Right on cue, this same day, you can read ineffable beltway-eminence Dr MS Keating, over at John Menadue Pearls & Irritations:

"A carbon tax will obviously help reduce emissions and achieve net-zero target, but will also help raise revenue needed to fund essential government services, and promote economic development."

Regular OLO readers might guess, which article is more Received Wisdom at Australian Treasury. In the Employment Department, I worked for MSK, decades ago. Goes without saying - we were chalk and cheese.

This article reads like a conspiracy theorist discovered a thesaurus.

This joker lurches from climate denial to anti-immigration panic, with side quests into DEI paranoia and half-digested quotes from public intellectuals. His claim - that net-zero is some elite scam - gets buried under sarcasm, acronyms, and sneering cultural resentment.

Rather than challenge climate science, he just ridicules it. That’s the play: strip the issue of complexity, frame concern as hysteria, and mask the absence of substance with smug derision. It’s not analysis - it’s a vibe war, and he hopes eye-rolls will pass for argument.

He leans hard into population panic, blaming everything from emissions to housing unaffordability on immigration - ignoring that Australia's sky-high per capita emissions come from entrenched fossil fuel use, not headcount. The housing crisis isn’t caused by net-zero targets, it’s caused by policy failures Saunders conveniently ignores.

The real trick here is inversion. He paints the powerful as helpless pawns of “woke” ideology, while claiming the real victims are everyday Australians burdened by green energy and migrants. It’s classic culture-war sleight of hand: punch down, pretend you’re punching up.

He ridicules leaders and experts but offers nothing in return. No roadmap, no solutions - just contempt in search of an audience. This isn’t resistance, it’s retreat. A foghorn of frustration, dressed up as critique.

If this is what passes for intellectual pushback against climate action, then we’re not dealing with an alternative vision - we’re dealing with a tantrum. And it’s wearing thin.

Hi Mr Daysh. Good to hear from you again. Some solutions are simple - cut immigration to 80,000 not Albanese 400,000-500,000, introduce meaningful gas reservation and/or export levies, drop fake net-zero.

In the second section, I present a detailed argument, with about 30 citations, why net-zero doesn't add up. Instead of engaging with that, you resort to personal abuse and accuse me of "punching down".

Ordinary people want affordable housing, low migration, lower energy bills, that's what I'm representing. I'm punching up, at overpaid charlatans like Laura Tingle, Tim Flannery, Ross Garnaut. Who are indeed woke.

The author is exactly correct in pointing out that efforts to reduce emissions, let alone get to the mythical net zero, are incompatible with the massive increase in Australia's population.

Every new immigrant increases the call on resources and increases the level of emissions. Australia's per capita emissions are around 15 tonnes and therefore each new immigrant adds 15 tonnes to our overall emissions. A government that truly believed that the level of emissions was a existencial threat would be looking to hold the popluation level steady at the very least.

That in this conflict between emission levels and population levels the government errs on the side of increased population shows their true committment to the net zero cult. Austrlian governments need population growth. Its the only mechanism they have that grants economic growth. Were it not for a rising population we would be in very near permanent recession. As it is, we are in near permanent per capita recession, but this is hidden and/or glossed over.

Australians have been convinced that getting to net zero is achievable and desirable. Its the only way to save the Barrier Reef we are told or the only way to avoid droughts and floods. Its rubbish but they've been taught to buy it. They've also been taught that achieving net zero is essentially painless even though the pain is obvious. So power prices rise and the government hides it via ever increasing subsidies ie they mortgage the future to hide the problems of the present.

The people want power that is green, cheap and reliable. But they can't have all three and governments since 2006 have floundered trying to hide that fact. You can have green and reliable, but it won't be cheap. You can have cheap and reliable but it won't be green etc etc.

Eventually they'll come to realise it

Steve,

Cutting immigration and scrapping net-zero aren’t solutions, they’re talking points. There’s no engagement with the structural causes of housing unaffordability or high energy costs. Instead, you lean on cultural resentment and broad-brush dismissal.

