The warmist and pollies have to lie about the massive rise in electricity due to the renewables scam because they know that the truth would see them dammed at the polls. The average young getup clown is certainly clueless.

mhaze

You really ought to read more science.

It is not until the 1970s that scientists working for Exxon, Shell, and those contracted to the American Petroleum Institute were talking about extreme weather for the future, caused through burning of fossil fuels. Naturally prior to that there had been occasional bad weather events.
In the past I've provided many references, because you dispute them doesn't make them wrong.
You make lots of statements today without a shred of evidence .. references?

Even in the mid 1960s reports were being produced warning of the problems created by fossil fuels, causing damage to climate creating more extreme events.

http://www.climatefiles.com/climate-change-evidence/presidents-report-atmospher-carbon-dioxide/

A reference of a report furnished for Exxon management in 1982.

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1982-memo-to-exxon-management-about-co2-greenhouse-effect/

If you look at Figure 3 of the report you will notice it is too close for comfort to what was experienced when CO2 levels edged over 400ppm.

A 1988 report from Shell:

http://www.climatefiles.com/shell/1988-shell-report-greenhouse/

There are more reports showing how fossil fuel companies were aware of the impact of their products. These reports had basically been produced before agencies such as Heartlands were paid by fossil fuel companies to undermine the science.

mhaze, please supply documentation and show how the 3 quite long reports are wrong. Please show where Figure 3 of the Exxon report is wrong.

Your commentary is nothing more than sophistry without any citations to back you up.

even dr gooogle will tell you ant that every generation has experienced 'extreme' weather events. Does not mean they fit your very flawed narrative no matter how much pseudo science you produce. Facts are facts and truth is truth.

mhaze,
Your comprehension, both of the original article and of the errors I mentioned, is extremely poor. Looking at your objections:
1. Although shutting down Hazelwood had previously been part of (Victorian and Federal) government policy, that all came to nothing. Ultimately Engie made a commercial decision to close it because it was inefficient and unsafe.

2. Brendan's article claimed:
: It was excess power from other states (as well restrictions on big power users)
: that minimised recent blackouts in Victoria and South Australia.
He falsely implied that there were recent blackouts in SA (as well as Victoria) due to insufficient supply.

3. The misreading is on your part, not mine.
> Well the author specifically said his comparisons were of GH gases
Of course!
> ie CO2 accounts for 4% of GHG's not of the total atmosphere.
DUH!

My point was that by volume, there's a lot more than one order of magnitude more CO2 in the atmosphere than methane. So at best he'd confused volume and the proportion of radiative forcing they were responsible for; at worst he was simply spouting garbage.

Beware of the DRAGON.

All societies create a fictional dragon that must be feared.
Now they tell us "If you give us money, we can slay the dragon".

What I want to know is whether or not the sub-humans who lived prior to the last ice age passed a collection plate around to deal with the climate change issue.

If they did it didn't make a whole lot of difference.

ant claimed that ..."rain bombs, they were a very rare occurrence 50 years ago,". I asked for evidence. In response we get a long post that doesn't even mention rain bombs let alone offer up even a passing resemblance to evidence.

This is standard for ant - make silly unsupported assertions and when bounced on it, immediately move to change the subject with different silly unsupported assertions.

Now he's back on the Exxon papers. By way of background, as clueless as he is, even he was embarrassed over his errors as regards Exxon papers and temporarily left the group.

Now he somehow thinks some new Exxon papers are important for reasons that make no sense except in the clueless mind that is ant.

These are papers that say things like...."Overall, the current outlook suggests potentially serious climate problems are not likely to occur until the late 21st century or perhaps beyond at projected energy demand rates. This should provide time to resolve uncertainty regarding the'overall carbon cycle and the contribution of fossil fuel combustion as well as the role of the oceans as a reservoir for both heat and carbon dioxide. It should also allow time to better define the effect of carbon dioxide and other infrared absorbing gases on surface climate. Making significant changes in energy consumption patterns now to deal with this potential problem amid all the scientific uncertainty would be premature in view of the severe impact such moves could have on the worlds economies and societies."

That seems a perfect reasonable and balanced view for the 1980s and even now. Quiet why ant feels it leaves Exxon exposed to criticism is something only ant can explain.

He's also rather transfixed by so-called Figure 3. Why is unclear. It shows a best guess as to the increase in CO2 and temperatures up to 2080. It also shows that Exxon, like the alarmist scientists, significantly over-estimated the increase in each up to 2020. This is just another example of people being overly alarmist about the issue. Why ant thinks that helps his case is unknowable.