There's another way to look at this. Let's take at face value rising emissions and rising CO2, as logical consequences of global population rising to 8b, and consumption per capita converging towards "Western" levels.

It is known that the earthly carbon-cycle, even though it is 10x the scale of human emissions, can only absorb about 1/2 said emissions.

"Climate science" says we humans can magically reduce our emissions and magically increase our carbon captures, to extent that the earth can reliably "net out" 100% of human emissions, each and every year. That is not "science" at all, it is an egotistical bedtime story, that Western upper classes share among themselves, for the feel-good. The key beneficiaries of this bedtime story are, you guessed, the ~ 3b of China and India.

There is no climate crisis.

Bowen is spending our money on a trip to China and India to "discuss" our roll-out of renewable energy with China:and India. Why? Surely he has blathered enough about it that the message would have reached outer space by now.

So, a chemical engineer and executive director of a decieptfully-name climate denialist group wants us to believe that the science behind climate change is wrong.

What a dud.

Tom Harris’s argument crumbles under the weight of overwhelming scientific consensus and basic logic.

That "the science driving the climate scare is wrong" is a claim contradicted by every major scientific institution on Earth. Climate change is one of the most rigorously studied phenomena in history, backed by decades of empirical data and peer-reviewed research.

Not some fringe theory.

Dismissing it based on material from the Heartland Institute - a fossil fuel-linked lobby group better known for denying smoking causes cancer - is intellectually bankrupt.

His analogy comparing renewable energy policy to unneeded cancer treatment fails spectacularly. Climate change is not some hypothetical diagnosis; it’s a rapidly unfolding reality, already fuelling extreme weather, food insecurity, and rising insurance and infrastructure costs. Ignoring it is like refusing chemo while your scans show aggressive metastasis.

The idea that CO2 is merely a "life-giving molecule" is laughably simplistic. Some chemical engineer this guy must be.

By that logic, we should also champion arsenic because trace amounts are "natural."

Attacking groups that accept climate science but want renewables sited responsibly makes no sense, either. They're engaging with reality, while Harris is urging us to pretend the house isn’t on fire so we can keep burning more fuel.

This isn’t about "being brave enough to question the narrative." It’s about being informed enough to recognise when propaganda is dressed up as scepticism.

The elephant in the room? If there is a climate crisis then why is Australia pursuing a solution as extravagant and unfeasible as Germania while most of the rest of the world does nothing?

Some crisis. If only the pursuit of a BS solution did not have the dire economic and environmental consequences.

The only problem homo sapiens, and by extension every animal species, has is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
Solve this and all other problems and "crises" disappear.

Embarrassingly, Adelaide's Labor Government is panting to host COP 31 in 2026.

So, given the huge distance Adelaide is from the rest of the world, and the carbon dioxide emitted getting here, the SA government must also agree that the CO2 cause of climate change idea is bullsh.t. Hypocrites.

The SA government, like their federal counterparts, also wants more migrants, despite the extra carbon dioxide those migrants emit. Hypocrites.

Ah yes, ttbn.

The classic "if you care about carbon, why do you ever leave the house?" argument. It’s a bit like saying doctors shouldn’t attend medical conferences because planes exist - as if addressing global health means never flying to do so.

Nothing embarrassing there at all.

Yes, conferences emit carbon. So do hospitals. So do rescue helicopters. The point isn’t to eliminate all emissions overnight - it’s to reduce them systematically over time while still running a functioning society. Hosting COP31 in Adelaide doesn’t disprove climate science any more than firefighters using fuel to get to a bushfire proves they’re not worried about fire.

As for the claim that migrants cause too much CO2 - that’s just recycled anti-immigration rhetoric with a thin green coat.

CO2 emissions are driven more by how people live than where they live. Many migrants come from low-emitting countries and actually increase their carbon footprint by moving to high-consumption countries like Australia - because we emit more per person, not because they do. If you’re serious about reducing emissions, the answer isn’t fewer migrants - it’s cleaner infrastructure, better transport, and a smarter energy grid.

Otherwise, blaming climate action while dismissing climate science just leaves you with one thing: hypocrisy.

And idiocy.