The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The National Energy Review: an opportunity to steer us towards a healthy future > Comments

The National Energy Review: an opportunity to steer us towards a healthy future : Comments

By Graeme McLeay, published 11/10/2016

Energy security is vital, but to single out renewable energy as the cause of the outage is like blaming the cows when the milk truck breaks down.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
An excellent case for nuclear power.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 7:32:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But to NOT single out a major cause is Green Grifting. It has only happened because Adelaide power is so unbalanced by wildly variable "sources".

And it will only get worse, sheddable loads such as Arrium are closing and will not be replaced, no one will invest in SA now. This will increase any effects of the already volatile "sources".
Posted by McCackie, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:13:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Weekend Australian launched an attack on 'intermittent sources' with Environment Editor Graham Lloyd quoting Bjorn Lomborg, an analyst with no credibility in climate science institutions, claiming renewable energy will contribute only marginally to the ultimate climate change solution."

That amazes me, because a few years ago, Lomborg was saying the exact opposite.

When did he change his tune, and why?
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:48:19 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There was no 'superstorm', just a weather event that stopped the holy windmills and proved their unreliability. Neither wind nor solar can be 'synchronised' and used when such events occur.

What has climate change got to do with a 'one in 50 years event, by the way?

And what about the subsidies paid to fossil fuel production? Surely, the climate hysterics would be pumping that one for all it's worth, but it doesn't figure at all in their propaganda. If there is truth in it, at least the subsidies are going towards something that actually works.

Then we have this little snippet to spice things up: the WHO claims that 'climate change', a natural and regular phenomenon, "will cause the deaths of an extra 250,000 people per year. Yeah, well that sounds about as genuine as all of those other predictions - that were all proved wrong by nature - made by the climate hysterics cum rent seekers. You can't put us under, with your literary anaesthetic, doctor.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 10:16:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Tombee and feel Lomborg may have very good cause to change his position?

Due to the release of papers confirming SAFE, CLEAN ,CHEAP nuclear power as molten salt thorium reactors is a proven concept! Rejected fifties technology on the grounds there was no weapons spinoff!

If former green activists like Lomborg are able to realize that we have no more time to waste and that thorium could not only save the planet but end want and war.

Recent advances in low cost desalination utilizing deionization needs only clean cheap abundant energy to water the world! Make formerly inhospitable deserts bloom!

And as they do so provide safe harbors for 65 million currently displaced people.

Yes, thorium reactors are small and not ideally suited to a extremely vulnerable national grid! And their very advantage! Given they can be mass produced as walk away safe modules then trucked almost anywhere! And just beaver away through storm and tempest, whether transmission lines stand or fall, producing the world's cheapest energy as where and when you want! As well as opening up the very real possibility of creating synthetic fuels from seawater! Proven science, not theory!

The only thing preventing this now, is mind numbing political intransigence and the absolute absurdity that the government has no business in business!

But further compounded by rare stupidity of selling the energy sector and the farm to debt laden foreign speculators, [or worse, foreign government agencies,] who respond by price gouging, repatriating profits, avoiding fair and reasonable tax!

While we mugs out there in mugsville pay through the nose to monopolistic cartels!?

And then wonder why our economies seem to be going to hell in a handcart!

Government revenue continues to shrink while domestic and foreign debt goes through the roof into uncharted territory!

Insanity is doing what you've always done while expecting a different result! Take a leaf from Lomborg and let inescapable conclusions to allow you to chart a different course!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 11 October 2016 11:21:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pathetic piece of agitprop.

Graeme, science doesn't supply value judgments, whereas policy requires them, so this completely disposes of your entire article, and proves that you have understood neither the science nor the policy arguments.

Secondly, science doesn't mean blind faith in big-hat-wearing authority as the source of knowledge. You have misunderstood science to mean the *exact opposite* of what it actually means. The whole reason why the rise of scientific knowledge was revolutionary, was so that issues of fact would *not* be decided the way you are deciding them.

Thirdly, what you are talking about is weather, not climate.