If you believe net-zero is a scam, then engage with the evidence. Mocking public figures and branding climate science “woke” is mere theatre.

You say you’re “punching up,” but the targets you choose (immigrants, scientists, broadcasters) aren’t exactly running the show. Meanwhile, the industries actually fuelling environmental decline get a free pass. That imbalance says a lot.

______

mhaze,

Your comment reads like it came from the back of a napkin at a Sky After Dark wrap party. The idea that every migrant somehow personally emits 15 tonnes of CO2 - as if they show up trailing smoke - isn’t just wrong, it’s embarrassingly simplistic.

Per capita emissions reflect the carbon intensity of the systems we live under - how we power homes, fuel transport, design cities. Change those systems, and emissions fall. But instead of talking about grids, storage, or energy reform, you pin it all on population growth. Why challenge industries or rethink the economy when you can just yell “immigration” and act like it explains everything?

Your solution to climate change? Apparently, sulking about net-zero until it goes away. Calling it a “cult” isn’t edgy, it’s what people say when they’ve got no workable alternative and want to sound clever while doing nothing. You’re not exposing a con, you’re performing detachment for applause.

And let’s not pretend your economic concern is principled. If we’re in “per capita recession,” the adult response is productivity reform - not shrugging off climate collapse like it’s someone else’s problem. Dressing surrender up as clarity doesn’t make you a realist. It makes you a narrator for decline.

Holy cow JD, how many ways can you misrepresent what I said? Or is it that you just can't understand what I said?

1. I didn't say immigrants come here trailing smoke. How childish. I said that Australia's per capita emissions are 15 tonnes and haven't materially changed for ages. So add more 'capitas' and you get more emissions. Does the math elude you? These people come. They need cars and fuel and electricity and white goods and food and water and and and .... All of that creates emissions. Fewer people = fewer emissions. Its really not hard to fathom.... unless you just want to not get it.

2. I wasn't blaming immigration for the system's failure to reduce emissions. Just pointing out that if reducing emissions was their primary goal they'd reduce immigration. I thought it was an easily understood point but it seems it eludes some.

3. I haven't offered a workable alternative "solution to climate change" because we don't need a solution. So-called climate change (it used to be global warming!!) isn't a problem requiring solutions. I've explained it many times before but it seems it eludes some.

4. You completely missed (or ignored) my point about our per capita recession. I was pointing out that the ONLY thing stopping a per capita recession from being a national recession is immigration and that's why governments continue to import people, placing avoiding recession ahead of reducing national emissions. A rather easily understood point, but it seems to elude some.

mhaze,

You can call it “eluding” all you like, but what you’re really upset about is that I didn’t just nod along.

1. You say it’s “childish” to mock your 15-tonnes-per-migrant logic, but then you literally reiterate it: more people = more emissions. Yes, that’s basic arithmetic. What you skip over is that what creates those emissions - cars, fuel, electricity - is not inevitable. It depends on the systems we build. You treat the current emissions profile like a law of physics, not a policy choice. That’s either lazy or willfully blind.

2. Claiming you weren’t blaming immigration while arguing that reducing immigration is the logical path to emissions reduction is like saying you’re not blaming the rain for flooding, you just think we should abolish clouds. You’re playing rhetorical dodgeball. Again.

3. Thank you for confirming the central point: you don’t think climate change is real or worth solving. That makes the rest of your commentary - on emissions, on net-zero, on trade-offs - entirely hollow. You're not criticising climate policy because it’s ineffective; you're criticising it because you want it to fail. Of course you haven’t offered a solution - you don’t believe there’s a problem. It’s all just theatre to you.

4. As for your “easily understood” point about immigration propping up growth: yes, we all got it. What you leave out - again - is that this says more about how broken our economic model is than it does about climate policy. You frame it like it’s a gotcha, when it’s just a long-known structural flaw.

