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 > A net-zero target means net-zero development > Comments

A net-zero target means net-zero development : Comments

By Matthew Canavan, published 5/11/2021

A Liberal-National Party government should strive for more jobs, not just different jobs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Thereis one person in Canberra fighting for white, working people Matt. Her name is Pauline Hanson. Tell yer mates to stop voting for the sellout Nats and woke Labor and vote One Nation.

One Nation is the real Labor Party.

'Net zero" is fantasyland. Not only would the entire population of the world go back to living in caves, it would mean that we could not even use wood fires to cook our food. Whoever dreamed up "net zero" has three brain cells, and two of them are not working.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 5 November 2021 10:04:20 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
An article from the Australian.
There is a joke in itself.
That's the Australian that turned on trump.
No credibility there.
Dan
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 5 November 2021 10:28:25 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
Lego, whoever dreamed up Net Zero 2050, as best I can source it, was UN Christiana Figueres and her "lioness" pals, at a green feminist retreat in 2013.

Matt, I wouldn't get into a big moral panic about it. The major economies have dubious intent, of strongly decarbonising any time soon. Look at "virtuous Germany", exiting German coal as late as 2038, but probably keeping their Russian gas-line.

Then look at the trouble Morrison has got into, signing up to a glib "Australian Way" Net Zero, then using Glasgow as a promotion for Santos.

None of this means that I agree with the LibLab consensus. Which would boost the driest continent's population 40% by 2050, and do precious little about entrenched land clearing, habitat loss, species crashes, and reckless water policy.
Posted by Steve S, Friday, 5 November 2021 10:39:27 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
It is truly worrying that the imbecile who wrote this crap is a government MP. Fortunately most of the public can now see through these lies.

___________________________________________________________

LEGO, as stupid as Senator Canavan is, he seems like Einstein in comparison to you!
Where did you get the idiotic idea that net zero means going back to living in caves? Why do you think net zero means we couldn't even use wood fires to cook our food?

Do you even know the difference between net and gross?
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 5 November 2021 11:31:47 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is correct in summation, but only because we have a self-imposed embargo on nuclear power as an alternative option! And if we would lift that asinine embargo, we could look at MSR thorium as cheaper than coal-fired power!

And should we embrace cooperative capitalism it could be rolled out in around a year as co-op owned and operated SMR's that compete fiercely for the energy dollar.

Yes, that would mean many coal mines would be progressively mothballed! And coal-fired power decommissioned on time! Rather than refurbished and continued. Given the economic realities of cheaper than coal thorium!

Add to that graphene cored under rod cables distributing this much cheaper source of locally OWNED AND OPERATED POWER! And we'd reduce current transmission and distribution losses quite massively! And increase margins minus any price hikes or price gouging!

Local ownership and distribution would also mean the end of tax evasion and profit repatriation. And privatisation that works for the consumer as opposed to current practice of dribbling pennies to the consumer as a rebate that does as little as allowed!

Co-ops would also include the usual economic flow on's that make every one dollar do the work of seven in the local domestic economy! And given that's so, create commensurate jobs, discretionary spending and wealth creation in those same communities!

Safe, clean, cheaper than coal thorium nuclear power is the one option that achieves zero emissions without tanking the economy and if rolled out as envisioned, would quite massively grow local job creation as well! TBC
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 5 November 2021 12:06:32 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
The elephant in the room is world population growth and until we get that under control we have got no hope of controlling climate change.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 5 November 2021 1:09:30 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
Correction, under road, auto corrected to, under rod. Thank you, Grammarly.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 5 November 2021 1:12:44 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
Population growth can be reined in and then reduced via improving average incomes in the poorer nations, and as the only template that has effectively worked!

And needs to be founded on vastly increased female participation in higher education as the get-go starting point.

Elephants in rooms obdurate observations do not ever assist, unless accompanied with viable solutions that do not include mass enforced sterilisation, infanticide, genocide, or mass extinction homicide!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 5 November 2021 1:28:39 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
Good article Matthew Canavan, keep up the good work.

Don't mind the peanut gallery, they obviously missed the math classes at school, so have been easily conned into believing the impossible about CO2, & unreliable power generation.