Fourthly, since the premise of your climate change argument is that governmental control of the energy supply was the worst mistake in the history and pre-history of the whole world, therefore you have no basis for your *assumption* - which you neither identify nor defend - that the solution is more governmental action. You're contradicting yourself.

Fifthly, the ideologically-driven circular garble-yarp of the global warming religion has been stripped bare and soundly thrashed in this forum over and over and over and over and over and over again.

See here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16680&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16726&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16753&page=0
and here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16757&page=0

What you've got is religion, not science, Graeme. But if I'm wrong, prove it. Answer the questions ALL the warmists run away from.

The problem is, the data don't support the theory, and you have no way of knowing, let alone proving, the net benefits of any climate policy.

If you want your unspoken premise of catastrophic global warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions to be accepted, you need to *prove it*. Citing the authority of vested interests, and expecting everyone else to swallow it as uncritically as you have, is not proof.

In the result, you have provided no justification for any climate or energy policy whatsoever.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 11:46:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a scientist I thought I might learn something from Jardine's post. It soon became clear that I wouldn't. Jardine could do with a bit more humility and less certainty in his view of how science works. Let me suggest, for example, that there is absolutely nothing unscientific about what I have just written for publication on climate/energy policy: "Scientific knowledge about carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas has a long and respectable history. The 43% increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels since the industrial revolution is undisputed. There may be some doubts about the precise impact but the prudent course, at the very least, is to accept that CO2 emissions affect climate and try to lower them." OK Jardine, prove that I'm wrong.
Posted by Tombee, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 12:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice try Tombee but you're only trying to reverse the onus of proof. In any event, there's no need for me to go baying after your red herring, as it is at best only subsidiary and is not capable of deciding the general issue.

If you want to justify any climate or energy policy, you have the onus of proof, so go ahead. Prove it. You can start by answering the questions that all the warmists have COMPLETELY FAILED to join issue on, let alone prove.

Go on. Prove your case. Make sure you answer:
"Assuming that all issues of climatology were conceded in your favour - (which they aren't):
- how have you established that the ecological consequences of AGW would be worse rather than better? How have you compared the human evaluations of the status quo you want to change, to the situation you want to achieve? Show your workings.
- how have you established that your policy proposal will produce a net benefit, rather than a net detriment, in terms of the human evaluations of all affected persons now and as far into the future as you claim to be concerned with? Show your workings."

All you're doing is proving the warmists' perfectly uniform pattern of immediate descent into fallacy any and every time they are challenged.

Answer the questions that, if you can, prove you right and me wrong.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 1:08:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I liked Lomborg and have listened to more than one of his extremely rational, exceptionally persuasive lectures. The last in Copenhagen and on the incontrovertible advantages of ultra cheap clean, safe thorium power?

See U tube and hope it hasn't been pulled yet!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 11 October 2016 6:11:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This question should be thoroughly answered in any national energy review.

What is causing the actual sea surface temperatures (SST) that are an anomaly in AGW climate change science?

It appears Tombee should be able to give example of the answer here and now on OLO.
Posted by JF Aus, Tuesday, 11 October 2016 8:35:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One can't prove that JKJ is a troll for the "denialists" but his/her posts support the inference.

Science can't prove that gravity exists although they may recently have for the first time measured "gravity waves" to support Newton's theory but...I bet JKJ would not wish to skydive without a chute; just in case gravity is real.

By measurement/experiment we know that greenhouse gases affect temperature positively, we know that greenhouse gases have increased hugely since the industrial revolution, we can therefore infer that CO2 affects temperature. Can we prove it? No science research can either prove or disprove a phenomenon, merely establish a theory and see if it can be surpassed by a more likely theory over time.

We know that temperature changes affect regional agriculture and we can infer that a warming environment will cause dislocation of agriculture; think large scale failure of Australia's wheat belt as these regions trend to arid conditions.

At this point you call for proof...where is your proof that the observable facts of warmer oceans, more energy intensive storms and weather events, melting tundra etc is not caused by CO2 in the atmosphere?

PS JKJ must be one of the 75 people who voted for Malcolm Roberts I guess.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 18 October 2016 4:02:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy