Net Zero has become like Rapture or the second coming of the prophet in certain religions. Like religion it sets us up to accept hardship. In my opinion things will be tough regardless due to looming significant depletion of oil and gas. We're headed for rationing so that for example you can have all the aircon you want at 35C but at 45C your aircon will be switched off remotely not that we could afford the electricity anyway. The great plagues of Egypt will have become the big switch-off.

Net Zero assumes we can plant enough trees to compensate for steel, cement etc. Don't think so. The high priests of the green sacrifice movement will fly around in kerosene burners while the rest of us take the (electric) bus. My guess is that 2050 will be like 1950 in affluence terms except we'll have internet.

The climate-change agenda is replete with myths and superstitions, including tall tales of islands being inundated; of unparallelled extreme weather; of the imminent destruction of the Great Barrier Reef. These imagined events have no basis in reality, along with the really big myth that a country can survive on wind and solar power generation.

And, 65,000 year old aboriginal myths are now being used to prevent and close down much of our mining wealth.

Not myths, but facts: there is no proof that CO2 is anything but vital plant food, and emissions are still rising, and our environment is being wrecked by ugly and dangerous windmills and solar panels.

Mamtimin Ala’s article is full of speculative and misleading claims that distort the true purpose and impact of NetZero policies.

The idea that NetZero policies are a tool for economic centralisation and social control is a baseless conspiracy theory. Suggesting that this is about controlling people is unhinged paranoia.

Yes, renewable energy infrastructure requires land; some of which is dual-purposed or not much good for anything else. Although, I have received some complaints from the possums who now have to step around the solar panels on my roof (which pump kilowatts of power back into the grid most days.) Either way, the overall environmental impact is far smaller than the alternatives.

NetZero policies are about making agriculture more sustainable by adopting more efficient practices and reducing methane emissions. The fearmongering about "destroying" agriculture is unfounded.

Ala’s claim that electric vehicles and renewable energy are more polluting than traditional technologies has been thoroughly debunked and is the sort of garbage that gets passed around in Facebook posts by bogans and baby boomers. Their overall lifecycle emissions are significantly lower than those of fossil fuels, and the gap here only widens as technology improves.

The use of technology to monitor and manage emissions is about improving efficiency and ensuring accountability. These technologies are subject to oversight to protect individual rights and freedoms in democratic societies.

But this was my favourite bit:

//However, claiming that climate change is a "science" while we must all "believe" in it is paradoxical, given that science must be a proven fact, not a belief.

No, climate change is a phenomenon. There are many fields of science that study it, however, and no one is saying we must “believe in” it; technically, science is never a “proven fact”, either.

//According to the Oxford Dictionary, "belief" means "accept that something is true, especially without proof."//

Oh, so NOW we’re getting the dictionary out? Where was it before?

It is unlikely that governments deliberately use "Net Zero" as a means to oppress their populations (I just don't think they are that smart): some of them may even naively believe that they are doing good things for the community, yet the scary effect of their actions is the same.

Yuyutsu,

What are these “scary” effects you speak of, and what do you think governments who may "naively believe" they are doing good are overlooking or misunderstanding about the impact of their actions?

They can't as yet produce solar panels in factories powered by solar panels. That's not what i'd call successful technology.
Solar panels are great for homes & for camping but large scale ? I'm not seeing any evidence of zero emission even being 50% by 2050 let alone reaching the dreamers goal !
To achieve any practical reduction we should already be mining with battery-powered excavators etc.
Use the money wasted on con merchants & bureaucratic idiots on housing & other more useful & needed infrastructure.

I think that the crazy ideological quest being prosecuted by the Albo cult is leaving people feeling disenfranchised from the democratic process. When people get taken for granted and get bossed about by ideological cretins, sometimes they get fed up and start speaking out. Maybe the following is good symbolism for the consequences of such conduct:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13809653/Sunrise-Jim-Chalmers-heckled-Nat-Barr.html

Dear John,

«What are these “scary” effects you speak of»

Well the article already mentions these effects, which can be summed up as the loss of individual autonomy, or in the words of the article: "generational transformation of humanity to be socially altered, behaviourally regulated, technologically controlled, and economically centralised".

