Guiding Questions

• Who controls the narrative around climate change?

• Can justice be achieved if science is politicized?

• Are humans truly responsible for global warming — or are we misunderstanding the planet’s natural rhythms?

The Earth Is Not Fragile — It’s Ancient

Our planet is over 4.5 billion years old. It has survived ice ages, asteroid impacts, and supervolcanoes — long before humans arrived.

Climate has never been stable:

• Earth’s position in the galaxy changes over tens of millions of years

• Solar radiation, cosmic dust, and orbital tilt affect long-term climate cycles

• Temperature fluctuations and CO₂ levels have always risen and fallen naturally

So why is there now such urgency — and fear — around “climate change”?

A Critical View: When Science Meets Politics

Some scientists and educators argue that:

• Climate data is selectively presented to support alarmist narratives

• Natural cycles are ignored or downplayed

• CO₂ — a gas essential to plant life — is wrongly portrayed as a “pollutant”

• Fear of warming is used to justify global control policies, limit development, and push ideological agendas

These concerns aren’t “denial” — they are philosophical and scientific critiques.

What Is Real Justice?

Justice must not be based on:

• Political fashion

• Emotion or fear

• Corporate or intergovernmental interests

True justice demands:

• Intellectual honesty

• Openness to multiple scientific perspectives

• Humility before nature’s complexity

It also requires recognizing innovation, not punishment, as the path forward.

An Example of Real Hope: Science for Humanity

While many speak of disaster, Chinese scientists have achieved something truly revolutionary:

They’ve developed a way to convert CO₂ into starch — a form of food — using natural energy.

This transforms a so-called “problem” into a resource, addressing:

• Food insecurity

• Carbon emissions

• Human progress — without fear or regression

This is science in service of justice, not control.

Competing Perspectives

Dominant View:

Humans are heating the planet; global action must reduce CO₂ and regulate behavior.

Critical View:

Climate cycles are natural; alarmism can lead to injustice, poverty, and manipulation under the name of “saving the planet.”

Reflect and Discuss

• Should scientific dissent be silenced — or welcomed?

• How do we tell the difference between care for the planet and political control?

• What innovations could make climate fear unnecessary?

 Coming next: Lesson 3 – The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Can Machines Be Just?