Delusional article. Cheaper renewables? A bit insensitive telling me that as ten days ago my electricity bill went up, is it once a year or twice a year now? I just cannot afford your renewables!
This whole scam is the most disgusting impost on ordinary people and what makes it worse is this writer's holier than thou, rich kid, no nothing BS!

JBowyer does not know:

1. That the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas will create CO2.

2. That CO2 when trapped in the atmosphere will produce the greenhouse effect.

3. What the greenhouse effect is.

4. That the greenhouse effect will cause heat to be trapped and stored in the atmosphere.

5. That the greenhouse effect exists.

While the wholesale price of electricity continues to drop, the retail price stays the same. But the dopes still listen to to these scammers.

Mr. Opinion just does not know!

JBowyer,

I know all the things you don't know and a whole lot more because I a lot smarter than you.

Can everyone just ignore Mr O until he gets back on his medication?

Alison Jane,

Have you noticed that JBowyer does not deny not knowing about the things I have listed?

The ongoing difficulty with climate change debate is that it is too easy to lose sight of the objective. This article is clearly well researched but in avoiding some important facts, it gets no closer to what is the most appropriate action for Australia. That the UK is increasingly using renewables is because they are increasingly using biomass and that supplies 7% of UK's energy needs. A major part of that biomass is the burning of wood pellets - trees cut down in the Americas and shipped at huge cost to the UK. The biomass is well subsidised. When the world is demanding more trees be planted, where is the sense in this? Similarly, the author here fails to mention nuclear plants in the UK.
In respect to our coal exports, can anyone advise where China and India - both expanding coal powered plants - will source better, cleaner coal if Australia stop exporting? Unless we address these simple questions, the debate increasingly gets muddied.

yes, the UK does use biomass.

But the UK reduced its greenhouse gas emissions significantly. Does not all of its renewable energy sources count towards this reality?

While the UK now has some policy difficulties coming up with goal of cleaner energy mix, i am sure they will get there because they have POLITICAL WILL AND SOCIAL CONSENSUS on the issue

That's great about wind and solar being so cheap beats me why sewage farms and aluminium smelters don't sign up for it exclusively. If it's so cheap why do they still need subsidies and quotas? The UK is now dangerously dependent on mostly imported gas. Ditto Singapore and underwater electricity cables.

If it turns out that Aussie asbestos isn't as bad as the other fellow's then we can export that as well. Australia is not alone in hypocrisy about talking green while exporting millions of tons of carbon since Canada is facing the same accusation with tar sands. International carbon pricing will be discussed in Glasgow in November with perhaps the EU27 kickstarting it. The trouble is if China, US, India and Australia don't go along with it. Back to the drawing board.

Chris Lewis & Bluebottle,

Has either of you thought that it is now too late to do anything to stop continued global warming, which is the cause of adverse climate change?

No! It's a failure of Leadership! Our energy policy or lack thereof is is down to both the lack of leadership and green tails that wag dogs. And because permanently partisan politicians have put everything else ahead of the national interest!! And an over-reliance on foreign investment and moribund privatisation!

Then avoid what absolutely needs to be done in the name of BS sovereign risk.

Simply put, a good businessman or Leader knows when to cut the losses and head for the exit!

And we needed to get out of our absurd dependence on carbon polluting, fossil fuel yesterday!

And transition to, carbon-free, safe, clean and vastly cheaper nuclear energy!

All that prevents that is tin-eared recalcitrant politicians with their own self-interest agendas! And mountains of humbug, BS and rank incompetence!

We've been sleepwalking toward a disastrous date with destiny and lead by the blind who refuse point blank to change away from our absurd ultra reliance on coal! These folk are our employees and need to be told, you'refired!

But like all recalcitrant incompetents, will cling to assumed power for as long as possible, blame-shifting at every turn! And promise anything to anyone (non-core promises) just to retain control and the status quo! The more it changes the more it stays the same!

Understand this much, doing what you've always done while expecting a different result is the definition of insanity!
Alan B.

i don't get the argument that if the big three do nothing, so should we.

If you believe in link between human activity and global warming, you naturally want to see greenhouse gas emissions reduced.

A posiitve exmaple by many nations can have a wider impact in the longer term.

Mr Opinion

Some say we have already crossed level of no return, but if the world keeps pumping out CO2, situation will only get worse.

Better late than never, especially as i think there will be much geater consensus in the future aroumd the world.

