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 ≠ 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.