The article mentions the loss of independent small-scale agriculture and food production, the increase in artificial foods, global governance and persecution of oppositions, also "facial recognition systems, carbon emission milestones for everybody monitored through digital ID, currency and social credit systems, calculations of travel mileages and taxation incentives, and reward/punishment mechanisms".

The article also speaks of inducing guilt, but personally that bothers me less because I know who I am, I know I have done nothing wrong and I do not listen to "authorities" anyway and am not susceptible to their propaganda. However, the effect of such guilt on young generations cannot be under-estimated.

What particularly scares me most is, "utilise all cutting-edge technologies to monitor, change, regulate, and, ultimately, control every human activity":

The terror of digital technology is already upon us, it already restricts the activities I can participate in, the places I can go, and it already costs me a lot to try to circumvent. It is constantly getting worse and the article promises us even more of that menace.

I was aspiring all my life to simplify my life, to be independent and self-sufficient, I chose to come to Australia because it was still relatively "backward" at the time, but alas not any more. Life today is only getting more complex, more strangulating, there will come a time when I will no longer be able to take it - I only hope to die naturally before that.

"scary” effects"
The Climate Change professionals are over-using terms similar to this one but for a totally different reason. The people who get scared due to the negativity of a changing climate aren't the ones contributing to pollution contributing to damaging the atmosphere. It's the people who make careers & fortunes from pushing "renewables' that will not be invented for a long time yet & when they do become available, the raw materials to produce them will be exhausted.
The innocent will always cop the short straw & the conniving will always get the money !
In the end, Nature will say enough & the new humanity will start the cycle of stupidity all over again. Chances are that's how Mars & others became barren just like the craniums of the Woke !

Yuyutsu,

Thanks for your response. I understand your concerns.

The irony, however, is that renewable technologies are making it increasingly feasible for someone like yourself to live an off-grid lifestyle and minimise (if not completely eliminate) any further need to increase their digital footprints. There are people already doing this. Some even live nomadic lives with virtually no need for internet access at all.

I wouldn’t worry about what the article says; it's just fearmongering. The author is wrong on every count.

The fears surrounding renewables stem from a desire to retain the status quo and a fear of change. For some, it's also about a perceived feminising and weakening effect that renewable technologies will have on societies, given the deep connections to ruggedness, strength, and dominance that industries like oil, coal, and gas, have long been associated with.

It's no coincidence that climate change denial is a phenomenon only seen amongst the politicly and socially conservative.

Dear John,

First, I am surprised that a scientist like yourself would use such unscientific language as "renewable technologies", straight from government propaganda: according to the laws of thermodynamics, no energy in nature is renewable - and should we find one, then we could have used it to build a perpetuum mobile device!

So we need another name for it, then let's instead call it "non-fossil energy" or "non-fossil technologies". You may of course suggest other name(s) if you like.

I always believed that humankind should wean itself of fossil fuels, but that has nothing to do with the fabled "climate-change" - it's rather because I just find it wrong to consume in 200 years what the earth has accumulated in its crust during 2 billion years or thereabouts, not leaving anything for future species.

Non-fossil technologies in themselves are neutral and need not affect the levels of digitisation or the ability to live off-grid. However, the danger could come from government's desire to enforce and monitor its non-fossil policies.

«I wouldn’t worry about what the article says»

Perhaps because you personally have not much to lose if any of that is true. I have much more to lose, so I worry, even if only a quarter of the article is true.

«For some, it's also about a perceived feminising and weakening effect that renewable technologies will have on societies, given the deep connections to ruggedness, strength, and dominance that industries like oil, coal, and gas, have long been associated with.»

Childish and totally irrelevant in my case.

As far as I'm concerned, I would be more than happy to purchase an electric car, but it would have to be a car, not a computer on wheels. Unfortunately, all new cars incorporate computers (and lots of them), forcing me to use older and older cars, which obviously run on petrol.

