Last week I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Science how the energy absorbed by an electron (via a photon) inside a carbon dioxide molecule can subsequently heat up the surrounding atmosphere given an electron has 1,800 times less mass than a proton or neutron.
The alarmists claim an extra 140 parts per million of CO2 has heated the earth by 1.4 degrees. This can be broken down as saying for every extra CO2 molecule, 10,000 surrounding N2 or O2 molecules have heated up by 1 degree.
For this to happen the CO2 molecule has to be around 6,600 degrees in order to transfer 1 degree of heat (which is energy) to every one of those 10,000 molecules. CO2 is around 1.5 times heavier than the average weight of N2 and O2.
The idea that the energy absorbed by an electron at 14.8 microns can do this is absurd. It’s like claiming a lake will boil if you threw a feather on it.
Let’s not forget that gases are poor conductors of heat in the first place.
The Greenhouse Gas effect is a complete and utter lie.
Senate on 27/11/2024
Item: ADJOURNMENT – Climate Change
Senator RENNICK (Queensland) (19:47): I rise tonight to speak about the question that I put to Senator Farrell in question time today. It’s often a question that has been lost in the conflation of the environment, climate change and the greenhouse gas effect. It’s very important that we delineate the differences between these three issues because, while they are all important issues, they need greater context and greater definition.
When it comes to the environment, one of the things I’ve hated about this whole climate change debate and its conflation with the environment is that if you don’t buy into—I want to clarify that I care very much and deeply about the environment. You can do that and not believe in the greenhouse gas effect, and that doesn’t say you don’t think CO2 absorbs and emits photons; it does. But that doesn’t mean you have to buy in to the climate change mantra. This is my problem with climate change.
If I lodged my income tax return with the ATO and put down one line that said my income had changed, the ATO would very quickly reply to me and say: ‘That’s not enough detail. You need to be more specific about your income.’ This is the problem with climate change. We’re spending billions and billions of dollars—and I don’t want to go down the renewables rabbit hole because I’ve done it to death in this chamber—on renewables to supposedly lower CO2, and that is then supposedly going to control the temperature. By how much? We don’t know. This is the point. No-one is able to specify what the outcome will be if we spend this much money.
If we have to be specific when we lodge our tax return with the tax office, I think it’s only fair that governments—and both major parties have hopped onto this climate change mantra—define exactly what it is that we’re going to get for the billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money. All I’m seeing is our environment being damaged, whether it’s through transmission lines, lithium mines or whatever. I get that mining is important, but let’s not be hypocritical here. It does impact the environment, whether it’s coal mining or lithium mining. We’re not getting a clear outcome. We’re getting higher energy prices, and there are various reasons for that, but the reduction in the use of baseload energy is partly responsible for that as well.
We need greater definition around that, but that shouldn’t be conflated with someone’s passion for the environment. That’s the thing. We can all agree that we want good things for the environment—better and cleaner waterways and riparian zones. We don’t want plastics in the ocean. We want our biodiversity to be protected. We want lots of national parks. We want them to stay clean. We want the feral pests out of them. But we have to address the underlying issue in all of this, which is the greenhouse gas effect itself. I totally refute the idea that the radiation from CO2 is going to change the temperature. I tried to demonstrate that today, and I’ll demonstrate it again.
We know that one of the great scientists, Isaac Newton—and this is what I hate about our education system. We’re taught that he basically discovered gravity because he saw an apple fall from the tree. No, he actually came up with the law of universal gravitation. That is incredibly important. He determined that the rate at which something accelerates is defined by the mass of the two bodies, the attraction between them, over the square of the distance between them. What’s fascinating about this is that he published this book back in 1687, over 300 years ago. About 150 years later in the early 19th century, when they were looking at the orbit of the planets, they knew that they were missing a planet because the planets weren’t orbiting in accordance with this law of universal gravitation. They ended up working out where Pluto must have been. This is how they discovered Pluto. It was purely through the theory of that law.
Take that law. That law involves mass. You then take Einstein’s 1905 law, which is the mass-energy equivalence, and then the 1915 general theory of relativity, which involves acceleration, which combines all three. We need to understand that it’s mass that drives temperature and not radiation.
