Mike Pope says:” The only way of avoiding these outcomes is to curb the rise in greenhouse gas emissions by reducing our use of fossil fuels “, but gives no basis for this statement.
There is no science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Professor Carter gives an excellent summary of the failed hypothesis of the climate fraud promoters regarding the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate. More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the "little Ice Ages" in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the "global warming", alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere
However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
the pause in global warming ceased since this paper was written, but the science is not affected. There is no basis for the assertion that human emissions cause warming.
Smarten up your ideas, Mike, your assertions about human emissions are baseless, and you are supporting the climate fraud.

The only country in the EU that has reduced GHG emissions to a fraction of those in the 1950s and done it while achieving the lowest energy cost in the EU is France who after recently commissioning a few new nuclear reactors generates 80% of its power from emission free nukes.

Germany on the other hand is decommissioning its nuclear reactors, and while having promised to replace this power with renewable energy has run foul of the lie that "base load is a myth" and has been forced to build a series of brand new coal fired generation plants, and now with Denmark has the highest electricity prices in the EU, and is finding that its industry is suffering.

Nobody with any competence has suggested that baseload is a myth, Shadowy Trollster. That is a straw man you plagiarised from your brief google search yesterday.

On the other hand, people with genuine knowledge of power distribution systems understand that it is so managed as to be artificially maintained at a higher level than it would be at without that management in order to allow inefficient centralised generation systems to be run a little less inefficiently over the diurnal cycle. Some of those people also understand that changing patterns of demand and improvements in control systems, as well as changes to generation models from centralised large-scale operations to more efficient and cheaper decentralised small scale plants of various types backed up with storage will mean the need to manage demand in that way will reduce over time, eventually leading to it becoming an obsolete concept.

Currently the most cost effective form of new generation plant is rooftop solar, followed by large-scale solar. Gas has a lower capital cost than large scale solar, but high operating costs. New coal generation currently runs at about 3 times the capital cost of rooftop colar and about 2.5 times that of large scale solar.

For an example of something obsolete, I suggest one may be found in the mirror nearest to you, Shadowy Trollster.

Alternatively, take a trip to your nearest coal generation plant.

If anybody has coal assets, I wouldn't panic, this will all take a little time, but you might like to revise your dividend projections downward significantly.

Well yes, there is a good case to be made for reducing emission! And one entirely reliant on historical data!

And another that says on current evidence, that decarb, just doesn't have to be handcuffed to so called renewables!

One of which is tried and not found wanting is very large scale solar thermal! Which when rolled out in a Californian desert by a private venture as renewable electricity. Demonstrated a cost competitive rollout with comparable coal, 3 cents PKH and suitable for peak demand/baseload!

Thanks to molten salt (thorium/fluoride) heat retention inside a giant vacuum flask and on demand night and day application!

And assisted by the predilection of thorium/fluoride salt to retain applied external heat!

We could do better if several of these large scale ventures solar thermal or thorium reactors, were rolled out as government supported employee owned and operated co-ops!

And sure to be resisted with their literal dying breath by labor and their union masters, given it would effectively exclude the union movement from any such workplace or genuinely inclusive wage setting negotiation!

In fact Australia could become the best place in the world to live, work and play, if that were the template for doing business and or manufacture/processing/value adding in this country!?

From where nothing should be exported without undergoing some transformation! We invented the one step steel smelting process!

Meaning, we are mad to sell our superior grade iron ore to the world, when we could, utilizing arc furnaces fired by the lowest costing carbon free power in the world, and controlled by maximised automation inside an employee owned and operated enterprise!

Dominate the finished steel market in a way no other nation could currently successfully compete with!?

Particularly if real tax reform and massive simplification, were part of the mix!

And make that a virtual certainty, with our own fleet of nuclear powered bulk freight forwarding shipping fleet!

Yes the government will need to get involved, given that's exactly what the national interest demands of them!
Alan B.

AlanB says:” there is a good case to be made for reducing emission! And one entirely reliant on historical data!
Only if you ignore the science, Alan.
From my post above, quoting climate scientist Robert Carter:” these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate. The case for renewable or alternate energy is baseless. Coal has proven reliable.

Good on yer, Craig Minns, for even bothering.

Clearly this fine article by Mike Pope had the coal and nuclear lobby in a lather. They pretend to compete with each other, but it's a thin pretense. they both see, correctly, that renewables are the future, unless they can stave this off somehow or other.

For the coal lobby, nuclear is good, because the ever promised "renaissance" mean that coal can drag on for the coal lobbiers' lifetimes. Nuclear's also good for them , when nuclear proponents also claim that climate change is not happening.

A problem for nuclear is that most savvy nuclear lobbyists work on their newly found belief in climate change - so they say that nuclear is the cure.

Never mind that it takes $billions and decades to build a "conventional" nuclear reactor. Never mind the "Generation IV" nuclear reactors don't exist except as blueprints. So nuclear's not going to have any impact on global warming. By the time they're all ready - that is, thousands of big reactors, and millions of little ones - it would be too late, climate change would have become irreversible. And anyway, the whole dirty nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining to waste burial emits plenty of greenhouse gases