Alan I agree we should be using nuclear rather than the old dutch system of windmills, but we also need a huge amount of transport fuels, & there is no way batteries or hydrogen are going to do the job with anything like current technology. Give up our petroleum before that technology is invented, & we are all back in the dark ages.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 5 November 2021 1:34:09 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
Hasbeen, the Chinese, particularly in Shanghai are using electrically powered buses and all sorts of other things running off fuel cells using hydrogen. Batteries will be a passing fancy very soon. Alan, a global famine caused by depletion of resources will do the trick, but it might be too late. Malthus might yet be proved right.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 5 November 2021 4:13:40 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
Hasbeen, old mate. Hydrogen will be the preferred fuel of mass transport and freight t for the foreseeable future! If it also includes in house electrolysis. Given a twenty-year cycle vehicle (bus, prime mover) replacement paradigm. Coming in cheaper than diesel and given the number of tanks, an 800 klms range before required refuelling. At around the same time as for diesel!

And as envisioned, the business case stacks up. But even more so if my doubled for the same energy input electrolysis (patent pending) system is incorporated!

I'll wait to patent, given this is where most intellectual property is purloined and rebadged as someone else's intellectual property.

Statements completely devoid of factual truth, old mate, do not equate to informed debate, just quarrelisome pigheadedness?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 5 November 2021 4:35:49 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
Totally correct, VK3AUU.

To Alison Jane. Marry me!

To Aiden. Net zero means net zero. Unless you woke have invented a new definition of zero.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 5 November 2021 8:28:47 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
LEGO,
>Net zero means net zero.
That statement of the obvious gives me no indication whatsoever of what you think it actually means.
But your earlier comments suggest you haven't a clue.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 6 November 2021 1:00:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like many, its good to see someone in the Nats who stands by his constituents, his values and Australia. He should read the article by Essery on the same day. While Essery is focussed on the tainted Greater Sydney Water Strategy, he touches on Net Zero Emissions and its newly born (at COP 26) Net Zero Finance who want to bludgeon us with their threats of with-drawing investment from fossil fuel, while creaming off lucrative fees and brokerage returns for establishing a carbon credit/trading scheme.

Reading between the lines Essery seems to be tagging a new term to fight these wacky globalists at IPCC/COP26 by coining the phrase "Net Zero Discharge", applied to waste water. Unlike NSE, his NZD can provide a valuable resource, namely safe, secure drinkable and profitable potable recycled water. In addition, Essery suggests that NZD can reduce NZ Emissions when compared to the ever popular desalination plants which have extremely large NZEs. He also argues that NZD can also reduce our waste water dumping of pollution into our rivers and coastal waters!

Perhaps Matt should do the same and use generate positive uses for NET ZERO... what about NZ Agricultural Production, Net Zero Resources, Net Zero Climate Change.... Lets face it given the last two decades of the stalled temperature rising may have achieved a NET ZERO Temperature change in the next decade.

Remember as the IPCC/WMO has defined climate as a period of 3 decades, it would be fair to claim Net Zero Temperature rise/Climate Change is the 2001-2031 Net temperature change turns out to have been zero for 3 decades

Its about time we had more people like Matt in our State and Federal parliaments. Many we could have NZGSK... Net Zero Green Scams and Kults
Posted by Alison Jane, Sunday, 7 November 2021 9:15:24 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
A J. We can do SFA about what financiers and banks will back! They in their turn are answerable to their shareholders, not the rum sodden wishes of this or that, totally out of touch pollie?

Moreover, it never ever was about climate change or CO@ emissions! To coin a phrase it's the economy stupid. And that means one chooses the cheapest power supply and the most effective efficient means of reticulating it around the nation!

Coal cannot in its wildest dreams get power prices, even with ROM coal, down below 3 cents PKWH! Whereas, MSR thorium can get as low as 1 cent PKWH!

And no business model can compete with, private enterprise, free-market co-ops a the lowest costing private enterprise business model doing it.

Unless you factor in a few intelligently led shire councils, reticulating it at cost! Tamworth, Banana,e.g. Whose sale of Australian white goods in Shire owned operations made enough profit to completely support the model!

Co-ops were the only private enterprise, free-market business model that survived the Great Depression, largely intact! And for the stated reasons, above!

