As the dust settles on the Coalition's belated decision to scrap Australia's 2050 net-zero target, Peter Smith's scathing op-ed in Quadrant, titled "Crazies versus Ditherers," nails the absurdity of our climate crusade. Published on November 23, 2025, Smith eviscerates the hubris of thinking humans can micromanage the planet's thermostat while exposing net zero as an economic suicide pact masquerading as virtue. From an unapologetically anti-net-zero vantage, let's dissect these themes: the unsettled science, the futility of fighting nature, the renewables racket, and the political paralysis that's left us with skyrocketing bills and flickering lights. It's time to call net zero what it is, a chimera, and chart a course back to reliable, affordable energy.

The Science Isn't Settled: Hubris Meets Hypothesis

Smith kicks off with a truth bomb: even Bill Gates admits we're not hurtling toward climate Armageddon. Dire predictions from the 1990s onward, melting ice caps, drowned cities, mass extinctions, have fizzled. Here we are, chugging along, with global temperatures ticking up marginally (if at all). Smith shares a personal anecdote: more heater use in Sydney this November than he recalls. Anecdotal? Sure, but it underscores a point, perceived warming doesn't match the hysteria.

Enter Professor Emeritus Ivan Kennedy's hypothesis: man-made CO2 gets reabsorbed into soils and oceans; the atmospheric spike comes from natural ocean warming. Smith spotlighted this earlier in 2025, and it's testable, grounded in physics. Kennedy isn't alone; sceptics like the CO₂ Coalition, led by Princeton's William Happer and Nobel laureate John Clauser, argue CO2's role is overstated. Science, as Smith reminds us, is never "settled;" a jab at Nationals leader David Littleproud, who parrots "no one is challenging the science" while ignoring dissent.

This hubris, believing we can "fix" the climate, echoes King Canute commanding the tides. Who thinks puny humans can override planetary forces? Apparently, Energy Minister Chris Bowen, ex-Liberal Matt Kean, and the ABC's echo chamber. Net zero assumes anthropogenic warming is dominant and reversible. But if natural cycles drive it, as Kennedy posits, our trillions in "action" are futile. Que será, será — whatever will be, will be.

Net Zero: Unattainable, Unnecessary, and Economically Ruinous

Smith's core indictment: net zero is impossible. Globally, despite squandering trillions, fossils still dominate. Using Our World in Data's substitution method (which inflates renewables' share for comparability), wind and solar scraped 6.4% of global primary energy in 2024. That's up from near-zero in 1999, but amid a 56% surge in total energy demand, coal's slice actually grew from 24.8% to 26.2%. Tear your hair out, climate alarmists.

The Energy Institute's 2025 Statistical Review switched to a "Physical Energy Content" methodology, slashing wind/solar's apparent contribution even further, likely below 6%. Renewables overall? Just over 8% of total energy demand. Intermittency bites hard: as penetration rises, grids destabilise. Offshore wind's exorbitant; landscapes revolt against turbine sprawl. Smith's right, boosting beyond current levels invites chaos.

In Australia, net zero's offspring, subsidised wind, solar, batteries, devours baseload. "All of the above" energy mixes, peddled by conservatives like Matt Canavan, are a fantasy. Coal and gas can't compete when renewables flood the market on sunny, windy days. Result? Premature plant closures, blackouts, and bills up 30% since 2020. Net zero means offsetting every emission, impossible without economic hari-kari.

The Renewables Racket: Subsidies, Grift, and Grid Grief

Smith proposes a radical fix: halt subsidies for new wind/solar/batteries. Compensate existing ones to vanish. Scrap mega-transmission lines and boondoggles like Snowy 2.0. Redirect savings to maintain coal, build efficient new plants (coal/gas), and eye nuclear for the long haul. Emissions? New tech will trim them anyway, enough to placate "moderates."

This isn't pie-in-the-sky; it's pragmatic. Renewables' "ugly footprint" grows objections; intermittency demands backup, inflating costs. Globally, wind/solar grew 16% in 2024, but fossils still rose to meet demand. Australia's black coal exports hit records, fuelling Asia's growth. Why sabotage our edge for a delusion?

The grift is real: developers pocket billions in subsidies while grids falter. Smith warns of unmanageable intermittency, echoed in California's rolling blackouts and Germany's Energiewende woes, where power prices tripled.

Political Paralysis: Crazies, Ditherers, and the Path Forward

Smith's dichotomy is spot-on: Labor/Greens as "crazies" chasing ruinous chimeras; Coalition as "ditherers" compromising into mediocrity. Dropping net zero was a "no-brainer," but resurrecting reliable energy demands spine. Littleproud's "we believe in climate change" Kool-Aid swig betrays ignorance of dissent.

Electorally, ditherers beat crazies, but both lead to hills-hiding. Australia needs conviction: sell fossil revival as affordable, reliable, job-creating. Nuclear? Fine, but coal/gas yesterday. Polls show voters prioritise bills over virtue-signalling; frame it as sovereignty, why beggar ourselves while China builds coal plants?

Conclusion: Time to Wake Up and Power On

Peter Smith's piece is a clarion call: net zero is a hoax offspring of a contested hypothesis. Science isn't settled; nature won't bend; renewables wreck economies. Ditch the delusion, embrace coal/gas/nuclear, and reclaim energy security. As Smith quips, better ditherers than crazies, but let's demand better. Head for reliable power, not the wind turbines. Australia's future depends on it.

https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/doomed-planet/crazies-versus-ditherers/