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?