It's hardly worth wasting good pixels on this nonsense.

Mike Pope says: Over the next three decades it is likely that our maritime borders will become increasingly porous and more difficult to defend because of a massive increase in the number of refugees seeking to enter our country by boat. The vast majority are likely to be climate refugees forced from their homeland by coastal flooding and food scarcity.

That's a great line in scaremongering, of course, up their with the best, or worst, of fantasies. But your evidence, Mike? What is the evidence for that, since we've had 18 years of slight DECLINE in global average temperatures?

"James Hansen and colleagues" you say? On the basis that they've "published a paper"?

Get a life, Mike.

Hi Calwest,

Thanks, I hadn't thought about 'food scarcity'.

As I understand it, Pacific islands are in the Pacific Ocean. The Pacific Ocean contains quite a bit of water, in which there are fish. People from those islands used to catch fish in abundance, in fact, they pretty much used to live on it. Oodles of it. Yes, admittedly, with modern fishing techniques, there are probably fewer oodles than there used to be, but maybe the best aid Australia can give to the islands is to pay for the down-payments on a few fishing boats.

From faulty memory, I think there used to be a fish-processing factory on at least one of the islands - Nauru ? There are meat-processing factories in Fiji - so why not a much more co-ordinated fishing industry across the islands, capturing every step in the value chain, from catching, boat-building and repair, up to canning and transport ?

You know it makes sense.

Joe

BTW everybody,

Just a pedantic point: the people flooding into Europe at present are not "economic refugees". Refugees flee AWAY FROM a threat.

These people are, for the vast majority - and they say so themselves on the TV news most nights - economic invaders. Invaders more TOWARDS their objective, which is the relatively easy life in Europe.

Loudmouth, nothing of what you say provides any justification of climate policy. To do that, you need to understand and answer the arguments that you have just ignored. Merely *repeating* false and half-arsed assumptions and beliefs doesn't make them true.

Mike, why do you bother writing articles when you aren't interested in the fact that what you're saying is demonstrably untrue? I know that you know it's untrue, because I have shown you multiple complete categorical demonstrations that you are wrong, even in your own terms, and you have no answer.

You know, don't you, that science:
1. does not supply value judgments?
2. cannot consist of appeal to absent authority?
3. cannot rest on assuming what is in issue?

Admit that, and you will have shown that you agree that your arguments are false.

Don't admit it, and you will have shown that you don't understand what science is. You are confusing it with religious orthodoxy and mere herd-bleat, which is what you're putting forward.

Hi Jardine,

Who said irony wasn't wasted on the young ?

There are three examples of fraud that I listen for, when I hear someone talk about sea-level rise: the Nile Delta, Bangla Desh, and Pacific Islands.

Thanks, Mike.

Joe

Mr Jardine, it does not appear that you have understood or even read the Paper cited in the article and authored by some of the worlds leading climate scientists and specialists in their fields. You may feel that your own knowledge is superior to theirs and you are of course entitled to that view – though others may not share it.

Without naming any particular matter, you claim that my views are wrong but offer no evidence of this published in an authoritative scientific Paper. With regard to the various “authorities” you cite as supportive of your position, I note they all include you. They appear to be OLO commentators expressing a personal view