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 > Death of the CET > Comments

Death of the CET : Comments

By Graeme McLeay, published 19/9/2017

Coalition talk of dumping Finkel's Clean Energy Target leaves Australia's climate policy in tatters.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
The author relies on a lot of unsubstantiated assertions and assumptions. That's typical of the "activist" fantasies pursued by Doctors for the Environment Australia and similar green groups.

Poor Andy Vesey. Turnbull is interfering in the market and trying to force him to keep Liddell operational after 2020 or to sell it to someone who will. Why would he bother? AGL will make billions from wind and solar subsidies and save money on maintenance or replacement of Liddell.

Turnbull is interfering in the market now precisely because earlier interference in the market via ridiculous subisidies for uneconomical, unreliable and very expensive wind and solar generation has become the catastrophe anyone with half a brain knew it would be.

The only surprise in all of that is that the Liberal Party's free market posturers remained silent when it all began. Yet again Liberal parliamentarians have abandoned Liberal principles.

It will be little consolation if blackouts and brownouts this summer allow us to say, "told you so."
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:42:12 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
ant says: "The point being that these storms have been made stronger through climate change; climate change being a product of extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

ant, would you mind sharing the evidence for that assertion? You know, the hard evidence of a direct causal relationship between "extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" and worse storms?

Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Posted by calwest, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 10:51:39 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
Storms etc. have absolutely nothing to do with climate change; in fact, the number of cyclones and extreme weather events have actually been fewer since all the frothing-at-the-mouth climate change twaddle started.
Posted by ttbn, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:06:25 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 of the major claims of the CO2 causes global warming/climate change clowns is that the poles will warm, [are warming] quicker than the rest of the globe. It is the crutch of their claim that sea-level is rising rapidly.

Now the reason we have these large storms is that nature is using them to transfer heat from the tropics to the poles. This knocks on the head, at least one of their claims. To generate stronger storms the poles must be colder. To raise sea level the polls must be warmer.

What a dilemma for our poor ratbag greenies/doctors for whatever/etc.

They are going to have to pick the worst scare & go with that. Keep with some claiming stronger storms, & they make the hotter poles accelerating sea level rise lot like the dills they are.

Gee it's getting tough to be a greenie these days, when people actually analyse every little fib you utter.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:55:02 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
Well, actually, the evidence is that frequency of large storms and cyclones, at least in the southwest Atlantic, has remained either the same or very slightly increasing during the past 150 years.

OTOH, the largest storms have been increasing in severity over time, due to three or four specific, demonstrable, physical consequences of increased atmospheric temperature.

Reference here: https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

Reasons cited include:
Atmospheric temp increase => increase in water vapour present in air.
Temp increase => Higher energy driving formation of low pressure cells.
Higher atmospheric temp => higher water temp, especially shallow aters.
Higher water vapour load => higher precipitation rates, hence flooding.

What other specific other factors might be at work? The onus reverts to those who claim that intensity is not increasing to demonstrate that it is and why. Or to change their minds.
Posted by SingletonEngineer, Tuesday, 19 September 2017 1:57:36 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
A couple of things:

China has enacted laws to phase out conventional engined cars by 2020. And will roll out one affordable electric cars this year, with an averaged range of 200 kilometres and an averaged price tag of around 17 grand. And according to informed sources, is building, 50 brand new nuclear reactors this year.

Moreover, and thanks to Yank stupidity, is beavering away, with walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactors. and spending billions.

The Indians, also beavering away, with thorium, have apparently abandoned trying to use it in conventional, solid fuel reactors, due to, insurmountable difficulties and have switched to molten salt as holding the most promise for all future reactors?

And like most rational people, will chose the safest, cleanest, cheapest over dirty cheap coal and the endemic corruption that seems to accompany that life taking monster!

And given new Yank law, the first to register, will own the patent, regardless of who invented what! Thus our single step steel smelting became, LEGALLY theirs. As well as our pulsed laser light uranium enrichment!?

Just as one swallow does not, a summer, make. neither does one small reactor, that has yet to generate a single watt of electricity, on Lucas Heights, a nuclear industry, make.

Of course trained technicians will want to stick with what they know/have some expertise in! Even if that's the worst of all available choices? Time reason and logic prevailed over fear mongering invention/vested interest!?

Don't ask me to react to any and all spurious claims today, given I've already racked up my daily limit! Unless, you want to propagandize the topic, with half truths/blatant misinformation?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Tuesday, 19 September 2017 2:35:49 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

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