Not for nothing Howard and cohorts dismantled as many as they could along with the guaranteed floor price, when what was required, was root and branch, modernisation! TBC.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 7 November 2021 1:51:51 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
Alan, you are a bit of a dreamer with your MSR Thorium power plants. The same sort of nuclear technology that is used in the Submarines is what we need to get us out of trouble, but it takes some effective action by our gutless pollies to bring it about, Unfortunately, our coal and gas fired power stations will have all gone into bankruptcy before any of that can happen and before the end of this decade we will be having blackouts when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Sunday, 7 November 2021 3:33:59 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
If thorium reactors in a few Chinese subs is good enough for them, then I see no reason why we should prefer the costlier model in the proposed Nuclear sub deal? Except, it's all that's offered!

I get that very few Australians know SFA about thorium, the most energy-dense material on the planet! And four times more abundant than uranium.

Moreover, we have around 40% of the world's known reserves. And it's one of a few sources of miracle cancer cure, the alpha particle, bismuth 213!

And abandoned over fifty years ago due to the extreme to impossible difficulty, of weaponising it!

The reactors in the "our" subs still need to run at extremely high pressure and the fuel enriched uranium or as plutonium.

Thorium can be used after spending a couple of weeks in a reactor blanket as is and then in molten salt reactors operating at ambient atmospheric pressure! And given the reprocessing plant is very adjacent, able to power whatever, for 100 years without refuelling.

I mean one needs just 8 grams to power both house and car for 100 years. Given the cost of mining and refining to the metal is around $100.00 for 8 grams, that's just one dollar a year to power both house and car! And no other energy source can equal that!

Uranium 235 is as rare as platinum. And consequently about as expensive. Who posting here would counsel we'd burn platinum for our preferred power source other than the real DREAMERS or the abysmally ignorant posting here?

IT'S ECONOMY, STUPID. QUOTE UNQUOTE.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 7 November 2021 4:36:02 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
Alan,
I was one of the ignorant multitude about thorium, I went with the attitude that “…if it was any good we’d be using it” but your posts caused me to look further into it and it’s become blindingly apparent that if they’d gone ahead with research all those years ago we’d be enjoying cheap fuel today instead of being ripped off by the power companies.

The last thing that we want is nuclear reactors just like the ones that boil the water in undersea steam ships.
Posted by Is Mise, Sunday, 7 November 2021 5:03:21 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
Alan and Mise and a few of our pollies and greenies. I suggest you read this article. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/non-power-nuclear-applications/transport/nuclear-powered-ships.aspx.

I see no mention of Thorium. A few of these reactors might offer short term solutions to our coming power shortages.

David
Posted by VK3AUU, Sunday, 7 November 2021 6:20:15 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
The aim should be quality of life for all things living from plant through to animal species (putting humans as animal species second), as humans were not here first. I would argue humans are nothing more than a pest and have devestated the planet. Putting that aside, the discussion should be about quality of jobs, not quantity, realising that a stay at home parent is an important role to respect and any economic development must be sustainable in the long term in terms of zero emissions and climate change. There also needs to be a discussion about population numbers and developing wholistic policies there. Some have recently referred to current policies restricting overseas entry into Australia and COVID-19 (and problems coming from that, which I think are questionable) but conveniently forget previous issues that were in place with an open slather approach re immigration and a pro economic growth at any cost approach.
Posted by NathanJ, Sunday, 7 November 2021 10:55:58 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
For anyone still gullible enough to believe Canavan's rant, I suggest you watch the current episode of Landline. It's broadcast at 10am (Monday) on ABC TV, or you can find it on iView.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 November 2021 12:08:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thirty years ago Landline was a great useful program.

Today, green communist propaganda.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 8 November 2021 12:14:29 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
No, I won't watch the latest episode of landline, Aiden. Why would I want to watch the propaganda from the woke ABC? Human Induced Climate Change is advocated by the same sorts of morons who advocate Critical Race Theory, gender neutral pronouns, and the preposterous claim that there are 178 genders. If you was a smart person would start to smell a rat straight away. But your one brain cell can't manage that.