«It's no coincidence that climate change denial is a phenomenon only seen amongst the politicly and socially conservative.»

Tha's because it is indeed a political issue, a highly charged one at that, which I really don't like to get into.

Yuyutsu,

I’m using terminology that is well understood. “Non-fossil” doesn’t work because that would include nuclear. The term “renewable” refers to power sources that replenish naturally. How about “naturally replenishing energy”?

I, too, don’t agree with the idea of stripping the planet of finite resources so quickly, but there’s nothing “fabled” about the science of climate change. I find it interesting that you have enough scientific knowledge to pick on the term “renewable”, but not enough to understand the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

//Non-fossil technologies in themselves are neutral and need not affect the levels of digitisation or the ability to live off-grid. However, the danger could come from government's desire to enforce and monitor its non-fossil policies.//

Governments already monitor and regulate fossil fuel use extensively. From fuel taxes to emissions standards, there are a lot of policies in place to control and track how fossil fuels are produced, distributed, and consumed. If anything, fossil fuel industries are often subject to significant government oversight because of their environmental and economic impact.

“Naturally replenishing energy” technologies can at least be used can be used privately, which in turn reduces the need for centralised control. If someone installs solar panels and batteries and generates their own electricity, they’re less reliant on a centralised grid or large energy companies that are subject to more government regulation.

You should actually be more worried about fossil fuel polices.

That being said, I’m not so sure your expressing your real concerns here. The fact that they're heavily weighted towards “naturally replenishing energy” technologies makes your concerns just look like run-of-the-mill climate change denial with a philosophical dress slapped on it.

//Childish and totally irrelevant in my case.//

That wasn’t meant to refer to you personally. Sorry, the confusion was my fault there.

John Daysh,
What are some of the "renewables" we can lay our hands on now & where are they being used & how ? And, what is the percentage of emission & is there any indication which ones will come closest to the dreamers mark of Zero ?

Indyvidual,

I’d recommend solar panels. Here’s a supplier in your region: http://www.truenorthsolar.com.au. They’re being used all over the world. This is typically done by placing them on your roof.

The lifecycle CO2 emissions for solar PV are around 6% that of coal (i.e. 50g CO2-eq/kWh, compared to 820g CO2-eq/kWh.)

I hope this helps.

Dear John,

«How about “naturally replenishing energy”?»

Well the energy itself is not replenished: it's the source of that energy that produces more energy (for a while, until it dries up too), so how about "naturally replenishing energy sources"?

«but not enough to understand the reality of anthropogenic climate change.»

I really don't like to get into this topic, but since you asked:

Understanding should be based on evidence, but what to do when the evidence is inadmissible?

The notorious Nazi doctor, Josef Mengele, filmed the digestive systems of Jews with X-rays. They died with excruciating pains, but he made new discoveries about peristalsis.
Is it OK to use his findings in medicine?
Is it OK to use vital information that was extracted using torture?

The issue of "climate change" started off as political. It is well known that when it began, unethical efforts were made to extract at all costs "evidence" for it from scientists. I believe that a measure of that pressure on scientists still exists.

Whether that evidence is correct or otherwise (or anything in between) is irrelevant to the way it was extracted.

One side in this debate prefers to frame the issue as scientific, rather than political or ethical, but that in itself is taking a position on the subject-matter.

Since my personal choice is to refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically, I don't know, nor wish to know, whether or not the climate is changing. I am not telling you what you should do when facing this ethical dilemma, I just hope that you can respect my choice.

«Governments already monitor and regulate fossil fuel use extensively.»

Yes, and this is a source of worry.
Not because I like or prefer fossil fuel, not even because I cared about greedy corporations and industries, but because monitoring and regulating by the all-powerful government, can trample over the helpless man in the street.

«You should actually be more worried about fossil fuel polices.»

Whenever government is about to declare policies, any policies, my back stiffens and my blood-pressure is rising.

