Mike

Don’t you realise what a complete clown you’re making of yourself, and everyone who agrees with you?

It’s like, checkmate in one move. As soon as you’re called on your implicit premise that the principles of logic don’t apply to science, you’re left floundering, and gaping like a goldfish.

And we haven’t even got to any substantive issue yet, because you have to be dragged kicking and screaming to forego your facile technique of pretended ignorance and blatant dishonesty.

So you try to pretend it all isn’t happening by ignoring my questions, as if by this obvious evasion you can attain your hope that rationality won’t apply to the discussion, and you can just carry on your usual rhetorical bumf just circularly assuming everything in your own, and the State’s, favour.

Since you obviously haven’t understood the most basic concept of rationality, it minimally means something *in relation to something else*, fool. Unless you can account for the costs side of the equation - both in the status quo and your preferred counter-factual - you’ve got nothing but irrationality.

You have lost the argument before you got to square one, because even if you did admit that the principles of logic must apply to science, you will thereby admit that your methodology is false.

But quite apart from that, you will still face the impossible further hurdles of:
1. Showing by some impartial rational criterion that the downsides of global warming necessarily outweigh the upsides, and in particular how you took account of the ecological variables worldwide; and the human evaluations involved in both the status quo, and your proposed counter-factual, and
2. Showing that policy can necessarily do better, using some rational criterion, and showing how you took account of the all-critical human evaluations either way.

You haven’t even understood what the argument is about, and appear to be under the false impression that fashionable pious posing is what clinches the argument. But that’s not science and you know it.

So, come on. What are the answers to my three questions?

Mr Jardine, Thank you for your views but I comment on article content not distractions or facile posturing.

We already know why "refugees" need to flee their own countries, Mike Pope. They are fleeing the consequences of their own multi cultures failure to create prosperous, stable, and economically viable countries. The cultures of the North European Protestant people is renowned for building successful communities everywhere in the world that they have gone. And the ever increasing numbers of people from failed cultures see their immigration into our societies as the only hope they have, to ever acquire economic security.

Those countries which enriched their own cultures by taking the very best aspects of North European Protestant culture are doing just fine. Those priest, witch doctor, and mullah ridden societies which refused to adopt any aspect of North European culture, or who were not bright enough to acquire it even if they wanted it, went backwards into the future.

Sixty years ago, many of these failed states were sneering at the "colonialists" who had bestowed upon their societies stable and usually fair governments, the rule of common law, education, technology, and commerce. After demanding that the whites get out of their countries and leave them alone, they spiralled back down into barbarism. Then they got an idea. Hey! Lets go and live with whitey! The Euros will give us houses and money! They have this "asylum" policy, and all we have to do is say that we are "oppressed", and we are in like Flynn!

Of course, one would have thought that such people might be grateful for being admitted to advanced societies, and would repay their hosts by having a much lower crime rate than that of the host population. But that was a forlorn hope. With crime rates committed by "refugee" ethnicities multiple times higher than the host populations, it just goes to show why most "refugee" ethnicities can not create viable and stable societies themselves.

Get it through your overly thick cranium, Mike, that "refugees", unless carefully vetted, and capable of assimilation, are a danger to your own people and society. As an Australian, the safety of your own people should be your prime concern.

u summed it up well Lego however unfortunately by allowing the socialist to take over all education institutions most of our young have been taught to despise what has given them such an easy life. Those that came here and worked hard now have to listen to this c-p which more often than not comes from people who have known nothing but to suck on the public purse.

Mike

Do you, or do you not understand 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 or other logical fallacy?

Thank you Lego – but I think we are talking about different things. The article postulates an influx of climate refugees around mid-century, while your comment relates more to present day ‘immigration’ facilitated by people smugglers.

I broadly agree with your sentiments that Australia should control its borders firmly and resolutely. It is doing so - but will it be able to continue doing so in the face of climate related disasters affecting Australia and countries to its north?