A bunch of self aggrandizing climate scientists took what they knew was a perfectly natural event that they knew was right on schedule, to elevate their science into the same level of importance as Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and others, and present their obscure science as the saviours of the world. They are supported by kooky vegans, neo-Marxists, the left wing fake news press, Chinese manufacturers, Gaia worshipping Luddites, public service bureaucrats who hanker for a government "Of the public service, By the public service, and For the public service", UN bureaucrats who think they can solve world poverty by transferring the wealth of the western world to the always dysfunctional third world, and our new caste of socialite socialists.

Which demographic is yours?

In 2020, more than 36,000 US scientists signed a petition to Congress saying that they thought HIGW was malarky. So no matter what you and your comrades say, the science is definitely not settled. And if your single brain cell was working, you might ask yourself how is it that alarmist scientists get deluged with research money while sceptic scientists get sacked?

Since you don't read history, I will post up President Eisenhower's warning.

"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the Military Industrial Complex." " ... we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger, that public policy itself could become captive of a scientific-technological elite."
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 8 November 2021 8:21:36 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
VK3Auu,
I would suggest that you eliminate this ‘s’ and leave the ‘http’, that way the automatic link comes up and people might click on it.
It’s a thing peculiar to OLO and needs to be guarded against.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 8 November 2021 8:34:16 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
Ise Mise
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-power.aspx seems to work on my computer.
David
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 8 November 2021 9:25:21 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
That’s because it’s on your computer, just try leaving the ‘s’ off, believe me, we’ve been living with this idiosyncrasy for years.
Posted by Is Mise, Monday, 8 November 2021 12:21:44 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
LEGO,
Far from advocating human induced climate change, I advocate stopping it because I am aware of the problems it causes. And as an engineer, I know that although the task is enormous, it can be achieved while improving people's quality of life. And by "people" I'm referring to the entire population, not just a few.

What demographic is mine? The one that's your worst nightmare: the people who are swayed by evidence; those who actually listen to the arguments on both sides before forming a long term opinion. The ones who see through lies, and never regard stereotypes as an adequate substitute for facts.

I've been unable to find any record of the petition to congress you mentioned - are you sure you're not conflating it with the 1998 one mentioned in http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30000-scientists-reject-climate-change/ ?

Anyway, 36000 out of millions is insignificant. Now ultimately it's about the physics, and even one person with a good insight into why things are the way they are would be preferable to a billion without that insight. But the thing about science is that ideas are shared and tested. The good ones don't stay on the sidelines for very long. So while the number of scientists with a certain opinion isn't the ultimate determinant, it's a pretty good indicator of what is true. And I've yet to see an alternative hypothesis that truly fits the facts. Denialists invariably resort to obfuscation, false assumptions and ignoring the facts. It's not the genuinely sceptical scientists who get sacked, but the ones who ignore the evidence. And rightly so: they aren't doing their jobs properly. Though historically, oil companies have ensured that any scientists taking the denialist position are deluged with research money.

(TBC)
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 November 2021 3:45:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO (continued)

I agree with Eisenhower, and it's a shame subsequent presidents ignored his advice. And though I wouldn't classify it as the opposite danger, I do agree that deferring to a scientific-technological elite is undesirable. But what you don't seem to get is that ignoring the scientists is even worse the true solution is to improve education, so that the science is accessible for everyone, not just an elite.

BTW I notice you didn't answer the questions I put to you. Do you find them too hard? Or is it just too embarrassing you failed to understand the difference between net and gross?

_____________________________________________________________________________

VK3AUU,
Of course it works. But http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/russia-nuclear-power.aspx works just as well and is more convenient for readers.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Haseen,
LOL!

Landline is the same program it's always been, but you're now so closed minded that you dismiss anything which could shatter your delusions as "green communist propaganda"!

For thinking people, of course, it is the claim that something is impossible, rather than the explanation of how people are doing it, that is propaganda.
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 8 November 2021 3:47:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

I will say it again:

"This Bachelor of Arts graduate who went straight to Canberra after university to work for the Productivity Commission as a public servant for 10 years before becoming a staffer for Barnaby Joyce. Yet he parades around with a coal stained face dressed in fluro workwear. Just look at his Twitter profile picture."

http://twitter.com/mattjcan

This is exactly the kind of person you have been slagging off on forever.

Why the love-in now?