Chris, I think it does matter what we term and use as renewables. Biomass for the UK involves growing trees in the Americas, cutting them down, converting them to pellets and shipping them (shipping being the worst form of transportation for the environment) across the Atlantic for burning in the UK. Think about it. Solar depends on the manufacture of billions of panels which have a life of around 20 years and NO known safe method of disposal. They are full of toxic material. Manufacturing solar panels significantly increases emissions of nitrogen trifluoride (NF3), which is 17,200 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas! The number of solar panel farms and wind turbines that would be required to power Australia would create the greatest rural and country eyesore imaginable. I realise these are the best renewables on offer but think about it - is this what you want? Whatever it takes - is that the solution?

The UK has to import most of its energy.

Bluebottle,

i dont diasagree with you on your key point about task being much harder than mere will, especially from a global perspective.

i just think we must make every effort to explore every possibility.

After all, if a country like Australia cannot do it, who can.

We are a sparse continent with high per capita wealth resources.

'As someone who has long accepted the link between human activity and global warming, I argue that Australia should reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a much faster rate. '

admirable that Chris comes straight out and says so. He is entitled to religous freedom like others of faith. Totally illogical not be be protesting against Chinese, India and now the new 19 coal fired stations that Japan is building.

Chris,

We have common ground then which is positive. My concern is that we may embark on a journey that firstly must lay waste to what we have without knowing the objective can be achieved.To embark on any venture not knowing the outcome is folly. Essentially what those calling for 'action' hope for is that we can control climate. In other words that we can control warming. I need convincing that objective is achievable and further, that we then can control global cooling when the next cooling period begins. It is a big call for anyone to say we control the natural order of things. As far as I am aware, there is no scientific finding that CO2 is even the problem - lots of projections and theories, but no confirming science. Science is not about consensus despite all claims to the contrary.

Here's the thing, we could force the big three to turn around and replace coal-fired energy with safer cleaner more reliable and vastly cheaper nuclear energy by threatening their market share.

And as simple as building a couple of dozen reactors with other folks gifted money. As annual billions, we earn as the world's safest repository for its nuclear waste.

Waste which in MSR is just unspent free fuel that'll power this nation for thousands of years with carbon-free energy we can export to an energy-dependent world for a handsome profit and for less than they can make it at home with any other fuel.

We'd have all the energy dependant high tech manufacturing queuing to relocate here!

And all the incentive for the big three to decarb and follow us with Thorium and carbon-free power for less than 3 cents PKWH in MSR's.

Those that'll claim a huge timeline, need to understand that the shortest build and commission time for a nuclear power plant remains 6 short months!

Nothing except the missing Leadership and political will prevents us emulating that example with a working, tried and tested MSR prototype! A FUJI 350 MW? TBC.
Alan B.

There are folk who wax on day and night about the limited range of electric vehicles. As a reason for not electrifying the national fleet.

Yet throw their phone down onto charging pad to recharge it without plugging it in! Not understanding that such pads could be thousands of miles long. As a highway with a graphene underlay. Graphene is the strongest material on the planet and a superconductor.

And all we'd need would be a cling wrap thin layer under the tarmac or concrete, to transmit the nation's energy virtually anywhere. And power the endless recharge pads our highways and byways would become.

Given we import all our vehicles now, probably won't be able to buy anything other than full-electric vehicles by 2035?

The bonus would be graphene reinforced roads and bridges that'd need little maintenance for centuries.

Add graphene fibre (200 times stronger than steel) to concrete/plaster to make the world's strongest fibreboard. In layered fibreglass to make the strongest ship/submarine hulls!

And as reinforcing rods to make buildings that take a nuclear blast and stand! There are no downsides here and money has never been cheaper. Where delay (our record) doubles the cost by the decade!

Nothing gets cheaper or easier with delay. The problem is invariably missing skilled labour and can be imported as guest labour!

Guest labour that transfers skills to Resident Australians, via an intelligent, accompanying apprenticeship scheme.

So, stop with the BS delay and BS excuses for doing SFA.
Alan B.

We have long passed the point of no return........

has BOM updated its advice to the Government it gave not long back not to expect any decent rain until at least April? And these same jokers want to tell us what's going to happen in 20 years. Talk about gullible.

When the proposed solutions come with a truly massive economic upside! What possible reason can there be for failure to act!?

Imagine a graphene highway powered by the world's cheapest possible electricity and cars trucks and buses that power on by the usual gas stations without needing to pause? Well that sort of scenario would send the three trillion a year, fossil fuel industry broke and the oil exporters destitute.

