Climate debate big on emotions but not on science

MANY people are emotionally or financially engaged, not intellectually engaged, in the climate debate.

To be intellectually engaged and looking for the truth you need to look back into the past and see what effect carbon dioxide had on temperature. As Winston Churchill said: “The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you are likely to see.”

History is the most powerful analytical tool. If people want the truth about global warming and carbon dioxide then do this history assignment.

“The history of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature.”

If you write in your assignment because a lot of scientists say so and little facts then you would get an F.

If, however, you quote the raw ice core data where you find peak carbon comes 600- 800 years after peak warming ( it should happen the other way around if CO2 warms the planet) you are on the way for a good mark.

There are lots of other facts from the raw ice core data that you can put in your assignment all pointing to CO2 having little effect on temperature such as there being much higher CO2 levels in the past than today and the world going into ice ages.

Just this week, Bill Shorten called CO2 a pollutant. CO2 is a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas essential for life, plant food. No scientist would call it a pollutant.

Humans, according to the IPCC, contribute 3 per cent of all CO2 that goes into the atmosphere. The Californian bush fires have probably contributed more. Future generations will look back at us in disbelief. Is it because we have had 26 years of economic growth without a recession that has made us intellectually soft? What is happening today in the climate change debate is a carbon copy of when close to 100 per cent of scientists told Galileo the sun revolved around the Earth.

All you need to do is replace the sun revolved around the Earth with carbon dioxide is warming the planet.