So to recap: climate change isn’t real, net-zero is pointless, immigration is bad, and governments are lying to avoid recession. But I’m the one not getting it?

No, I got it. I just didn’t buy it. Your argument isn’t elusive - it’s empty.

"So to recap: climate change isn’t real, net-zero is pointless, immigration is bad, and governments are lying to avoid recession."

No, climate change is real. Just not dangerous.

Net zero is pointless because its unattainable.

Immigration is good. Just not at the current levels in the current economic circumstances.

Governments aren't lying about the per capita recession. Its there for all to see, if they are open to seeing it. But they are showing that they're more concerned about avoiding a technical recession than reducing emissions.... which is the real climate denial.

"reducing immigration is the logical path to emissions reduction "

Wrong again. Reducing immigration doesn't reduce emissions, just slows the growth in emissions which you refuse to acknowledge

mhaze,

Thanks for the clarification, though your rewording doesn’t change much. It's just denialism lite.

So climate change is real, just not dangerous. Net zero is still pointless, immigration is still too high, and governments aren’t lying, they’re just actively choosing GDP over emissions cuts. Slightly softer packaging, same message underneath.

You now say the climate’s changing but not in any way we should worry about. That’s a hefty claim. So where’s the evidence? Because the global scientific consensus, from CSIRO to the IPCC, says otherwise. Marcott et al. (2013) shows modern warming is unprecedented in at least 11,000 years. Neukom et al. (2019) confirms it’s not just the warmest, but the most globally synchronous spike in the entire Common Era. Are they all wrong, or just inconvenient?

You downplay the risks, dismiss mitigation as “unattainable,” and treat emissions as a headcount issue - yet still want to be seen as the sober voice of reason. What you’re actually doing is shifting goalposts and dressing up delay as prudence.

Yes, reducing immigration slows emissions growth. That’s not some earth-shattering insight - it’s arithmetic. The question is whether that’s a meaningful climate strategy, or just a neat way to keep the spotlight off fossil fuels, corporate emissions, and energy reform. In a high-polluting country like ours, blaming new arrivals for the smoke while defending the chimney is hardly serious policy.

You say governments prioritise growth over emissions cuts, and call that the form of climate denial. Odd, considering your own position seems to be: “It’s happening, but don’t worry about it, don’t fix it, and don’t bother trying.”

Maybe you’ve convinced yourself that inaction is the clever, contrarian stance. But to everyone else, it just looks like the same old refusal to act, only now with a thesaurus.

"You now say the climate’s changing but not in any way we should worry about. "

Not 'now'. I've been saying it for 30 years.

"Marcott et al. (2013) shows modern warming is unprecedented in at least 11,000 years. "

Still getting Marcott wrong? Wow. Marcott shows that current temperatures are not at all unusual...."Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. " (from the abstract to Marcott2013.

"dismiss mitigation as “unattainable,”

No. I'm completely in favour of mitigation. Or at least 'no regrets mitigation'. That is, do things that would be good for the nation irrespective of future weather events.

"Yes, reducing immigration slows emissions growth. That’s not some earth-shattering insight - it’s arithmetic. "

Oh good. that's what I said earlier. Good to see you caught on or caught up. Its also what the author said although you seemed to miss it.

"blaming new arrivals for the smoke.."
oops. And just when I was thinking you caught up. I'm not blaming the immigrants at all. Just pointing out that if governments really wanted to reduce emissions, they'd reduce immigration. Frankly I want immigration reduced for lots of reasons, but reducing emissions isn't one of them. But it makes no logical sense for those who fret about emissions to not support reductions in immigration.

"Maybe you’ve convinced yourself that inaction is the clever..."

Again, not inaction. Just different action. Net zero is unattainable and it'll cost us (actually our grandkids) enormously to find that out.

Noted, mhaze.

//Not ‘now’. I've been saying it for 30 years.//

You’ll excuse me if I’m not too embarrassed by the correction though, won't you? There’s not much daylight between denialism and denialism-lite.

