to Alison Jane
I'm not being "alarmist" - merely pointing out that the nuclear industry is unique in its need for stringent security. In this time of pandemic, the nuclear industry is obliged to maintain security. That, in turn, means that they have to bring in special conditions, which could even include shutting down reactors. All of which means even more costs. So - it could mean that the nuclear industry has had its day.

As to "rude misogynists" - may I offer a bit of advice, - very much from personal experience. Just ignore them. Misogynist trolls thrive on argument and "debate". They seem to have endless time. Some are paid to do it. We're not. And our time is precious.

Alison Jane,
Your accusation that I'm a misogynist is libellous. Consider this an unofficial warning.
Did you fail to notice the rules of this board include:
"Observe Australian copyright and defamation laws and all other laws relating to acceptable speech"?
If it happens again I will make it official.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

ChristinaMac1
I don't think Alison's time is precious. She's retired (or claims to be) and seems to have nothing better to do than troll on this board.

Can't see how I said you were an alarmist.. as you don't seem to write like one. I spent 40 years lips sealed on CCC and the bullys ( male and female) I have met in my 60 year on this wonderful planet, time for this senile old tart climate realist to have some fun with them, as they can no longer hurt my career/.well-being/superfunds!

Thanks ChristinaMac1, Will do, but I do like giving them a piece of their own medicines, like all bullies they have nano-thin skin.

AS for Aidens scary reply to us...must check his "legal threat" powers. and pass him on to a lovely woman I was shook hands with... owe my failing memory is so, what's the word for it...... damned annoying senility, even worse than my incontinence and drooling. Ah yes Julia... Gillard?

We pig-ignorant, senile old tarts must stick together!

Aidan,

Flannery. I don't think anyone's saying he "said the rain might not come." He didn't. What he did say, on several occasions, was that the rains, when they did come, wouldn't fill the dams. This was both part of his usual scaremongering and attempts to justify what became a frivolous waste of funds on de-sal plants. His predictions were wrong, laughably wrong, and the usual suspects have been trying to obfuscate that ever since. I'm a little surprised you are party to that effort.

" Many predictions were conditional on lack of action" and "Many predictions were not made by scientists"

This is true but is part of the 'game'. The idea is that multiple predictions are made based on differing scenarios and then the scariest gets promoted. If scientists were honest and not part of the 'game' they'd be out there telling the world not to give any extra credence to the scaremongering.

That's why, for example the IPCC continues to use RCP8.5 . Despite being thoroughly debunked as a viable future scenario, it yields the scariest predictions. So the IPCC continues to publish those predictions knowing full well that they are wrong and also knowing that when, in the future, they are shown to be wrong, they can simply say that they were one of several other predictions. Its part of the 'game' and part of gaming the system.

/cont

/cont
Another example is the James Hanson predictions. Back in 1990 he made predictions about future temperatures for 2010. Scenario A showed large scary increases, scenario B slightly less scary increases and scenario C slight increases. Over the years scenario A was usually mentioned as his prediction and by extension NASA's prediction. Never did he come out and say that this was the wrong way to use his data. But come 2010 and scenario C was closest to the mark and he and the usual suspects immediately pivoted to claiming that he was right all along.

If scientists were honest they'd be out there telling people that their data was being misused. Where are the scientists pointing out that the claims about a climate catastrophe by 2030 are rubbish? Not to be found? Why? Because, in the words of Stephen Schneider "So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have"

Just to clarify: I wasn't threatening to sue. When I said "make it official" I meant I'd report you, which could result in a ban.