Net-Zero Madness: Stop the Climate Cult’s Assault on Australia! By James Reed

"If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat; if you take a walk, I'll tax your feet…"
The Beatles' Taxman saw it coming: a government taxing every move, as Paul Walker argues in another blog piece todays. Now, in 2025, they're taxing your sanity with net-zero, a climate crusade that's less science and more psychological plague. As Jordan Peterson warns in The Telegraph, the net-zero narrative is a "psychogenic epidemic," a fanatical belief system gripping doomsayers who'd rather burn Australia's economy than face reality. For farmers, retirees, and small business owners, this is no abstract debate, it's a direct attack on your livelihood and freedom. It's time to call out this madness and fight back.

Net-zero, the push for zero carbon emissions, isn't rooted in science but in ideology, says Peterson, a clinical psychologist who's faced censorship for daring to question it. He calls it a "psychogenic epidemic," a mass delusion where fear of a climate apocalypse drives irrational demands, like slashing emissions at the cost of jobs, farms, and energy. Failed predictions (remember "global warming"?) and unreliable economic models expose the shaky ground beneath net-zero's altar. Yet, like a cult, its followers silence dissent, as Peterson learned when Canada's psychology board tried to "re-educate" him for calling out their nonsense.

This isn't about saving the planet, it's about control. Net-zero's apocalyptic rhetoric thrives on fear, not facts, pushing policies that could cripple Australia's heartland. Farmers face emissions caps that jack up fuel and fertiliser costs. Retirees see energy bills soar as coal plants shutter. Small businesses struggle under green regulations that favour corporate giants. It's the Taxman reborn, taxing your sanity with a narrative that's more religious than rational.

Peterson nails it: net-zero is a psychological sickness. It's catastrophising, where every drought or storm is proof of doom, ignoring centuries of climate shifts. It's groupthink, where sceptics are branded heretics. It's moral panic, demanding sacrifice (your farm's profits, your energy access) to appease the climate "gods." And it's delusional, clinging to failed models while ignoring trade-offs like energy poverty or food insecurity. This isn't science, it's a cult, and we're the ones paying the price.

For a farmer, net-zero means higher costs for diesel, equipment, and compliance, squeezing already tight margins. Imagine being forced to cut livestock or convert land to "carbon sinks" to meet emissions targets, all while Canberra's bureaucrats sip lattes, and fine wine, untouched by the chaos. Retirees on fixed incomes face skyrocketing power bills as renewables falter; South Australia's 2024 blackouts showed what happens when wind and solar can't deliver. Small businesses get another kick with green red tape. And for everyone, it is less freedom, more control, as Big Brother watches your every move.

Peterson points to Canada, where his license was threatened for questioning climate dogma. Norway's wealth tax, akin to Australia's super tax, drove millionaires away. Net-zero's global track record is grim: Germany's coal phase-out spiked energy prices, and the UK's net-zero push fuels inflation. Australia's next, unless we stop it. If we let this madness spread, we'll lose farms, jobs, and energy security, all for a fantasy that's failed every test.

Don't let the climate fascists tax your reason. We must act now to protect Australia's future:

1.Contact Your MP: Email or call your Federal MP via www.aph.gov.au. Tell them net-zero's costs hit farmers and families hardest. Demand practical energy policies, not ideological crusades.

2.Push Back on X: Share this article and tag @SenatorRennick or @ClimateSkepticAU. Call out net-zero's flaws, facts beat fear. Amplify voices questioning the narrative; brains beat BS any day.

3.Support Local: Back farmers' markets and rural businesses to counter net-zero's economic squeeze. Strengthen your community's resilience.

4.Stay Informed: Follow www.aph.gov.au or X for net-zero policy updates. If green mandates tighten, mobilise early with groups like the Institute of Public Affairs.