So for 30 years you’ve insisted climate change is real, but not dangerous? That’s not scientific caution. That’s ideological inertia. Thirty years of warming, records broken, ice sheets melting - and you still think there’s nothing to worry about?

Again, where's your evidence?

//Marcott shows that current temperatures are not at all unusual…//

Still cherry-picking, I see.

Yes, the abstract notes that modern temperatures haven’t yet exceeded the warmest peaks of the Holocene. But the findings show the rate of warming in the last century is unprecedented across that entire timespan. That’s the point - and one you keep dodging. Marcott clarified this multiple times. Are you hoping no one checks?

//I’m completely in favour of mitigation. Or at least ‘no regrets’ mitigation…//

Which is just a polite way of saying: only do things I already like. That’s not climate policy - it’s a curated wishlist. Anything meaningful gets tossed as “too expensive” or “pointless.” It’s mitigation without the miti.

//Good. That’s what I said earlier.//

No, what you said earlier was that I didn’t understand you. Now that I repeat your maths, I’ve suddenly “caught up”? You can’t have it both ways.

//I’m not blaming immigrants at all…//

You’re blaming emissions growth on their arrival, then insisting you’re neutral. That’s not neutrality, that’s deflection with a smile. It’s assigning weight without taking responsibility. Rhetorical laundering.

//Again, not inaction. Just different action.//

You dismiss every serious decarbonisation pathway as unworkable, then offer up “no regrets” policies with no timeline, targets, or teeth. That’s not different action. That’s standing still and narrating it like progress.

You try to sound like the voice of reason. But scratch the surface, and it’s the same old obstruction - just with a PowerPoint template.

"Thirty years of warming, records broken, ice sheets melting - and you still think there’s nothing to worry about?"

30 years of being told the dams will never fill only to see them overflow.
30 years of being told cities like Perth would be ghost towns.
30 years of being told downtown NYC would be underwater by now.
30 years of being told snow would be a thing of the past by now only to find no change in snow cover; London has had more white Christmases this century than the whole of the last century; Australia's snow fields would disappear only to see predictions of a record season this year..
30 years during which the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013 - hint it wasn't
30 years during which the ECS has been constantly falling.
30 years of being told that there would be 50 million climate refugees by now - hint that was wrong and the UN has tried to hide it.
30 years of being told.....etc etc

"You dismiss every serious decarbonisation pathway as unworkable,.."

No. Just net zero by 2050. Its a pipe dream that'll never be achieved.
What you fail to understand is I don't care about decarbonisation. I don't think it matters. I know you've fully fallen for the story, but I haven't.

We will decarbonise at some point when some unknown new technology will make burning fossil fuels obsolete. But until then I'm fine with oil, gas, coal etc. I'm also fine with the alternatives like roof-top solar, wind etc, but am opposed to the costly subsidies that enable them.

"You try to sound like the voice of reason. "

I don't have to try...</grin>

Noted again, mhaze.

So now we’re doing the greatest hits of climate denial. A grab bag of out-of-context media quotes, off-the-cuff remarks, and vague generalisations - none of which come from the scientific bodies you’ve spent years ignoring.

Let’s be clear:
- The IPCC never predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013.
- Marcott and Neukom aren’t UN press releases.
- Drought and dam level speculation from individual scientists or journalists &#8800; consensus science.
- The “50 million refugees” line was a flawed projection in a 2005 UNEP map - never adopted by the IPCC or climate science bodies, and corrected publicly. Your UN cover-up story? Tinfoil hat stuff.

In short, your list proves nothing about the science. It just shows that if someone said something overly dramatic on the ABC in 2004, you’ve never forgotten it. Meanwhile, global temperature, sea level, and ocean heat content continue rising - quietly, consistently, and very much in line with mainstream climate models.

And now you say plainly: “I don’t care about decarbonisation. I don’t think it matters.”

Well, that explains everything. All the hand-waving, the population bait-and-switch, the fixation on net zero “pipe dreams” - it’s all theatre to justify a position you’ve already decided on: do nothing.

