Uploaded November 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The climate debate—and it absolutely is a debate.
Some people claim that there’s nothing to debate: “The science is settled,” “We have to act now, or else!” is what they say. But the very fact that people are debating this means the discussion is open. That’s the nature of debate. If everything was settled, there would be no argument to be had.
It’s like apples. Nobody is claiming that an apple is not a fruit. There’s no protesters on the street demanding that apples be recategorised as vegetables. That is a settled concept across the globe: Apples are fruit.
Unfortunately with climate science, the extremists have taken over. And it’s not even helping their cause.
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said in 2019: “I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic! I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is!”
In the same year, U.S. Congresswoman and activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” So we have six years left, and then the world explodes.
Former U.S. Vice President and professional climate alarmist Al Gore recently said: “The world releases 175 million tonnes of greenhouse gases daily into the atmosphere. The accumulated amount now traps as much extra heat as would be released by 750,000 first-generation atomic bombs exploding every day on the Earth!” That’s the kind of maths you get when you start with the panic and work your way backwards.
Essentially, the climate debate has been completely taken over by extremism. There is no sensible debate anymore that isn’t drowned out by scaremongering, hysteria, and overreaction.
Consequently, we have news outlets such as SBS reporting on “climate anxiety,” describing it as a “widespread mental health challenge.”
The worst thing is, if you try to question any of this, you’re immediately labelled a “climate denier.” There’s no middle ground in their eyes. You’re either with us and believe all our alarmist language—or you’re against us, a dirty, far-right, anti-science nutjob!
Whatever you think of American businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates, it’s hard to argue that he’s not a smart guy. Even though he’s a supporter of climate action, he clearly sees that climate alarmism has got out of control. In a piece he wrote last month titled “Three tough truths about climate,” he notes:
“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilisation. Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong.”
So, he’s dropping some truth bombs, which I guess the climate activists won’t like. Unsurprisingly, The Guardian are already after him, publishing headlines like: “Scientists criticise ‘straw man’ arguments in Bill Gates climate memo,” and, “I wish we could ignore Bill Gates on the climate crisis. But he’s a billionaire, so we can’t.”
Obviously, whatever happens, Bill Gates will be just fine. He can afford to pay for an entire wind farm and battery storage if he wants to just to keep his six-kitchen and 24-bathroom mansion running.
And now, in Australia, despite the Prime Minister and his Climate Change minister’s obsession with pushing for net zero at all costs, the Liberal–National Coalition has come out and said enough is enough.
The ABC reported a couple of weeks ago: “‘Found our voice’: Nationals abandon net zero by 2050 climate promise,” and then just last week: “Liberal Party formally abandons net zero by 2050 climate target.” Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said, “I could not be more clear when I say we are removing net zero targets and long-term targets from our policy. We are not pursuing a policy of net zero. Our emissions reduction goals will never come at the expense of Australian families and this is the principle that will guide every decision we take.”
Cue the outrage! The Prime Minister was the first on the attack, with 9News reporting: “‘Clown show’: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese slams Liberal Party as ‘divided rabble’ over net zero debate.”
The Guardian reported: “Greens and independents line up to condemn Liberals’ net zero decision.” Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, “The Liberal party has been dragged by the nose into this anti-science, anti-environment, anti-economy position and they look like a bunch of nutters.”
Obviously, big companies are just opportunists. As long as their bottom line isn’t affected, they’re happy. For example, last year, The Australian reported: “Uber urges Aussies to give up second car to fight climate change.” Hmm, why would Uber want people to give up their second car? Perhaps because they want people to use Uber more often! Nah, nothing sus there!
Anyway, the Coalition has done away with net zero. After all the panic, the outrage, and the accusations of being “anti-science,” will voters back them up?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
The climate debate—and it absolutely is a debate.