So one can rest assured they are going to bag it and me as often as they can, through their operatives/lackeys and spit lickle dropkicks.

Ditto big nuclear which would be bankrupted by a change to much much safer, and vastly cheaper MSR.

Ditto big pharma which earns billions from palliative care and at risk by the accompanying creatin of cheap as chips, bismuth 213. And instead of medicating dying folk to stupidity, we'd simply send them to remission and without harming healthy tissue the way big pharma's chemo does now?

Ignore the fact that al I have proposed deals with manmade climate change and just look at the business case, economics only! And then fault it if you can, I dare you!

Add in real tax reform and deionisation and my case goes from strength to strength as well as drought-proofing the nation.

Plus create thousands and thousands of new economic opportunities, as does the acceptance and renewal of cooperative capitalism to underpin the entire proposal and massively turbocharge it!

It's all there just needs folk able to use the brains they were born with and the national interest at heart to implement it! Those whose real objection is the loss of coal revenue or jobs, need to take butchers at the periodic table and understand, this transition will create many more mining jobs and incomes than coal currently supports!

And allow us to create an economic template of unprecedented prosperity the world will have no choice but follow!
Alan B.

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/unleashed/2009/05/brits-outraged-over-300000-ducks-like-water-study.html

I wonder if our resident OLO pseudo intellectuals had any involvement in this ? It wouldn't surprise me at all !

Mr O is Onan on steroids. I know what he is blathering on about and that he has it all profoundly wrong.I have told him before his childish insults do not affect me as I hold him in contempt!
I do not believe in the current, what is it now? Global warming, no, climate change whatever it is a load of baloney.
I know this because in my travels through Asia I never saw a solar panel or a windmill. They cannot/will not waste their monies on these subsidised stupidities and they value their money.
Anyone who disagrees should give up their cars and passports and live this more virtuous life. Like the politicians, media idiots and stars on their business class or private jets and their two homes they commute between.
You have been well and truly had, done up like kippers, killed, gutted and smoked! You deserve it with your slavish fashionable groupthink!

I agree, JBowler that Mr Opinion is just a kook. Any attempt to engage him in a rational discussion or even asking him a simple question has him chanting his five point mantra about CO2. Like the equally kooky Yuyutsu, who tries to turn every topic into a discussion about "spirituality" (whatever the hell that is) I for one will not respond to him again.

" Australia is committed to lowering emissions by 26 to 28 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030 with its land use and forestry concession,"

Failure, yes. It goes up in smoke as we've just seen. And property destroyed and lives lost.

Not interested in discussing manbearpig at all but thanks to Chris for bringing up the Kyoto forest lock ups. Very timely.

'Anyone who disagrees should give up their cars and passports and live this more virtuous life. '

sickening part is JBowyer, that is what the elites want the average person to do while they fly to their love fests in private jets. The Hollywood deviants are among the worse.

Thanks for the comments.

Alan, you provide a lot of info about energy possibilities. I was hoping that you could provide links to sources of such info in future, albeit i can research your ideas.

i am writing a piece on the environment 2050, where i think it may be heading, and would appreciate any can do ideas.

If anyone believes it is waste of time trying to address environmental concerns, i would appreciate reasons that explain why.

Chris,

Nobody in their right mind would suggest there is no point in addressing environmental concerns which includes climate change. It is as basic as making your bed and keeping your room tidy. The over-riding dispute is HOW we address climate change. What gets lost in the Australian debate is -
- The climate has always changed - it was not a recent discovery by the Greens. (They have always been slow learners) We have lived through much warmer times and also lived through ice ages.
- It is futile and taking hubris to extremes to think people can control the climate.
- The Paris Accord is a dud - allowing the two greatest emitters in China and India to add more emissions annually than all of the rest of the world could save through emissions reduction.
- We are dreaming if we think Australia alone can make a difference whilst India and China continue unabated.
- We are dreaming if we think Australia can reduce bushfires other than by good land management. (They have bushfires in Canada inside the 60th Parallel - no droughts or high temp's there)
- Any policy adoption that cannot specify and therefore achieve the outcome is negligence. Virtue signalling is totally unacceptable.
- Common sense must override any dream to 'lead the world'. Every other country could not give a jot if Australia chooses a path to destruction.

OK Chris, here it is.

Can any sane person really believe that a 1.5 C increase could make fires so much hotter that a passing fire could melt the alloy components of a vehicle?