You’ve been asked multiple times: Where is your evidence that climate change is real but not dangerous? You still haven’t answered. Instead, you give us a smirk and a shrug.

You don’t sound like the voice of reason. You sound like the guy cracking jokes in the lifeboat queue.

Suddenly it doesn't count unless the IPCC says it? Why? I never mentioned the IPCC.

Its the same old story about climate predictions. All predictions that we're all gunna die are true until proven false and then they are memory-holed. That's something I've seen over the last 30 years.

"Well, that explains everything. All the hand-waving, the population bait-and-switch, the fixation on net zero “pipe dreams” - it’s all theatre to justify a position you’ve already decided on: do nothing."

Its like talking to a brick wall. What I've been writing about is the hypocrisy of those with a carbon fetish. If you're in favour of reducing CO2 emissions to save the GB or whatever, then you shouldn't be in favour of immigration that increases Australia's emissions. I don't have a CO2 fetish and therefore don't care about emissions. But I can still observe and point out the hypocrisy of others.

"You’ve been asked multiple times: Where is your evidence that climate change is real but not dangerous? "

Asked and answered.

What's your evidence that its dangerous enough to upended western civilisation?

No, mhaze, that's always been the case.

//Suddenly it doesn't count unless the IPCC says it?//

Or any peer-reviewed literature, yes.

You don’t have to mention the IPCC. I referenced it because it represents the global scientific consensus, drawing on hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. You dismissed that consensus and are now acting as if any reference to it is a deflection. It’s not. It’s the foundation of informed policy.

//Its the same old story about climate predictions. All predictions that we're all gunna die are true until proven false and then they are memory-holed. That's something I've seen over the last 30 years.//

Vague hand-waving. Which predictions? Made by whom? In what context? You can’t just wave at "predictions" as if all climate science is a monolith of doom. The IPCC and scientific bodies make projections with ranges, confidence levels, and caveats. Misunderstood or cherry-picked media summaries aren't equivalent to peer-reviewed risk assessments.

//I don't have a CO2 fetish and therefore don't care about emissions. But I can still observe and point out the hypocrisy of others.//

And there it is.

You don’t care about emissions, yet spend post after post pretending to debate their relevance. That’s the problem. You’re not arguing in good faith. You attack others for perceived inconsistency while refusing to commit to any principles of your own. If you genuinely believed emissions weren’t a problem, you wouldn’t need to tie yourself in knots pretending to care about policy coherence.

//Asked and answered.//

Where? You’ve never offered a coherent citation or argument for your position. You repeatedly dodge the distinction between recognising warming and downplaying its consequences. That’s not an answer - that’s rhetorical sleight-of-hand.

//What's your evidence that it's dangerous enough to upended western civilisation?//

This is classic misdirection. No one is arguing we should "upend" civilisation. We’re arguing that climate disruption poses serious risks to stability, health, agriculture, and biodiversity. Acting preemptively is called risk management - not radicalism. Waiting until every disaster is undeniable is a recipe for real collapse.

Try again.

"If you genuinely believed emissions weren’t a problem, you wouldn’t need to tie yourself in knots pretending to care about policy coherence."

The issue is that the dominant policy settings these days seek to reduce emissions which is massively expensive and unnecessary. That's why even those who think emissions aren't a problem need to talk about them and point out the hypocrisy of those who fret about each ton of CO2.

Thanks, mhaze.

//That's why even those who think emissions aren't a problem need to talk about them and point out the hypocrisy of those who fret about each ton of CO2.//

Right. So you don’t think emissions are a problem, but you do think it’s important to insert yourself into conversations about emissions policy - not to improve it, not to offer alternatives, but to call everyone else a hypocrite?

Sounds like whataboutism as a hobby.

You’re not arguing against climate action because you’ve carefully assessed the risks and found them lacking. You’re arguing against climate action because you’ve decided in advance that it’s all overblown, and you’d rather spend your time poking holes in everyone else’s consistency than examine your own - even if it means inventing holes that were never there to begin with.

