.

That is the warning from physicist William Van Weingarten, whose work on atmospheric radiation and greenhouse gases points to a more modest and far more complicated picture than the public has been sold. Yes, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide warm the planet. But the size of that effect is far smaller than the alarm machine claims, and the uncertainty is much larger.

His point is not that climate never changes. It always has. The real issue is whether human activity has created a crisis so severe that societies should gut reliable energy, punish farmers, and reorganize entire economies around targets that cannot be met. On that question, the evidence does not justify the panic.

The history matters. Temperatures rose sharply in the first half of the 20th century, then flattened for decades even as emissions climbed. Arctic ice has fluctuated, glaciers have retreated and advanced, wildfires have followed land management failures as much as weather, and the oceans are not nearly as fragile as activists claim. None of this fits the tidy storyline of catastrophe.

What stands out most is Van Weingarten’s insistence on measurement. Too much climate work leans on models, slogans, and political pressure. Too little of the money goes to hard observations of clouds, humidity, and the atmosphere itself. Yet policy built on shaky instruments and selective data is no policy at all.

If the world wants honest answers, it should stop rewarding fear and start rewarding measurement. That would do more for science, and for the public, than another round of net zero promises ever will.