How will electric cars also contribute to the maintenance of roads?

Harvey Wall makes no point at all ("Debates need common sense", The Daily Advertiser, June 29). Common sense would be believing that you are not qualified to have an opinion on climate science as you're not a climate scientist.

Referring to the best science available is the opposite of faith, it's being informed.

I enjoy healthy debate as well, but Harvey's letter adds nothing but a patronising overtone to a very important issue that he dismisses as a bit of argy bargy.

Disputing opinions with facts isn't passion, nor is it emotion - its referencing science. The best science available tells us that if we don't act now to reduce the effects of climate change we will create an unliveable future for our children.

Be brave Harvey and all the other fence sitters. Take a position playing referee is neither here nor there. Shape without form.

READ MORE LETTERS:

Correspondent Rob Hennessy-Hawks has attempted to give us all a running commentary on climate facts as he sees it, using an 'everything is normal' approach ("Credibility goes on the line", The Daily Advertiser, July 1).

With respect to his assertion that trees breathe in CO2 and then breathe out oxygen he is essentially right, but that is basic and elementary science.

Problem is there are not enough trees to cope at the moment with the excess CO2.

To go on and say that CO2 enters our oceans and prevents them becoming acidic and toxic shows a lack of understanding of the true science.

CO2 levels in our oceans have been naturally occurring and stable for millions of years without any detectable acidification.

It is only in the last 200 years that these levels have risen above normal.

To suggest that the oceans have been free of acidification because "that carbon stuff" stops it, is patently wrong.

As CO2 levels rise in the oceans the more acidic they will become. Again another example of misinformed and uninformed commentary.

Your correspondent also says that the recent Gippsland floods prove that climate change credibility is seriously dinted after a Victorian politician claimed in 2019 that more dams will be useless if we don't have enough rain to fill them.

The claim also came with a caveat by the said politician that water in Victoria's rivers would halve by 2065.

Your correspondent's comments are curious as even climate change experts who believe the science, say linking any single event to global warming is complicated.

So linking a single flood event to prove everything is normal is straight forward and uncomplicated.

We need a better standard of debate here, with less fiction and more valid science.

HAVE YOUR SAY: Do you have something to get off your chest? Simply click here to send a letter to the editor.