Yuyutsu,

You may be concerned about government policies on fossil fuel industries, but I gave you good reason for hope so far as “naturally replenishing energy sources” technologies go.

This isn’t the only inconsistency either. You mention the work of Josef Mengele as a reason to reject his findings, yet you do this on a device that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that developed the punch card system for the Nazis in their attempts to systematically exterminate certain populations.

//The issue of "climate change" started off as political. It is well known that when it began, unethical efforts were made to extract at all costs "evidence" for it from scientists. I believe that a measure of that pressure on scientists still exists.//

This is a baseless conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this.

//Since my personal choice is to refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically, I don't know, nor wish to know, whether or not the climate is changing.//

The fact that it wasn’t and isn’t being “extracted unethically” aside, how did you get from this to referring to climate change as a “fable”? How did you determine that the science of anthropogenic climate change was a fable if you “refuse to study or rely on information that was extracted unethically”?

I don’t think you’re telling me the truth. All I think you’ve done here is switch from slapping a philosophical dress on run-of-the-mill climate change denial to slapping a morally indignant dress on it instead.

Dear John,

«yet you do this on a device that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that developed the punch card system for the Nazis in their attempts to systematically exterminate certain populations.»

I honestly didn't know about this, it is the first time I hear about that connection... after all the cards I punched in the 1970's...

So what are we to do about it?

«The fact that it wasn’t and isn’t being “extracted unethically” aside, how did you get from this to referring to climate change as a “fable”?»

I apologise for using the wrong word "fable", which can convey a stand about scientific facts.

The contents of a fable need not necessarily be false, however that is commonly assumed.
An example would be the concept of hobbits, which started off as a folk-tale, when Homo floresiensis was actually later discovered on the island of Flores.

«This is a baseless conspiracy theory. There is no evidence for this.»

As I said, I try to avoid this topic and have not updated my knowledge of it for many years, nor wish to, but looking at the origins of the concept of global warming, it started off as a political agenda and wouldn't be with us if not for the desire of Margaret Thatcher to quash the coal-miner's powerful union.

Scientists were financially enticed by Thatcher, later also threatened and cheated, into producing evidence for global warming. That is pretty much documented, but of course it says nothing about whether or not global warming itself independently occurs in the physical world.

Yep, and Australia, one of the world's biggest energy exporters, is about to start importing lng, thanks to the ideological zealots. And Andrew Forrest, protector of the environment and arguably responsible for more koala deaths than any other Australian, is spending a billion on a gas import terminal at Port Kembla. What happened to all the cheaper than anything low carbon wind, solar and green hydrogen? That's the thing about bs: Fantasies stay in the ether.

Yuyustu,

What do we do about our use of devices that we wouldn’t have if it weren’t for a company that systematised and sped up the genocidal ambitions of the Nazis? We use those devices to educate and raise awareness in the hopes that it never happens again.

The roots of just about everything we use and do can be traced back to some sort of atrocity. Global trade and religious and cultural tolerance can be traced back to the atrocities of Genghis Khan. Does that mean each country should become protectionist and intolerant of other religions and cultures?

//… looking at the origins of the concept of global warming, it started off as a political agenda and wouldn't be with us if not for the desire of Margaret Thatcher to quash the coal-miner's powerful union.//

No, the study of the planet's climate as we know it today stems back to the 1880’s when it was first realised that the increasing CO2 output after the first industrial revolution would eventually heat the planet.

Thatcher had political reasons for engaging with the issue of coal and energy, but the idea that climate science began with her is incorrect. Climate research has been independently verified by countless studies conducted by international organisations, and diverse fields of science both before and after Thatcher.

Suggesting that the global scientific community has been ‘enticed’ or ‘cheated’ into producing evidence for climate change ignores the vast, decentralised, and peer-reviewed nature of scientific inquiry.