You’ve been asked repeatedly for a coherent case that climate change isn’t dangerous. Your “answer” is a parade of misrepresented predictions, off-the-cuff remarks deniers regularly present as scientific predictions, media headlines, and strawmen - none of which engage with the core risk assessments from scientific bodies. You talk endlessly about “costs” of decarbonisation while treating the costs of inaction as irrelevant or imaginary.

At this point, you’re not even pretending to argue in good faith. You’re not here to have your views tested, you’re here to test the patience of others.

That’s fine. Just don’t confuse trolling for insight. Or yourself for a sceptic. You’ve long since crossed the line into ideology.

OK JD you've bought the great CO2 story and are convinced we're all gunna die if we keep burning fossil fuels. You don't know how that'll happen, you don't know when it'll happen, but you've been told it'll happen and that's good enough.

Its just a lie that I've avoided providing answers about why its not dangerous. I've been addressing that issue in these pages for over a decade. You walk in at the end of the conversation and pretend that the snippet you've heard is the full extent. It ain't.

Might be of interest to some although not those who've bought the great scare without to much fore-thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ33ygHasW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDs4sWsdts

No, mhaze, I haven’t.

//OK JD you’ve bought the great CO2 story…//

Not if by "bought" you mean accepted it gullibly. Sorry, but the snark looks petty. It is possible to deliver snark in a way that is well-executed and deserved, but you need to hold the high ground first. It's never a good look coming from someone who is STILL on the backfoot.

You’ve had multiple chances now to substantiate your central claim - that climate change is real but not dangerous - and you’ve dodged every one of them. What you haven’t done is cite a single piece of peer-reviewed science to back your position. Not one.

//You don’t know how or when it’ll happen, but you’ve been told it will, and that’s good enough.//

No, I’ve read the evidence. From IPCC AR6 to Neukom et al. to CSIRO State of the Climate, the risks are clearly laid out - rising extreme weather, sea-level rise, ecosystem collapse, crop stress, and economic instability. If you disagree, show your sources. If you can’t, stop pretending I’m the one who’s blindly trusting authority.

And by “read,” I actually mean read - not “swiped them from the reference list of a conspiracy blog” and assumed the crank who cited them had represented them accurately enough for me to later pretend I’d read “dozens.”

//I’ve been addressing that issue in these pages for over a decade…//

Then it should be easy for you to point to a single citation that supports your view. Instead, you wave vaguely at “thirty years of bad predictions” and declare victory. That’s not evidence. That’s just being loud for a long time.

You’ve tried to reframe this as me “walking in at the end” of a conversation you’ve been dominating. But length isn’t depth, my friend. Repetition isn’t rigour. And cynicism, no matter how polished, is not a substitute for substance.

If you have scientific evidence that the consequences of climate change are overstated, produce it. If you don’t, then the question remains unanswered - and your posture is just that: posture.

http://tiny.cc/9wsm001

Knowing how you seek to distort, I'll pre-emptively point out that this is just one of hundreds of such papers that I've seen over the decades. It just happens to be one I saw recently and particularly liked.

BTW even if your scare monster stores are true, what difference will Australia reaching net zero make to the outcome.

mhaze,

Sorry to be the one to break this to you, but that’s not a peer-reviewed paper. It’s a white paper from the CO2 Coalition, a lobbying group well known for pushing climate minimisation narratives. It’s formatted to look like academic work, but it hasn’t been peer-reviewed or published in any scientific journal. In short: it’s science theatre, not science.

As for this:

//Knowing how you seek to distort…//

That’s projection - and clumsy projection at that. You still haven’t cited a single peer-reviewed source to back your central claim (that climate change is real but not dangerous), while I’ve cited multiple (with a few more ready to go, once you're done obfuscating). And when asked for evidence, you respond with a political pamphlet wrapped in equations, then accuse me in advance of misrepresentation. Defensive deflection at its finest.