As to Landline mate, it hasn't changed, I think you might find you have. Happens to all of us, becoming curmudgeonly old farts afraid of any change.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 8 November 2021 3:55:18 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
Aidan, & SR, there is one thing that is of net zero value. It is the bland assurances of a naive dill, & a con man.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 9 November 2021 12:09:10 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
Hasbeen, if you're referring to Scotty from Marketing, I disagree. His bland assurances have often been of negative value.
Posted by Aidan, Tuesday, 9 November 2021 6:48:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First comment on OLO having read articles for a month or so. Good Article from the author who at least has the "globes" to speak his mind despite the weak words of his coalition mates. Net zero is a true scam and with China and India and Russian treating it with such disrespect, I am bemused how the ABC, Turncoat and lefties are so suckered into it. The fact that even Obama has to be brought out of retirement to speak at COP26 just shows how desperate the IPPC luvies are to promote it.

As for the trail of comments... where do these guys come from. I rarely read comments, bought thought I should before writing one. What childish schoolboy/girl drivel. They even seem to go off tangent from the topic with no logic.. Weirdos.
Posted by Alison Jane, Tuesday, 9 November 2021 7:06:44 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
Dear Hasbeen,

I would agree that Canavan is a dill and a conman but I would never call him naive. That is for folks who regard him as some kind of working class hero.

Absolutely nothing in recent politics rises to the description of conman than smearing coal dust on your face and wearing high viz to intimate a blue collar background.

An Arts degree holding, public servant come political hack trying to pass himself off as something he most definitely isn't and you are there patting his back? How does that work?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Tuesday, 9 November 2021 8:34:53 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
Infinite growth. Finite planet. What could possibly go wrong?
Posted by Steve Bull, Tuesday, 9 November 2021 10:02:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Wow, Aiden. You managed to write 388 words on a topic instead of just doing your usual hit and runs. Did you visit a woke detox centre?

If you are one of the people who are swayed by evidence, then where is the evidence that human induced CO2 has any effect upon climate at all? There isn't any. It is just an act of faith. It is just like declaring that "Jesus Christ is the son of God" and then basing an entire religion on it, and expecting everybody to just BELIEVE.

For many years I accepted that those scientists who advocated HIGW were probably right. After all, it was plausible, and scientists are supposed to be seekers of the truth. But since I am an avid reader of history, I was aware that climate had always changed, and that had always had a serious effect on human history, which the alarmist side was not even mentioning. Worse, when the woke mob jumped on board I knew something was wrong, as these ideological idiots always get everything wrong.

I read Ian Plimer's book and began looking at video's on Youtube which represented both sides of the debate. Several years ago, there was hardly any Youtube video's telling the Denier side of the story. It was all Alarmist and most of it could have been written by priests preaching religion. The presentation of the Alarmist side video's were usually supercilious and condescending, and they presented "facts" which they presumed that their audience was too dumb to check. The best part about knowing both sides of an argument is that the side who is hiding something, but who thinks they have their audience blindsided, usually get careless and make stupid mistakes. Like Manne's "Hockey Stick Graph" or Al Gore's stupid graph.

The growing number of Denialist sites has grown exponentially and from my perspective have a much better argument. They dissect the half truths of the Alarmists and reveal that they are complete lies. And they back up their claims with evidence and reasoned arguments which to me make perfect sense
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 10 November 2021 7:32:47 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
LEGO,
>If you are one of the people who are swayed by evidence, then where is the
>evidence that human induced CO2 has any effect upon climate at all?

Physics.
I'll give a more detailed explanation later, possibly Friday.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 11 November 2021 12:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoopee do, LEGO and I can't wait to see you "Aiden" explain to us climate realists who (in my case have studies, measured, written reports on climate/hydrology for 40 years) don't understand your science and physics.

We can't wait for you wise words that will turn us into climate change cultists like you.

Hey if you do a good job, you might get two more disciples who will bend the knee at the throne of that Swedish Doom Goblin" Greta.!
Posted by Alison Jane, Thursday, 11 November 2021 6:06:01 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
To Aiden.

I presume that means "I had better start doing some research which I just know will support my new religious belief."

Go to it, Aiden. It is what you should have done before you formed an opinion. Not just said to yourself "All my friends believe in HIGW and the class of pseudo intellectuals with whom I aspire to be a part of regard belief in HIGW as a defining class characteristic. So I BELIEVE. I BELIEVE."