Of course not, it takes fuel & a blast of air to make a fire that hot, just like we have in Greeny locked up forests full of fuel, & the occasional year when we get strong westerlies.

Did you notice where the fires started & then raged. It wasn't out west where the ambient temperatures were over 40 C, but in the much cooler south east, where the fuel laden national parks, [disgraces], are located.

It doesn't take very much grey matter to analyse this information, & come to the correct conclusion. It is the fuel load in these disgusting national parks, the dry conditions & the strong westerlies that caused this destruction, aided by council refusal to allow property owners to clear sufficient bush to make their homes safe.

It doesn't help that we have a large number of fool tree change people, who want gum, trees brushing their homes. Global warming had as much to do with these fires as it did back in the 30s.

Interesting points Hasbeen.

no doubt that land management practices will need to change.

Thanks Hasbeen for highlighting the location of the bushfires in the cooler SE regions which also happen to be regions more populated and more accessible for arsonists. Nobody talks about arson despite the most authoritative research based on Fire Service research showing 13% of all bushfires are arson together with another 37& which are deemed 'suspicious'. That is, half of all fires could be deliberately lit. You need population for that which you don't have in hotter regions further west.

the warmist propaganda continues today in the SMH. It's headline about 130mm of rain and 'worse yet to come'. Only the warmist could try and mislead people that more rain is not 'best to come'.

still no word from Bom about their advice to Government that we would have no decent rain until April. Oh well, on with the next dud prediction that fits the warmist fantasy and narrative.

I don't see much in the way of rejecting this GW CC for what it truly is;
A SCAM, of international proportion.
No-one wants to accept that we are simply going through a warming part of a climate sine curve the planet has been going through all it's life.
The data has been manipulated to show something to scare people into giving money to these scammers, by way of suggesting the world will end if we don't spend money on new technology to reduce this gas which is sold to us as a 'killer' gas, CO2.
We need CO2, the more the better, time past the planet was warmer, and grapes grew in England, Greenland was named because of it's 'green' landscape.
No we are not causing any harm to the planet.
We are not responsible for anything.
We do not need to give away these trillions to thieves and con-men selling doom and gloom.
How many times do I have to say it; We humans, are too insignificant to cause ANY change to something the size of the Earth.
Stop believing the BS, and start looking into things yourselves.
Your already on the internet, well punch in some questions, go on YOU TUBE, do something, and you too will begin to see the truth, not just the facts.
Start with these:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v8ZPil4wbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmUS7PAWFw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdm-w6FmHo

Something to start you off, and there is plenty more, and increasing by the day.
So the alarmists are going to HAVE TO come around or they will look like fools in the not too distant future.

ALTRAV,
I still can't understand how any intelligent person can believe AGW to be a scam, when there's such overwhelming evidence that the claims it isn't occurring are a scam. We know with 100% certainty that CO2 warms the planet. We know how it warms the planet, and we know that the planet is warming. So how can the denial of this be based on anything other than lies or wishful thinking?

The temperature cycles our planet has been going through are much more complicated than a sine curve, but more importantly, if those natural cycles were what were driving the temperature now, our planet would be cooling.

Of course we need CO2, but it's certainly not a case of "the more the better". Our planet is warmer than it's been for thousands of years. And it was cheaper shipping, rather than global cooling or even just European cooling, which caused the demise of the Medieval British wine industry.

And where did you get the idea that Greenland ever actually had a green landscape?

Aidan,
Although many scientists blame CO2, many scientists disagree.
“The sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate,” says Dr Roger Higgs, long-time consultant geologist and sedimentologist.

Higgs bases his statement on four vital points:

Global warming and cooling are driven by the sun, specifically by the solar-sourced Interplanetary Magnetic Field, which regulates incoming cosmic rays, which in turn govern cloudiness and thus global temperature (the breathtakingly elegant Svensmark Theory).
Global temperature oscillations lag 25 years behind the causative solar magnetic fluctuations. This 25-year lag is due to ocean thermal inertia in remarkable agreement with the 15-20-year time lag by calculated theoretically and independently by Wetherald et al. 2001 and Abdussamatov et al. 2012).
The idea that CO2 is the main climate driver, despite its scarcity in Earth’s atmosphere, ie 400 parts per million (that’s just 1/2500th), near plant-starvation level, contrasts starkly with CO2’s 1,000 to 4,000 ppm levels for most of the last 600 million years.
Earth is now cooling. Global warming ended in 2016: proof that the sun, not CO2, drives Earth’s climate. Moreover, from AD500 to 1200, CO2 levels were anti-correlated with Earth’s temperature.
“The reality is that man’s industrialization just happened to occur in a period of solar-driven warming, a mere coincidence, causing governments to needlessly spend trillions of taxpayer dollars on CO2-reduction efforts,” says Dr Higgs.