The fact that you haven’t updated your knowledge of this topic in many years tells me that you’re clinging to an outdated narrative. If you’re genuinely concerned about ethics, you should be open to looking at the breadth of modern research, which overwhelmingly confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Dear John,

«Global trade and religious and cultural tolerance can be traced back to the atrocities of Genghis Khan. Does that mean each country should become protectionist and intolerant of other religions and cultures?»

I think there's a difference in the degree of severity between generally dealing with people who committed atrocities and benefiting directly from the fruits of their atrocities.

«the study of the planet's climate as we know it today stems back to the 1880’s when it was first realised that the increasing CO2 output after the first industrial revolution would eventually heat the planet.»...«the idea that climate science began with her is incorrect.»

I believe that it has been just one hypothesis among many.
I heard that even Margaret Thatcher received an opinion from some scientists that the earth is cooling, a reply she was not happy with...
In my view, having a research is quite different than drawing particular conclusions.

But whether or not I believe, heard and understand correctly, is not that important anyway because the planet's climate is an altogether separate question to the socio-political phenomenon of "climate change".

«If you’re genuinely concerned about ethics, you should be open to looking at the breadth of modern research, which overwhelmingly confirms the reality of anthropogenic climate change.»

Firstly, it's ridiculous to expect every decent ethical person to involve themselves in [unpaid] scientific research - don't people have their own lives, their own families and their own duties to concentrate on?

While climate and its behaviour could be subject to scientific research by anyone who so wishes, "climate change" as such is a political matter, not a scientific one, and with so many social implications at that: to be open to treat "climate change" as a scientific question is in itself a specific political stand. Some people may choose so, but my personal choice in the matter is to live my own life without referring to that issue, as I have better things to do with what is left of it.

By having no offspring, my contribution to this planet's environment is way above average anyway.

Just to put things into some perspective;
Ealier the UK government called on off shore wind farm companies to
tender for supply of electricity.
No one tendered. Hmm
So they tried again and were sucessfull.
The price of offshore wind electricity has gone up 58%.
Said to be because of increased maintenance costs.
Well, well, is someone surprised that offshore maintenance is higher ?
Someone tell Bowen the ding-a-long.

Yuyutsu,

The distinction you’ve drawn is a philosophical one and only serves to distract from my point. I could list any number of more direct examples in the medical and food industries, but my point remains: we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good.

No, anthropogenic climate change is not just an hypothesis, nor is it “one of many.” The idea of global cooling in the 1970s was never more than a speculative hypothesis from a small handful of scientists based on very limited data.

Some media outlets published articles on it briefly and conspiracy bloggers have since managed to dredge these up. Now climate change deniers pretend that they remember widespread panic at the time, claiming that it was the scientific consensus back then - despite the fact that most only learned of the speculation around cooling in recent years.

//… it's ridiculous to expect every decent ethical person to involve themselves in [unpaid] scientific research …//

Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.

//While climate and its behaviour could be subject to scientific research by anyone who so wishes, "climate change" as such is a political matter, not a scientific one, and with so many social implications at that: to be open to treat "climate change" as a scientific question is in itself a specific political stand.//

You're creating an artificial divide between climate science and 'climate change' as a political matter.

Climate change is a scientific question rooted in decades of research, data collection, and analysis across multiple fields, including meteorology, geology, and oceanography. Yes, the implications of it lead to political decisions, but that doesn’t make the science behind it political.

Treating climate change as a scientific question isn't a 'political stand,' it’s simply acknowledging reality. Ignoring the science because of its social or political implications is not a neutral stance - it’s an active choice to disregard facts.

I’d recommend solar panels.
John Daysh,
I meant renewables, you know the kind that cause no emission ? To keep making new ones when the old ones had it causes more pollution than just Diesel for the mine machinery etc !

Individual,

Just for you: http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Nirvana-Fallacy.

There’s a reason serious discussion on this topic only ever mentions net zero.

You might take your own advice with your future delusions John.

https://jfsdigital.org/2020/07/18/future_fallacies/

And let's hope Australia doesn't become more bushfire prone as wind turbines are great at starting fires.