The good thing about you finally doing some research is that you are on your way to figuring out how you got conned. That could be a very important milestone in the development of your character. realising that the people you trusted with your child like innocence were lying to you all along may be the making of you.

Suggestion. Don't just look at Alarmist "evidence" and parrot what they say or write. Because I will be way ahead of you there. Put aside all preconceptions and look at both sides of the argument with an open, inquiring, and critical mind
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 11 November 2021 6:51:22 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
To Alison Jane.

I have no idea why you are hostile to me when we are on the same side. I have always enjoyed reading your posts, and if I remember correctly, you even praised the logic of one of my previous posts on HIGW.

I can only presume that you part read one of my posts and completely misread it, somehow concluded that I am in favour of the HIGW cult You then decided to attack me. You also must have missed my previous post, a few pages back, when I asked you to marry me.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 11 November 2021 6:56:30 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
Apologies, to you Lego. You must have misred me. I am on your side and await Aiden's words of "wisdom" with Glee. Cheers AJ
Posted by Alison Jane, Thursday, 11 November 2021 7:02:30 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
LEGO,
>I presume that means "I had better start doing some research which I just know will support my new religious belief."
WHAT AN IDIOTIC PRESUMPTION!

Firstly this nothing to do with my religious belief, which is Christianity. I'm well aware many atheists equate religion with irrationality, and there are certainly a lot of irrationally religious people around, but my own faith is based on evidence, and I regard blind faith as a bad thing.

I'd be astounded if I could ever convince you to accept Jesus, but the evidence for climate change is clearer and much easier to verify. I don't need to do any research to provide a detailed explanation, but it will be time consuming to write one in a way I can be confident you can understand. My life doesn't revolve around this board, and I have more important things to do today.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 11 November 2021 1:41:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps Aiden is too young to have been around for the climategate revelations. No one who has read the cheating & confidence tricks our esteemed climate scientists were using to try to support their scam, could possibly believe anything any of them ever said again.

If these people had a single piece of solid evidence to support their pronouncements there would not be so many totally scatter brained papers trying to support them. Left handed fish anyone.

I too await with interest to see what Aidan can find to actually support the scam, & the gravy train riders it has supported.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 11 November 2021 1:46:08 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
Dear Alison Jane,

My experience in reading your posts has been that you either ignore or have a deep ignorance about the physics of climate change.

But I'm a sucker for punishment so can you please tell me what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore to be able to say it has had no impact on global warming?
Posted by SteeleRedux, Thursday, 11 November 2021 2:13:21 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 Aiden, don't you think that you are being presumptuous coming on OLO and telling posters who oppose your viewpoint on HIGW that they are morons, without being able to present a reasoned argument supporting your own view? It makes me think that your beliefs have no grounding in research, and that you are just parrotting the fashionable views of the brahmin caste of people that you identify with, whom you think are rooly, rooly smart and that therefore, they must be right?

I have mentioned this to other Alarmists and they have always denied it. But at least they have been able to put up a fight. You on the other hand seem like a classic case of a young man who simply accepts what he thinks is the accepted wisdom of his peers, but who has never bothered to impartially examine the facts.

I have a feeling that you are going to disappear into cybespace and we on OLO will never see or hear from you again.

If you really do believe that you are smart, then start acting smart. Put aside you prejudices (which is almost impossible to do) and impartially examine both the Alarmist and Denier sides of the question and see who has the better argument. Simply thinking that Alarmists are smart and Deniers are dumb, and you want to identify with the smart people, is not a smart way to think.

If I were you, I would start with Michael Manne's infamous "Hockey Stick Graph" which was the basis of the first UN IPCC report, which is self evidently false, and which according to author Mark Steyn, is still being taught as fact in Canadian textbooks. It was such an embarrassment to the UN IPCC that they no longer even use it.

Once you realise that this example was not just a lie, it was a really bad lie that effortlessly collapsed under objective scrutiny, you might start to figure out how easy it was to pull the wool over well meaning and decent young people like yourself.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 11 November 2021 5:21:23 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 Professor Steel-rednuts, its hard to do that in OLO comment space. BUT, first I suggest you look at how CO2 molecules (thats one carbon atom plus two oxygen atoms) responds to incoming solar radiation.