See entire paper, with several graphs:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325805849_Global_warming_ended_in_2016_proof_that_the_sun_not_CO2_drives_Earth’s_climate

Higgs is not alone. Thousands of scientists agree. As for Greenland, it has been covered in green forest and grasslands - the science is unequivocal.

Aidan, to put a slightly light hearted slant on this GW CC thing.
I recall someone saying; if you want proof the world is NOT going to end, you only need to refer to one thing!
THE BANKS!
He said; now if the world was ending within the next few decades, when you consider the average home loans are 30 to 40 years, he said, I can't see the banks lending money to anyone especially those wanting to buy a house on the waterfront.
The banks (Rothschilds) are the most informed people in the world, even more than Govt's, why? because they are the ones who are controlling most of the world and it's man made disasters.
Aidan there are more and more "experts" coming forward to debunk these false hoods.
I don't see many scientists coming forward to defend these same lie's.
I was on the fence for some time but after I began asking questions and looking for the truth, I came to the conclusion as far fetched as it seems, that this was just another Y2K bug, or any one of many previous attempts at extracting money from the public purse.
This is no different, and thankfully the more courageous govt's told the con-artists, to get stuffed and saw it for what it was, a con-job.
Trump was not the only one to scoff at these pricks, he just led the way to showing others to face up to these pricks and erase them by showing them they have been found out.
It took guts to do what Trump did, but he did not do it off his own back, he was advised by his advisers who know the truth about all this.
If you want more video's let me know, I've bookmarked a few, not all.

Bluebottle, I notice in your graphs, Mann's "Hockey stick".
This has for some time been debunked and is no longer used as it was found to be false.
Mann has been challenged and is currently being challenged, but the appropriate institutions have backed away from the hockey stick so I would not use that graph any longer.
I thin I have a video discussing and condemning Mann and the hockey stick.
I will try to find it.

Altrav,

They are Higg's graphs, not mine but if you read his piece carefully, I am sure you will see he, like you debunks the Hockey Stick theory.

Yes Bluebottle, the arsonists are dreadful people, but the fires they light would be low key affairs if they were lit in areas that had been reduction burnt in the last couple of years, them grazed by cattle each summer, as the high country used to be.

Cattle don't compete too much with the local wildlife, but goats should not be used as they graze the same stuff the wallabies & to a lesser extent the roos need.

ALTRAV,
Are you really so delusional that you believe the climatologists were claiming it was the end of the world? If not, all that stuff about bankers is just a strawman. However It does serve to remind me that when you want to believe something (such as that the Rothschilds are evil) you're willing to accept any evidence (no matter how dubious) that supports your position, and reject any evidence to the contrary, no matter how strong.

When you're that impervious to reason, I can't really justify wasting my time arguing with you.

The score so far, sports fans.

Those claiming HIGW is real. Jamo, ateday, Chris Lewis, Alan B., Taswegian, Mr Opinion, and Aiden. 7 contributors for total of 19 posts.

Most prolific advocate for HIGW being real, Chris Lewis with 6 posts. You win for the Alarmists, Chris.

Those claiming that HIGW is pure BS. JBowyer, ttbn, Alison Jane, Bluebottle, runner, individual, Lego, hasbeen, and Altrav. 9 contributors for a total of 21 posts. (not counting this one)

Most prolific advocate for the sceptics, Bluebottle with 7 posts. You win for the Sceptics, Bluebottle.

Purely on a numbers count, the sceptics seem to be winning.

To aiden, for thirty years, climatologists, their media echo chamber mates, and their leftist politician supporters, have made the most ridiculous claims of impending doom unless the western world mends it's evil ways, and somehow continues to exist without smelting metals, making concrete, or using fossil fuels. The arctic would melt and be gone by 2014 (it's still there), the polar bears would all drown (they didn't). 30 years ago, these same Alarmists predicted that low lying lands would be inundated by the sea, and even complete island nations would disappear beneath the waves in 30 years. 30 years later and nothing happened.