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/09/06/green-pyromania-wind-turbine-fireballs-keep-setting-the-world-on-fire/

At least Twiggy is moving away from Hydrogen to high CO2 natural gas. I think he will be a born again nuker before long, especially if the laws change and he sees a buck in it. I hope so as it will be nice to see some koalas escape a clubbing. Not so hot for platypus either I believe.

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/09/05/idiotic-no-nukes-policy-leaves-germans-scrambling-for-reliable-power/

Fester,

Was that last reply meant to be ironic? I mean, you falsely accuse me of a future fallacy, and then go right on ahead and commit one yourself! Specifically, the ‘linear projection fallacy’.

It doesn’t get any funnier than that.

I don't commit a future fallacy when I mention the improvements to renewables because I consider the broader picture of renewable energy development, which includes ongoing advancements, policy shifts, and technological innovations. You, on the other hand, cherry-pick isolated negative incidents to make them look as though they are representative of the future we face - hence your fallacy.

Whoops!

Still banging on about the koalas, I see; even though I’ve addressed that furphy of yours several times now. Now the poor platypuses are being dragged into it.

John,

You address nothing. You never do. The destruction is very much in the present, but I hope that growing public awareness of the current idiocy and environmental destruction curtails more of the same in the future, so I'd guess that to be my future fallacy as you perceive it.

No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible, but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.

Fester,

I address everything you say; I did so in my previous reply by pointing to your ironic fallacy. So, I don’t know where you get off claiming that I never address anything.

In any large-scale energy transition, there are bound to be occasional setbacks or challenges, but they don’t define the future of renewables; nor even the present, given how rare they are.

What they represent are learning opportunities for improving infrastructure, technology, and policy. Cherry-picking these examples ignores the substantial advancements in wind, solar, and other renewable technologies that have been made in terms of efficiency, cost reduction, and scalability.

//No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible …//

So, now you’re going to commit a shifting-of-the-goalposts fallacy?

You didn’t say a nuclear grid was possible in your last comment. You pointed to isolated incidents as though that was a taste of what a world powered by renewables could expect. Again, hence the future fallacy.

//… but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.//

No one’s suggesting a grid consisting only of wind and solar.

Dear John,

«we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good.»

Well many people reject nuclear energy despite the fact that it can be used for good.
It is also quite possible for people to reject the knowledge itself (though fictional, I recommended the example in the book "A Canticle for Leibowitz").

«The idea of global cooling in the 1970s was never more than a speculative hypothesis from a small handful of scientists based on very limited data.»

And global warming wasn't?

«Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.»
+
«You're creating an artificial divide between climate science and 'climate change' as a political matter.»

This issue is political, while you were speaking of studying science.

This discussion has a context: we were not speaking of some hypothetical person with a pure intellectual thirst to learn about climate and its behaviour: of course nothing stops such a person from researching and studying whatever they like.

«Climate change is a scientific question rooted in decades of research»

The study of climate and its behaviour may be, but not "climate change", which is a political phenomenon.

«Yes, the implications of it lead to political decisions, but that doesn’t make the science behind it political.»

It was not that scientists happened to discover something then told the politicians "look what we found", but a top-down instruction by politicians to scientists: "find me this".

The implications of politicians obtaining the ammunition they want, the pretexts to hit us with more laws, restrictions and compulsory technology and to sew panic and guilt among the younger generations (then portraying themselves as "saviours"), are much worse than the planet warming by that many degrees or the oceans rising by that many meters.

«Ignoring the science because of its social or political implications is not a neutral stance - it’s an active choice to disregard facts.»

It's an active choice to disregard propaganda.

Yuyutsu,

In your efforts to double-down now, it appears you’ve finally decided to ditch ‘enlightened’, ‘philosophical,’ and ‘moralistic’ Yuyutsu and show us the real you. It’s refreshing. I was waiting for that.

//Well many people reject nuclear energy despite the fact that it can be used for good.//

Yes, they do. But they’re not rejecting it because its origins are morally repugnant. Nor would it make it okay for the rest of us to do the same even if they were. This is just a tu quoque fallacy.