Next check out how the CO2 molecule responds to this. Here ends lesson one. Get back to me when you have worked that is important to you beloved Climate Change Cult scam.
Posted by Alison Jane, Thursday, 11 November 2021 6:59:42 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
Okay Steelredux. I know you won't respond to my posts, because I have put your face in the mud too many times. But I will answer that question for you because I am in love with Alison Jane.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and changing the composition of our atmosphere by pumping out huge quantities of CO2 SHOULD increase temperatures. But is it doing that in the sort of timelines being shrieked by Alarmists? Despite huge increases of CO2 in the last fifty years, CO2 remains only a trace gas in our atmosphere. Has there been any measurable difference in our environment because of increased CO2? Yes, there has. CO2 is plant food and agronomists the world over are talking about "The Greening of the Earth" because of increased CO2 levels.

For 600 million years, the level of CO2 in our atmosphere has been steadily declining, as CO2 has become locked up in carbonaceous rocks such as limestone and coal. This coincided with a steady decline in temperature. But while this might suggest a causal link, a more detailed examination of data suggests that this may be incorrect. Within that 600 million year epoch, temperatures have sometimes climbed sharply while CO2 levels dropped sharply, while sometimes temperatures dropped sharply while CO2 levels rose steeply.

This may indicate that CO2 is not so important in determining global temperatures. It is hard to say, because something like 20 different factors affect global temperatures.

But if you wish to reduce CO2 emissions because you reasonably assume it may affect global temperatures, then I don't see a problem with that. What I have a problem with, is a political/religious movement that shrieks and intimidates, and insists that unless we completely destroy western economies right now, and replace them with (?) then we are all gunna die. And if we don't destroy our whole way of living RIGHT NOW, and admit how virtuous and intelligent they are, they will glue themselves to roadways
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 12 November 2021 4:56:17 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
Alan et al,
For the MSR, no system arrangements have been signed, but a memorandum of understanding to allow for collaborative R&D by interested members has been signed by Euratom, France, Russia, Switzerland, Canada, USA and Australia. China, Japan and Korea are observers. Terrestrial Energy joined it in 2019 after two years with observer status. There will be a long lead time to prototypes, and the R&D orientation has changed since the project was set up, due to increased interest. It now has two baseline concepts:
The Molten Salt Fast Neutron Reactor (MSFR), which will take in thorium fuel cycle, recycling of actinides, closed Th/U fuel cycle with no U enrichment, with enhanced safety and minimal wastes.
The Advanced High-Temperature Reactor (AHTR) – also known as the fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor (FHR) – with the same graphite and solid fuel core structures as the VHTR and molten salt as coolant instead of helium, enabling power densities 4 to 6 times greater than HTRs and power levels up to 4000 MWt with passive safety systems. The TMSR Research Centre is constructing a small solid-fuel simulator (TMSR-SF0) at Shanghai Institute of Nuclear Applied Physics (SINAP, under the China Academy of Sciences) with a 2020 target for operation. It will be followed by a 10 MWt prototype, TMSR-SF1.
The GIF 2014 Roadmap said that a lot of work needed to be done on salts before demonstration reactors were operational, and suggested 2025 as the end of the viability R&D phase.The main research needs, according to the China Academy of Sciences, which leads world R&D on them, are fuel treatment, materials and reliability.
Posted by VK3AUU, Friday, 12 November 2021 7:56:53 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
Hello Steel rednuts why no wtty remote from my or Lego's (very generous) free science lesson..perhaps your delicate little ego fingers an ",wewner" has been super glued to some Glasgow pub floor.
Posted by Alison Jane, Friday, 12 November 2021 8:14:07 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
Dear Alison Jane,

I sat through 26 hours of MIT lectures on Climate Change over 10 years ago now in order to get my head around the physics of global warming.

I know about the 4 normal modes of vibration of the CO2 molecule compared to the 3 for water. I know the contribution of CO2 to the total green house effect of earth and I know the differing impacts at different layers of the atmosphere.

So how about answering my question instead of doing the obfuscationists trick of continually answering questions with questions.