Some people claim that there’s nothing to debate: “The science is settled,” “We have to act now, or else!” is what they say. But the very fact that people are debating this means the discussion is open. That’s the nature of debate. If everything was settled, there would be no argument to be had.
It’s like apples. Nobody is claiming that an apple is not a fruit. There’s no protesters on the street demanding that apples be recategorised as vegetables. That is a settled concept across the globe: Apples are fruit.
Unfortunately with climate science, the extremists have taken over. And it’s not even helping their cause.
Swedish activist Greta Thunberg said in 2019: “I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic! I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is!”
In the same year, U.S. Congresswoman and activist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in twelve years if we don’t address climate change.” So we have six years left, and then the world explodes.
Former U.S. Vice President and professional climate alarmist Al Gore recently said: “The world releases 175 million tonnes of greenhouse gases daily into the atmosphere. The accumulated amount now traps as much extra heat as would be released by 750,000 first-generation atomic bombs exploding every day on the Earth!” That’s the kind of maths you get when you start with the panic and work your way backwards.
Essentially, the climate debate has been completely taken over by extremism. There is no sensible debate anymore that isn’t drowned out by scaremongering, hysteria, and overreaction.
Consequently, we have news outlets such as SBS reporting on “climate anxiety,” describing it as a “widespread mental health challenge.”
The worst thing is, if you try to question any of this, you’re immediately labelled a “climate denier.” There’s no middle ground in their eyes. You’re either with us and believe all our alarmist language—or you’re against us, a dirty, far-right, anti-science nutjob!
Whatever you think of American businessman and philanthropist Bill Gates, it’s hard to argue that he’s not a smart guy. Even though he’s a supporter of climate action, he clearly sees that climate alarmism has got out of control. In a piece he wrote last month titled “Three tough truths about climate,” he notes:
“There’s a doomsday view of climate change that goes like this: In a few decades, cataclysmic climate change will decimate civilisation. Fortunately for all of us, this view is wrong.”
So, he’s dropping some truth bombs, which I guess the climate activists won’t like. Unsurprisingly, The Guardian are already after him, publishing headlines like: “Scientists criticise ‘straw man’ arguments in Bill Gates climate memo,” and, “I wish we could ignore Bill Gates on the climate crisis. But he’s a billionaire, so we can’t.”
Obviously, whatever happens, Bill Gates will be just fine. He can afford to pay for an entire wind farm and battery storage if he wants to just to keep his six-kitchen and 24-bathroom mansion running.
And now, in Australia, despite the Prime Minister and his Climate Change minister’s obsession with pushing for net zero at all costs, the Liberal–National Coalition has come out and said enough is enough.
The ABC reported a couple of weeks ago: “‘Found our voice’: Nationals abandon net zero by 2050 climate promise,” and then just last week: “Liberal Party formally abandons net zero by 2050 climate target.” Opposition Leader Sussan Ley said, “I could not be more clear when I say we are removing net zero targets and long-term targets from our policy. We are not pursuing a policy of net zero. Our emissions reduction goals will never come at the expense of Australian families and this is the principle that will guide every decision we take.”
Cue the outrage! The Prime Minister was the first on the attack, with 9News reporting: “‘Clown show’: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese slams Liberal Party as ‘divided rabble’ over net zero debate.”
The Guardian reported: “Greens and independents line up to condemn Liberals’ net zero decision.” Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, “The Liberal party has been dragged by the nose into this anti-science, anti-environment, anti-economy position and they look like a bunch of nutters.”
Obviously, big companies are just opportunists. As long as their bottom line isn’t affected, they’re happy. For example, last year, The Australian reported: “Uber urges Aussies to give up second car to fight climate change.” Hmm, why would Uber want people to give up their second car? Perhaps because they want people to use Uber more often! Nah, nothing sus there!
Anyway, the Coalition has done away with net zero. After all the panic, the outrage, and the accusations of being “anti-science,” will voters back them up?
MUSIC
Allégro by Emmit Fenn