You say this is just “one of hundreds” of such papers you’ve seen over the decades. Maybe. But if this is what you’re choosing to submit as your standout example, it only confirms the weakness of your position. Is the best you’ve got?

As for your final question - what difference would Australia reaching net zero make? - that’s a separate policy debate. But it hinges on a question you still haven’t answered with evidence: why shouldn’t we act? If your entire argument rests on the premise that the danger is overstated, then that premise needs to be backed by more than blogs, videos, and unreviewed PDFs.

If your case has merit, show us the science.

It was published in "The American Journal of Economics and Sociology" which publishes peer-reviewed studies. QED.

By these criteria, the IPCC reports aren't peer-reviewed.

mhaze,

Yes, it was peer-reviewed - in a social science journal, by non-experts, and using arguments that wouldn’t survive scrutiny in any reputable climate science publication. That alone should tell you something.

Let’s be clear:

- The American Journal of Economics and Sociology is peer-reviewed - just not by the right peers. Reviewers in that journal are qualified to assess social and economic arguments, not physical climate science.

- It’s not a scientific journal of climate research. It publishes on economic theory, social systems, and policy - not geophysics, meteorology, or climate modelling.

The authors? Andy May is a retired petrophysicist, not a climate scientist. Marcel Crok runs a climate contrarian lobby group (Clintel), not a research institution. This paper isn’t novel research - it’s a rehash of long-debunked talking points, dressed up in the format of academic argument.

You say it’s “just one of hundreds” you’ve read. Fair enough - then surely you can do better than one published in a sociology journal that:

- Presents no new empirical data

- Relies on selective and misleading quotes from IPCC reports

- Cites bloggers, lobbyists, and other non-peer-reviewed opinion pieces as sources

And no, your jab at the IPCC doesn’t land. The IPCC’s scientific chapters are peer-reviewed by thousands of domain experts from around the world. Just because the summary for policymakers undergoes governmental review doesn’t mean the underlying science isn’t rigorously reviewed. It is - far more thoroughly than the paper you just linked.

Dear me, mhaze. Information literacy is just not your thing, is it?

Oh so you will only accept science from the people you consider reputable. Very close-minded of you. Personally I look at the data and the arguments rather than the messangers.

BTW can you prove to me that Catholicism isn't the best religion on earth. Oh and you can only use scholars who are attached to the Vatican.

mhaze,

No, it’s not about only accepting “science from people I consider reputable.” It’s about expertise - a principle you’d demand in any other domain.

You wouldn’t take a plumber’s opinion over a structural engineer’s on bridge design. So why are you taking a petrophysicist’s blog-based argument over climatologists who publish in actual climate journals?

Credentials demonstrate whether someone actually knows what they’re talking about. In science, that means being part of a field where your work is scrutinised by other experts, your methods are transparent, and your conclusions can be tested. That’s the difference between proper research and opinion dressed up to look like it.

Your Catholicism analogy completely misses the mark. Scientific claims are not mere beliefs, they’re testable and falsifiable. If someone says “this bridge will collapse under 10 tonnes,” the answer isn’t “well, you’re just being close-minded by ignoring the butcher’s opinion.” It’s: show us your calculations - and publish them in a journal where structural engineers can assess the methodology.

That’s all I’m asking of you: evidence, not diversion. You still haven’t addressed a single point from the paper I critiqued - its lack of data, misuse of sources, or the mismatch between its subject and the journal it was published in.

If you want to argue that climate change isn’t dangerous, fine. But make that case using climate science, not sociology journals, bloggers, and hand-waving appeals to “open-mindedness.” Open-mindedness isn’t the same as letting every unsupported idea through the gate.

So, once again: if you have peer-reviewed scientific evidence that climate change is real but not dangerous, produce it. If not, maybe stop pretending that scepticism means never having to show your work.

"Scientific claims are not mere beliefs, they’re testable and falsifiable. "

Neither of which you attempted to do.