As for Lego I cut that bloke off a while ago because of his attitudes toward women on the forum and because he had nothing to say that held any interest for me. No biggie.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 12 November 2021 2:34:21 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
So where did you go for your brain washing SR?
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 12 November 2021 6:45:57 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
soft Steel Rednuts... " I sat through 26 hours of MIT lectures on Climate Change over 10 years ago" is that it?, so my 40 years of working in academia, industry and Government can be replaced by 26 hours on 10 year old video lectures! Wow. Well at least you probably have studied more than Grimacing Greta, but then that doesn't say much. Go and slug down another 3 bottles of Buckfast Tonic wine.. I believe its Greta favourite, which she starting drinking in Glasgow. Hasbeen, you and Lego are to kind to SR.
Posted by Alison Jane, Friday, 12 November 2021 7:23:39 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
Dear Alison Jane,

You asked and I answered but then instead of doing me the courtesy of addressing the question I put to you you blather out a rambling resume and deliver not an iota of substance.

The empress truely has no clothes.

You really have nothing do you.

From your dismissal of the impact of CO2 you show just how bereft of understanding of the role of the molecule you have.

Either put up or put a sock in it.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Friday, 12 November 2021 10:59:27 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
Most of the infrared in our atmosphere is not the incoming solar radiation, but the back radiation produced by the ground after the solar radiation heats it up.
Most of the gases in our atmosphere are transparent to infrared, but CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and reemit it in a random direction, which means more of it is going down towards the ground than otherwise would be. This, of course, causes more heating at ground level.

Scientists have no doubt whatsoever about this. It's very well understood, and (in case you think this is all a conspiracy by scientists) CO2's status as a greenhouse gas has even been confirmed by Mythbusters! So I'm quite baffled as to how you you can still doubt that human induced CO2 has any effect upon climate at all. Are you unaware that the burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50%?

We have an observed rise in temperature, and we have a phenomenon that we know causes temperature to rise. And yet denialists want us to believe either that something's preventing the latter from causing the former, and either something else is responsible for the temperature rise that the HIGW could be expected to cause but didn't, or temperatures aren't really rising (despite overwhelming evidence). Which is it in your case?

The atmosphere is a very complex system, so the idea that something else was responsible for the warming had some credibility in the 20th century. But scientific understanding has moved on from then, and we now know that other factors that can result in warming have made a much lesser (and in some cases, negative) contribution to the warming we've experienced.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 13 November 2021 1:32:30 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Steelredux.

Alison Jane is a woman and I am shocked at the way you are treating her. I think I will cut you off
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 13 November 2021 3:08:04 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
To Aiden.

I know how infra red solar radiation heats the planet using the greenhouse effect. I get the impression that you just got on an Alarmist site and copied down whatever they were lecturing you with, and you think that makes you sound authoritative?

For many years I sat on the fence in regards to HIGW. I read Professor Plimers book (which was very hard going) and then decided that I would spend a lot of time watching both Alarmist and Denier sites on YouTube to see if I could figure out which side was right

I don't know how many hours I spent watching both sides of the HIGW debate but I would estimate about 50. As I wrote before, my objective opinion was that the Denier sites were a lot more credible. To begin with, they pointed out the very obvious flaws in the Alarmist side, like the Robert Manne's infamous "Hockey Stick Curve" and how Al Gore had pulled the wool over the eyes of a whole class full of university students with his own graph, which appeared to indicate that sea temperature and CO2 was linked, with CO2 leading sea temperature. The Deniers explained how it had to be the other way around. What they pointed out about the graph was logical. It made sense. Either Gore knew the graph was wrong and he was a crook. Or he did not know it was wrong and he was an idiot. An idiot who got the Nobel Prize for completely misrepresenting the truth.

I began to subjectively lean the Denier way. And what also impressed me about the denier point of view was how their facts cross connected with other facts. That is what I call "the ring of truth."

Unless you are prepared to understand both sides of the argument and convince yourself which side is right, you will always be a young man who simply FEELS that the Alarmists are right because of peer pressure. And all you will ever be able to do is parrot off already easily refuted arguments of the Alarmists
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 13 November 2021 8:58:56 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
Dear Hasbeen,

Mate you are the one lapping up the manufactured propaganda of smeared on coal dust and fluros.

Damn, you really have brought what this snake oil salesman is selling haven't you.

Wake up to yourself.
Posted by SteeleRedux, Saturday, 13 November 2021 5:30:29 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. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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