Tell me Alan B,

As a doctor (?) are/were you in habit of prescribing medication that didn't exist...the way you prescribe thorium reactors as a fix when they don't exist?

Dr Alan to patient.."Take 10mg of ground unicorn horn and call me in the morning".

mhaze; I know that there were once reusable space shuttles and no I can't point to so much as one single operating example!

I guess and using your impeccable logic, that means there never ever was any such animal, and anyone who remembers even just one, is consuming unicorn horn?

What I can do however, is invite you and all those you're trying to, not too cleverly scam? To get on U tube, google tech talks. And thorium.

Then pull up the article that shows as a video, with a voice over chapter and verse explanation; a blow by blow videoed documentary, the assembly of an inherently walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactor, which according to the still living scientists, who operated it! (FIRST HAND EYEWITNESS EVIDENCE!)

Could also be used as a completely safe, slow breeder reactor to burn and burn again, nuclear waste, creating considerable free energy in the process!

Thank you once again, for inviting me to invite other, curiouser and curiouser folks to check the verifiable facts for themselves!

And the laid out for all with eyes to see, factual evidence you just can't summarily dismiss with your troll's unicorn horn, fantasy land, disparagement!

But keep trying, it's just making more and more folks curious enough to do some fact checking of their own, and exactly the opposite outcome you are trying, so spectacularly unsuccessfully, to engineer!?
Alan B.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the case for reducing CO2 emissions has been established. It hasn't, but let's assume for a moment that the deleterious effects the author mentions are indeed caused by CO2 emissions. What would be the effect on temperatures if Australia indeed reduced emissions as promised. The correct answer is that the presumed reduction in temperatures would be so small as to unmeasurable.

So the advocates revert to the claim that we have to reduce emissions so as to encourage others to do so. Again, the claim is untested and untestable, dubious at best, but let's assume its real.

So, for the sake of argument, we want to reduce emissions. The issue becomes how to do so. Surely one way would be to see and emulate what others who have reduced emissions have/are doing.

The nation most successful in reducing emissions over the past decade is the USA - yes the great satan. Over the past decade the US has reduced total CO2e emissions by 10% and per capita emissions by 16%.

There are several factors leading to that decline but the major reason (according to the US EPA et al) is the replacement of coal with natural gas which has become cheap and ubiquitous due to fracking revolution. Yep, fracking leads to emission reductions.

So, if we were truly terrified of the future and really really wanted to reduce emissions we would be cheering for and supporting all fracking proposals. Hands up all those who think that'll happen.

That we oppose fracking amply demonstrates just how unconcerned about Australian emissions we really are.

Thank you Peter, for a sensible, accurate and well referenced article.

To add to your points - WA could remove 3 t per head of CO2 (6 million tonnes per year) and the asthma-causing particulates and heavy metal pollutants that go with it by phasing out coal generation.

I have been involved in modelling by SEN (Sustainable Energy Now) http://www.sen.asn.au/modelling_findings

Four of the six coal-fuelled generators in WA reach their end-of-design life by 2019 – a transition is timely.
Muja ABCD and Collie power stations can be retired by 2021, saving 50% of CO2 emissions.
• This involves 2300 MW of new wind and 900 MW of new solar PV (increasing total RE to 4200 MW)

• The newer Bluewater plants can be replaced later

Under the current Federal 20% Renewable Energy Target (RET), all coal generated electricity can be replaced by renewables at a cost of less than 1c per kWh (10%) more than keeping the old coal stations running even without major refurbishments
• New coal power stations to replace the existing old ones will cost significantly more than the renewables option.

Phasing out of coal in WA and replacement with new wind and PV is technically and economically feasible - clean secure generation with no fuel costs.

It would also provide:
• 27,000 job-years in construction and 22,000 job-years in manufacturing over 5 years plus 1800 permanent Operations and Maintenance jobs.
• $7.1 billion of private investment in wind and PV plus $1 billion in new transmission lines.

We are waiting to see which political parties will commit to this in the lead up to the State election in March.

PS You will have noticed by now that this website has a nest of climate deniers and nuclear enthusiasts . Actually they have been worse in the past - I am wondering where some of the usual trolls are - maybe they have given up?

Ho hum, more of the jumble of logical fallacies and circular superstitious reverence of the global warming hysterics, situation normal.

Got those answers to my prior questions there yet, fellers?

Or just pretending the issues don't exist as usual.

There is no such scientific term as "denialist". You only prove, by this modern version of 'heretic', that you are using the religious not scientific intellectual methodology.

You either answer my explicit challenges, or by any other response you concede the entire general issue as to climate policy.

You are frauds and either witting or unwitting parasites, that is all.

Peter I have no idea if you are a good doctor, a lousy doctor, or a paper shuffling doctor, but no matter how poor, it is obvious you are a better doctor than climate scientist.

I suggest you go try fixing people's health, as it is obvious you have no idea of what CO2 can & can't do.

Good luck.