ALTRAV raised a valid point. If the massive real estate industry and it's financial backers (the really smart guys) believed in all the nonsense about HIGW causing oceans to rise, nobody could bet a home loan on any coastal real estate. But it is not only coastal real estate. Thirty years ago alarmists were predicting a 3 meter rise in seal levels by early this century. 3 meters would drown half of Europe, the USA and Australia. You would not be able to sell a single house in Port Macquarie or anywhere else along a beach.

The Washington Post. 2019 "AOC claims the world will end in 12 years unless we do something now."

Washington Post, 7 October 2018

"The world has barely 10 years left to get climate under control, UN scientists say."

Associated Press June 3 1989 Headline. UN Predicts Disaster If Global Warming Not Checked. "A senior UN official has said that entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by 2000."

The Canberra Times Sept. 1988. Maldives. "A gradual rise in average sea levels is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years, according to authorities."

Maldives today.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTr80q0S_mrMOyWSa3XGjTE0k81jQ:1579808176779&q=images+maldives+tourism&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWr8KJvJrnAhWMf30KHWZRCnUQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=157980817908

Aidan, I'm merely quoting others, tongue in cheek.
As for the Rothschilds, I've been researching them for years, and you would not disagree if you too had done some work on them.
As for the climatologists and the end of the world, that is clear proof that you are quoting someone else, because I don't/haven't used the word climatologist.
I like shorter easier words or abbreviations.
So, sorry not me.
As for one of the most scum-bag families in the history of the world, the Rothschilds, have done too many evil, greedy deeds, all in the name of money.
I have come across too many things to know otherwise.
Here's one that just happens to be hanging around my bookmarks.

https://jdreport.com/complete-list-banks-owned-or-controlled-by-the-rothschild-family/

I didn't write this stuff, others did, so who am I or you, to disbelieve something if we don't have any proof or evidence to counter or debunk a proposition or story.
I'm absolutely taken aback that anyone would even THINK about defending such a disgustingly arrogant, greedy and evil family such as this, along with their other running mates of the Bilderberg Group.

Mr Opinion does not know.

1. The Earth warms and cools in regular, repeating, 1000 year cycles.

2. The last warming period was 1000 years ago.

3. This present warming period just happens to have coincided with the industrialisation of the human race.

4. Obviously, anthropogenic CO2 had nothing to do with hundreds of other previous, cyclical, warming periods.

5. 570 million years of global temperatures shows no direct causal link to known atmospheric CO2 levels.

http://www.researchgate.net/figure/Global-Temperature-and-CO2-levels-over-600-million-years-Source-MacRae-2008_fig1_280548391

The commonality among skeptics is a belief that the world is not headed for a climate catastrophe. Other than that I think skeptics have quite a diversity of opinions. For example, I think ocean fertilisation research as a means of influencing rainfall worthwhile, whereas other skeptics think manipulation of the weather impossible, whilst catastrophists by and large think humans have meddled too much with nature and should leave the oceans in peace. I can't help but wonder weather the ocean fertilisation from the bush fire smoke has affected eastern Australia's rainfall.

LEGO,,,,,,really??

No one else here's confused about where I stand on "manbearpig"

Aidan, I am terribly curious as to why you would defend the most, ........ you know the English language does not have words so filthy, crazed, evil, and just bad enough to describe the Rothschilds and their scumbag cockroach mates, all huddled up in the safety of their sanctuary, The Bilderberg Group.
Where they can crawl and slither all over each other at their slimy content, while they plan the next round of disasters to befall us, so they can make more money still.
Aidan, don't be fooled or naive, these guys are running the world, through the banks.
Read my link, I could not believe just how bad these guys are.
Bet you didn't know that the Reserve Bank, firstly is not a bank, and secondly it is privately owned, by yep, you guessed it.
And the list of criminality, on a grand scale, goes on.
Don't take my word for it, look it up.
If you choose not to believe it, you are part of the problem.
As they say, "if you are not with us, you are against us".
These guys are the wealthiest guys in the world, by trillions, and getting richer, and they didn't do it by being nice guys, in fact they did it by being absolutely evil and conniving slithering snakes.
I have more video's if you feel the need to become informed on this garbage.

ALTRAV,
That link you posted is extremely strong proof of your own idiocy. I don't feel the need to watch more videos to become more informed on that garbage, because unlike you I'm well enough informed to determine it is garbage.

The RBA is entirely owned by the Australian government, and has been since the day it was created. Never at any point did any of the Rothschilds even had a cent of equity in it!

