Look, suppose we just focused exclusively on the economic argument for the energy proposals I've countenanced here!?

How could such massive vision be implemented?

Well, simply a step at a time and one after the other!

And as off-budget infrastructure that is paid for with reserve bank cheques and remain in the debit side of the ledger until completed, then transferred to the credit side as an asset with at least an equal value to the TEMPORARY debt created to enable their immediate construction.

And backed by the cash flow, we could earn if we could just stop with the completely bogus fear-mongering and crack on with us becoming the world's repository for the current and future stockpile of nuclear waste!

What's is needed is a Leader with vision and balls to just crack on with signing agreements and just get it done

And has to include the construction of some research reactors,i.e., MSR thorium, for all the reasons outlined earlier!

And once we've ironed out any remaining bugs, start immediate mass production in the final model.

Given what we already know, could be done inside a sen year timeline and neatly dovetails with the imminent decommissioning of our aging coal-fired plants.

In the interim we could be cracking on with the manufacture of graphene cored flat and round cables and even if we start using them as reinforcement for the new graphene highways that also recharge our electric vehicles on the fly, we'll be ready to lay them on the seabed a soon as we sign up customers for or new electrical and carbon-free energy!

Given our reactors are also tasked with burning other nation's nuclear waste, able to supply it, east, west, north and south, at prices no other will be able to compete with!

That's it, and laid out solely as the economic case! If others see what we've done and feel they're being compelled to follow suit or lose market share all across the joint!?

That would be a good thing and leading by example, leadership!
Alan B.

Dear calwest,

You wrote;

"So I shall personally nominate you for a Nobel Prize for Physics if you can explain to us all how that 0.00012 of human-produced carbon dioxide overwhelms the impact of all other atmospheric gases and causes global warming."

What an utterly vacuous and idiotic statement.

The increase in concentration in our atmosphere by a third of a significant greenhouse gas due to human use of fossil fuels is accepted by all but the mentally enfebbled.

Why have you gone to such great lengths to dismiss it?

I will ask the same question of you that I have asked of many others. What physical property of CO2 do you want me to dismiss so I can arrive at the conclusion that increasing it to such a degree has zero impact?

Pathetic.

calwest,

Greta Thunberg presents scientific evidence and reports
from scientific experts. She does not tell people
what to do and how it should be done. She leaves that
up to scientific experts. All she is doing is asking
for action to be taken on climate change - not on how
or what should be done. Were she to tell them what to
do and how to do it - would lose her credibility - because
as a sixteen year old that is out of her range of expertise.

Now, calling me an idiot? Why do you feel the way you do?
If you can prove you are right - I will consider amending
my views.

It seems to me that you are really talking MUCH more about
yourself than about me.

Ericc, I noticed your post where you said that CO2 and various other non-H2O greenhouse gases were the control knob that controlled temperature, and that water merely responded to heat. I think you need to rethink that. Here are two graphs that demonstrate that is not true. The first graphs paleo temperature and CO2 concentrations. It looks like there is some relationship at times, but not at others, and we've had high temperatures with high and low concentrations of CO2, and temperature has dropped as CO2 rises, and vice versa. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHgyuDaVUAAdhN5?format=png&name=small.

The other is the Vostock Ice Cores where we see CO2 increasing after temperature increases, and declining after it declines, demonstrating that heat increases in the globe cause outgassing from the oceans of CO2. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D4l-5ebUwAUmu_a?format=jpg&name=small You'll also notice that there has been no observable reaction to modern high levels of CO2.

CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas, but its relationship to temperature is moderated by a whole load of other factors, and vice-versa. It's effect is also logarithmic (demonstrated in the first graph), and above current concentrations won't raise temperature much. I'm much more worried about the next ice age.

Agree with you about habitat change. And of course there is just normal ongoing evolution. This mammal was supposed to have gone extinct from climate change causing sea levels to rise https://t.co/345SPnFmrO?amp=1. But then you find sea levels haven't risen in the area https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EHiyNQvUEAAAR3J?format=png&name=small and it had a very limited habitat - one island - so it probably just wasn't viable any more.

Good point, Cato; we have all probably asked ourselves what these bad mannered disturbers of the peace want done. What can be done that hasn't already been tried and found to be totally useless in reducing CO2? All these scientists we are supposed to believe haven't come up with anything new recently. Instead of silly old men cheering on a child in the UN, they should have stood up and said, "You know all the answers. What do we do next? Snarling 'how dare you' out of you very smackable little gob doesn't help."

SteeleRedux says:

"The increase in concentration in our atmosphere by a third of a significant greenhouse gas due to human use of fossil fuels is accepted by all but the mentally enfebbled.[sic]".

Human emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere amount to about 0.00012 per cent by volume (three per cent of 0.04 per cent). That's an increase of a third of an essential plant food.

The hottest year on record in Australia was 1952, when atmospheric carbon dioxide was 311ppm, about three quarters of what it is now.

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/10/the-bureau-of-met-disappears-very-hot-days-graph-showing-the-most-hot-days-in-1952/

That's from our very own Bureau of Meteorology, though I'm sure they're working hard to homogenise those facts out of existence.

Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide since then has had no effect whatsoever in the observed temperature records and the computer model projections have been uniformly wrong. They all failed to predict the current near 20 year "pause" in warming - a pause that could exist only if the predictions were correct, which clearly they are not.

Nobody should assume you're "mentally enfeebled", SR, just an ignorant dunce. Try sourcing your information from somewhere other than the ABC or the ALP.

There is NO established causal link between increased atmospheric carbon dioxide and increased global atmospheric temperatures. In any case, what do you propose is the "ideal" global atmospheric temperature from which we have, according to you, strayed, given that on any particular day or night, actual temperatures vary widely all over the planet?