Fester,
If you want to discuss dispatchable power we can. But don't conflate baseload, dispatchability and reliability; they're completely different things, and if you can't recognise that then you can't realistically expect to understand the concepts involved.

Yes, I agree the future of nuclear power in Australia shouldn't depend on present regulations. But it should depend on economics, and those are against it.

Anyway, nobody is seriously proposing getting rid of dispatchable power, so the crazy rhetoric about the lights going out serves no purpose other than to fool the gullible.

____________________________________________________________________________

Bazz and Captain,
Though there are many different variables, none of the others have anywhere near as much impact as CO2 levels. Some make small contributions to global warming, while the contribution of others is negative. And none of them have changed as much, or as fast, as CO2 levels, which have risen 50% since preindustrial times.

It is fortunate that the warming from CO2 isn't proportional, for if it were, the change would have been catastrophic already! But claims of saturation fail to take into account the doppler effect and that radiation can be absorbed and reemitted many times.

Bazz, I presume the "J Kauppenin" you referred to is actually the Jyrki Kauppinen whose claim was debunked at http://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/
Why are you so reliant on cognitive dissonance?

Well, he is not on his own, the scientists at Kobe Uni and Svenmark
also agree,
Also you are surely not suggesting that those previous cycles did not happen ?

Bazz,
As I said back in 2019:
Svenmark was under the impression that global warming had stopped. But the data since then has proved otherwise. His conclusion about the relative effects of cosmic rays and CO2 has been shown to be incorrect.
Cosmic rays do have some effect on cloud formation and therefore climate. But the effect is far less than that of CO2.

>Also you are surely not suggesting that those previous cycles did not happen ?
Indeed, and I'quite surprised you found it worth checking. Of course they happened!
But cycles are not an alternative explanation to changing variables; cyclical factors and feedback loops caused variables to change. Atmospheric CO2 is of course one of those variables.

Human actions have raised the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50% and the world is warming faster than it has for millions of years. Other variables have a negligible or negative contribution to the warming, Yet still you try to fool yourself and others into thinking CO2 isn't responsible. Any scientific paper with a conclusion you like is regarded as proof no matter how much it's debunked, while the other 99% you ignore.

Of course you're not alone in this cognitive dissonance - it seems to be the majority view on this board. The best explanation for this mass delusion I've seen is that when anticapitalists tried to coopt global warming to suit their own agenda, people not only believed them, but also decided that anything capitalism is incompatible with fixing couldn't possibly be real!
Is that the case with you?