The Bank of England was originally Rothschild owned, but was famously nationalized in 1946. It's being on the list you linked to should have alerted you to the fact that the list is total garbage. But it didn't because you were lying when you claimed that:
> I could not believe just how bad these guys are.
The truth is the exact opposite: you were so eager to believe it that you did so unquestioningly.
You're what's known as a proper goose: you always fall for the propaganda!

If you look at any reputable source, you'll see that of all the world's central banks, only one isn't entirely in the public sector. That one is the US Federal Reserve, and even that is not actually Rothschild controlled.

But of course you won't believe any of this; you think i'm part of the problem if I disbelieve moon-is-made-of-green-cheese level conspiracies!

Aidan,

I would not think a belief in Jewish banker conspiracies a condition of climate catastrophe skeptics. I am far more concerned by the catastrophist dogma preventing scientific research:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/human-pollution-may-be-fertilizing-oceans-not-good-180962346/

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/complicated-role-iron-ocean-health-and-climate-change-180973893/

https://phys.org/news/2019-04-iron-microbes-climate.html

The above articles show a number of applied scientific ideas that cannot even be field tested because of a very active environmental movement opposing scientific research. Why oppose something that could improve understanding on the idiotic basis that we should not mess with things that we don't understand? How can you expect to address a scientific question when you are hamstrung by quasi-religious dogma?

Cheers

Aidan, you believe what you want, but part of the litmus test for me was that these scumbags did nothing, created nothing, unlike, say Elon Musk, or Henry Ford, who ACTUALLY contributed to the betterment of mankind and their well being.
They created something, which people wanted, and bought, and so they became rich and prospered, justifiably.
These scum-bags have done NOTHING, and yet they end up being the wealthiest pricks on the planet.
From the beginning they were parasites, and still are today.
There is NO justification for charging the amount they charge for the money they sell to banks and financial institutions.
People only look at the rate the banks charge, nobody looks at the rate they sell the money TO the banks.
And in the US and many other countries, they OWN the reserve "bank", which is NOT a bank, it's a private company.
Aidan, I don't know where to begin with you.
Do you honestly believe that you will find ANY trace of their existence in the institutions mentioned.
You have NO idea of the truth.
These guys BLACKMAILED their way in with the Napoleonic war, and have since, even today, run "The City of London", as it is referred to.
There are few countries they do not control, whether you believe it or not.
Aidan, continue on with your beliefs if it makes you happy and keeps you warm on those cold nights, I instead will keep digging and I will consider ALL the info as I find it.
Let me assure you, you will not find damning evidence against these scum-bags as they hide behind others and get them to be the front men, or countries, or institutions, and so on and so forth.
I am not so young nor naive to be hoodwinked by these findings.
The main thrust of my message is correct.
They are evil, and if I had my way I would do to them what they are and have been doing to humanity from the beginning since that scum Mayer Amschel Rothschild began his reign of greed and averace

LEGO,

Mr Opinion knows everything that you do not know and everything that you will never know.

Fester,

You touched on a good point on p.8 when you said: "I can't help but wonder weather the ocean fertilisation from the bush fire smoke has affected eastern Australia's rainfall."

I reckon this week's Cyclone Damiem in the northwest and heavy rains and floods in the east in the wake of the extreme series of heat waves of 2019/20 that gave rise to the catastrophic bush fires are both the consequence of the latter. The heat that parched the continent would have also been heating the water off our coast providing all the water vapour and latent heat to produce cyclones and storms.

I suppose this is the climate from now on: catastrophic long term heat waves immediately followed by cyclones and heavy rains all of which reek damage and havoc on us. And it just gets worse with increasing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions that result in continued global warming.

I wonder if this constant destructive weather will force insurance companies out of business leaving millions without financial protection for their properties and businesses. First the extreme heat wave brings a bush to burn your house down; if your house wasn't burned down then a week later a flood carries it into the sea. And guess what: you couldn't get insurance coverage because all the insurance companies went out of business.

Hi Mr O,

There is also the possibility that rain resulted from smoke fertilizing the ocean, with plankton growth causing it to trap more heat in the surface so increasing evaporation, and enhancing evaporation and cloud formation further with sulphur aerosols. Without scientific research we are just guessing. If it is case it raises the possibility that ocean fertilisation could be used to influence rainfall.

What the scientists have determined is that the oceans sequester 75-80% of fossil fuel carbon emissions, so I cannot understand the objections of climate catastrophists to better understand the process.