Net-zero isn't about science, it's about control, fear, and a cult-like grip on Australia's future. As Peterson warns, it's a psychological plague, not a solution. Farmers, retirees, and Aussie battlers deserve better than policies that tax their sanity and livelihoods. Let's tell Canberra: keep your hands off our farms, our energy, and our reason!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/22/net-zero-is-a-mental-illness/

"Jordan Peterson has declared that, in his professional opinion, climate doomsayers "are possessed by an ideology much more akin to a psychogenic epidemic than they are purveyors of any information remotely scientific". Writing in the Telegraph, the renowned psychologist suggests climate alarmism is something more like an ideological or religious movement than a scientific one. Here's an excerpt.

In 2023, I was sentenced in Canada by the Ontario College of Psychologists and Behavioural Analysts to an unspecified period of professional 're-education' for what has been deemed my unprofessional conduct. If I refused to comply, then the college indicated its duty to revoke my professional licence as a clinical psychologist.

I said that I would comply, although insisting – despite the college's entreaty – that I would make every detail of that re-education painfully public.

Part of my unprofessionalism was apparently illustrated in the submission of the entire transcript by a random complainant to said college of a conversation I had with Joe Rogan on his podcast, accompanied by the allegation that I had stepped out of my lane as a psychologist.

How? By daring to share my opinion that the economic models purporting to indicate catastrophic future danger caused by the apparently impending climate change apocalypse were false and unreliable and by implying something that requires the further analysis this column offers: that there are non-scientific, indeed psychological, reasons that such models were and are generated and promoted in the first place.

The complainant had never received any professional services from me, let it be noted. Furthermore, the 're-education' has never been scheduled, despite my agreement to submit to the process, and their publicly stated decision to proceed, because the college appears unable to find anyone at all anywhere willing to act as said re-educator.

Why am I telling you this? First, because the anecdote provides evidence for the genuine social and psychological danger in speaking out against the pretensions of the mad green mob; and second, because the claims that climate change terror is scientifically justified have to be enforced by entrenched propagandistic bureaucratic inquisitors rather than proved scientifically and assessed through genuine discussion in the public arena.

And with that, on to the real show.

Why might a psychologist be qualified to discuss issues of climate change, anyway? It isn't as if my opinion on psychological matters is appropriate, say, when it comes to the validity of Einstein's equations describing general relativity. It is therefore clearly the case that there are issues in the scientific realm that my education and ability should make me cautious in assessing as a professional, speaking in the public domain.

But there are important – nay, crucial – differences between the mathematics of advanced physics and the doomsaying climate apocalypse narrative. The former has had the validity of its claims demonstrated by passing every crucial test of prediction for a century; the latter has failed continually when put to the test – so much so that 'global warming' turned suddenly into 'climate change' at some time in the last decade or so because the former phraseology proved untenable both conceptually and practically.

Here is the crucial question: is the climate apocalypse narrative just a scientific theory? Or is it instead a system of belief, unmoored from the objective world, with essentially psychological factors playing the primary role in its initial formulation, current maintenance and widespread dissemination? If the former, then I'm out of my wheelhouse as a commentator, and deserve, arguably, to be called on it. If the latter, however, then I am in my true element, as a psychologist, trained in the analysis of belief – and, more importantly, ethically bound as such to indicate falsehood in conceptualisation where I see it.

And, with regard to that distinction: I have come to conclude, after much detailed consideration (informed by my professional training and experience as researcher and clinician), that the climate doomsayers are possessed by an ideology much more akin to a psychogenic epidemic than they are purveyors of any information remotely scientific.

Might I point out, as well: even if I'm wrong (and I'm not) such a suggestion from a credible psychologist is at least worthy of evaluation as an alternative explanation for our current cultural, political, economic and psychological predicament.

The scientific claim is that the evidence for cataclysmic climate change is undeniable. The counterclaim, psychologically, is that those who make such a statement are acting out the dictates of a set of ideas that are not scientific, but much more something akin to an ideological or even religious movement, unrecognised though that may be to the holders of the doctrine."