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 > Abbott government flailing on green energy > Comments

Abbott government flailing on green energy : Comments

By Ray Evans, published 6/11/2013

A key test for the new Abbott government is how to respond to a religious threat to Australia's security and economic well-being.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
Peter King,

Your comment uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of "10 signs of intellectual dishonesty": http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/#comment-320223

"1. Arrogance or “I am the messenger of truth”. Look for arguments that send the following messages:

“What I am telling you ARE the facts and these facts have, and always will, withstand any test.”
“ Anybody that disagrees with ‘us’ is either stupid or is trying to undermine ‘our’ dedication and hard work.”
“ They have access to the same evidence, but they either ignore it or deliberately misinterpret it to suit their own agenda or hypothesis.”

2. Handwaving or “Your views have no merit”. Look for ‘arguments’ that dismiss other views out of hand. Often accompanied by Sign #1 with the opponent usually being dismissed – not specifically their argument.

3. Unwavering commitment or “I know I am right – why bother arguing?” Anybody who refuses to accept that they may not be 100% correct, or might be looking at the evidence through their own preferred colour of glasses is not being honest to themselves or to their readers/listeners.

4. Avoiding/Ignoring the question or “ . . . and let’s not forget about . . .” Anybody who refuses to admit that their argument is weak in an area and, worse still, avoids answering difficult questions in that area is being intellectually dishonest. If they don’t ignore the question, these people are easily recognised from their efforts to change the subject.

6. Employing double standards or “Your evidence is unacceptable (because it’s your evidence)”. This is a question of how high the bar is set for the acceptance of evidence – the bar is set at a much higher level for the other party, while it is set far lower for his/her own evidence.

7. Argumentum ad hominem or “You’re a [insert label/stereotype here] . . . and you have a secret agenda” This is a favoured approach used by those who might be arguing from a weak position. It is typically employed to avoid answering a difficult question (Sign #4) or used in conjunction with handwaving (Sign #2).
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 11 November 2013 10:49:17 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
Peter Lang,

What?

Please provide some (any) correlation between your bizarre rant and my posting on the author?
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 11 November 2013 11:30:39 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
For those suggesting that renewables use more GHG in manufacturing than they save; your inference being that without your superior intellect these issues have been ignored.

Hate to tell you but the IPCC has spent considerable effort to address these issues and have developed Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization analysis for each energy source. The key being Lifecycle not one off manufacturing costs; costs means in this context GHG emissions not monetary cost.

For each of solar, wind, nuclear, coal etc there are discrete reports in excess of 80+ pages each. However, to distill the key values...
coal: 114 g CO2e/kWh
solar: 44 g CO2e/kWh
wind: 10 g CO2eq/kWh
nuclear: 13 g CO2eq/kWh
geothermal: 80 g CO2eq/kWh

So we can see that solar is less than half the GHG than coal but wind is incredibly effective in GHG reduction. Nuclear is a good option when considered in GHG reduction terms but is an order of magnitude more expensive than solar and wind.
Posted by Peter King, Monday, 11 November 2013 11:51:18 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
Peter King,

Sorry, but those IPCC figures are irrelevant. What is relevant is the cost per tonne CO2 abated. On that basis renewables like wind and solar are very expensive options. The CO2 abatement cost with residential solar PV in Melbourne, for example, using realistic defensible inputs, is around $600/tonne. That's about 100 tines the EU carbon price.

There can be no rational justification for subsidising solar or wind for electricity generation.

If interested, read this: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/4/1406

You can also see that nuclear power would be by far the cheapest way to reduce CO2 emissions from the Australian NEM:
http://oznucforum.customer.netspace.net.au/TP4PLang.pdf
Posted by Peter Lang, Monday, 11 November 2013 12:34:11 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. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

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