Cheers

Fester,

The oceans hold about 40% of the total CO2 emitted from all sources not 75-80%. The colder the water the more CO2 it can hold; think of your can of cold coke how fizzy it is when opened but left out to warm it will lose its CO2 becoming flat. Same with the oceans when warmed up they release some of their CO2 back into the atmosphere adding to a further greenhouse effect causing further warming of the oceans. And the more the oceans warm the more of its CO2 it releases in the atmosphere.

I think we can make a very sound proposition that the heat producing the warmer oceans especially around the Equator where cyclones are found is the result of global warming. The same global warming that produced the extreme hot and dry 2019/20 season which resulted in the catastrophic bush fires.

PS Did you know that the North Sea is the oceans' kidney for filtering CO2 from the atmosphere? For some unexplained reasoned it is where most of the atmospheric CO2 is absorbed into the world's oceans.

Thanks Mr O. Ultimately ocean carbon sequestration is at least 80% of the total. e.g.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle

I am aware that ocean CO2 absorption varies geographically, but I did not know that most was absorbed in the North Sea. You would think nutrient rich ocean currents a factor, but it would be useful to know why.

Cheers

So are we finally at the point where we can stop accusing mankind of causing GW, and accept that it is the planets natural M.O.
We are warming, (pun intended) to the fact that the planet is going through one of it's warming phases, all by itself, and we had nothing to do with it.
I want to make this clear so that those more vulnerable and naive or innocent of mind and heart can stop panicking over whether or not they are going to die.
Just as an aside, we actually DO need more CO2, not sure how much, no-one knows, but it will help in re-greening a lot of lands that were once green, to be green again.
Now that is something the GREENS CAN DO, and that is stop trying to be scientists or even politicians, as they could not run their finger up their own you know what.
But instead use the only thing they are supposedly any good at, and that is, to coming up with affordable, simple solutions to help green the earth where it was once green, but currently not so.
Now this is a most noble and lauded cause, if they want to ever be remembered as a life saving cult and not a doomsday cult.

A question, Mr O.

You pointed out that the natural world absorbs about half of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel burning. Is it the case that when half the amount of fossil fuel or less was burnt, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels did not change? If not, then why has the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the natural world been increasing?

Cheers

Fester,

I didn't say that. What I said is that the oceans hold about 40% of the total CO2 emissions from all sources.

I wonder if the alarmists have done any REAL research, and not just jumped onto what they felt was a "feel good" story.
I have to assume that they do know, and actually realise that CO2 is composed of 72.71% Oxygen, and a mere 27.29% Carbon.
So when you do the math you find that Oxygen is a good gas, so it further feeds the existing amount of Oxygen already in the air, then as to Carbon, it is a harmless inert molecule which simply falls to ground and does nothing.
So the whole question of CO2 being a dangerous gas is such an outrageous lie and mis-representation, I don't know why we are even discussing this, if only the alarmists had done the simplest of research or inquiries, or asked the right questions, we would not be wasting our time now.
Think about it CO2 is almost all oxygen, which is why it is a good and necessary gas in helping all life on earth to grow and flourish.
We actually need more CO2.

ALTRAV,
When I first read your last comment, I presumed it was an attempt at irony. But now I'm not so sure. Do you actually lack the basic scientific knowledge that most people learn in high school?

As for your comments about the Rothschilds:
Firstly, I see you frantically shifting the goalposts!
Secondly, you're still relying on garbage.

You are far more evil than the Rothschilds are! You'll keep digging in Nazi propaganda and consider it all as you find it! You continue to spout false allegations of blackmail and of them owning many of the world's central banks, because your desire to hate then means you're too bigoted to accept the fact that ALL BUT ONE OF THE WORLD'S CENTRAL BANKS ARE ENTIRELY IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR. And the other one (the US Federal Reserve) is NOT controlled by the Rothschilds.

Your claim that bankers produce nothing is very dubious. They have a useful function enabling others to produce things. And if they're good at their job, you shouldn't begrudge their success,. Where they're making lots of money for doing very little, the solution is more competition (and, to a lesser extent, better regulation).

>There is NO justification for charging the amount they charge for the money they sell to banks and financial institutions.
>People only look at the rate the banks charge, nobody looks at the rate they sell the money TO the banks.
Do you never see the business section of the news? The rate they sell money TO the banks in Australis is justified by the need to control inflation, and set on the first Tuesday of every month except January!
For bank to bank loans it's even simpler - everyone just tries to get the best deal they can. That's how capitalism works.