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>