//And global warming wasn't?//

No, global warming was still the consensus and was still backed by a wealth of data.

//This discussion has a context: we were not speaking of some hypothetical person with a pure intellectual thirst to learn about climate and its behaviour …///

I know. We were talking about you. Which is why I said:

“Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.”

//The study of climate and its behaviour may be, but not "climate change", which is a political phenomenon.//

No, it’s a natural phenomenon with political implications.

//It was not that scientists happened to discover something then told the politicians "look what we found", but a top-down instruction by politicians to scientists: "find me this".//

Even in the 1800s? Where’s your evidence for this doubling-down of yours? All you have does is appeal to more baseless conspiracy theories.

//It's an active choice to disregard propaganda.//

You haven’t shown that it’s propaganda. Appealing to baseless conspiracy theories isn’t evidence of anything.

"No one’s suggesting a grid consisting only of wind and solar."

Um, yes they are John. Not only suggesting it but committing to the nonsense as well, with all the associated destruction of natural heritage and koala clubbing. Where do you think the energy will come from to power Australia if you want net zero and won't consider nuclear? You could use biomass, but that generates four times as much CO2 as coal remember?

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/understanding-whats-next-for-australias-main-electricity-market/

Um, no they're not, Fester.

The AEMO roadmap you linked to does not suggest or commit to a grid powered exclusively by wind and solar. It involves a combination of renewables - primarily wind, solar, and hydro - backed by energy storage solutions.

The roadmap clearly acknowledges the need for energy diversity.

Well then John, do enlighten the forum about these other low carbon energy sources. What projects are being planned or built? How much energy will they produce? I ask because I am unaware of any substantial low carbon generation projects other than wind and solar. You might note that with Australia's limited water resources, hydro is more about energy storage than production.

Of course there is nuclear, but that won't be a consideration until the moronic pollies remove the ban.

Fester,

I suppose my forcing you to move the goalposts is SOME progress.

Yes, hydro backup would be a third source of power and then there’s batteries, too. These may be for storage, but they’re still part of the grid.

Your initial framing of the situation presented a strawman argument by claiming that proponents of renewable energy are pushing for a grid powered exclusively by wind and solar:

“No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible, but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.” - Fester

Your claim that a wind and solar-powered grid is “fantasy” deliberately ignores the diverse mix of renewable energy sources, which include storage solutions, that are part of Australia’s actual energy roadmap.

As I’ve acknowledged in the past, however, nuclear energy may become a necessary part of a low emissions mix. Therefore, I am not in favour of the ban.

"I suppose my forcing you to move the goalposts is SOME progress."

John,

You have not related a generation source other than wind and solar, so no, I have not shifted any goalposts. As for hydro generation, how much can that be expanded? Further, you mention batteries: As far as I'm aware batteries don't generate power, excepting nuclear batteries. Did you mean them?

You might just answer the question, "What new generation sources other than wind and solar are being built?". You can answer a question can't you?

While you are thinking up another way not to answer a simple question, here is a link to a story about a $40 million solar array that didn't get attached to the grid. Guess why?

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/08/27/clouded-future-government-disconnects-huge-grid-wrecking-solar-power-plant/

Fester,

Let me walk you through how the goalposts have shifted. Initially, you claimed that a grid powered by wind and solar was a ‘fantasy,’ implying that proponents of renewable energy were advocating for those two sources exclusively. Again:

“I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.” - Fester

When I pointed out that no one is suggesting a grid powered solely by wind and solar, you switched the conversation to demand a list of specific low-carbon generation projects other than wind and solar - ignoring the broader mix that includes hydro and storage solutions.

Capisce?

//As far as I'm aware batteries don't generate power ...//

You’re sidestepping my point.

I specifically mentioned batteries as a storage method - which would still be a part of the grid.

//You might just answer the question, "What new generation sources other than wind and solar are being built?".//

Yes, I might.

I didn’t answer it before, however, because it was nothing more than an attempt to sidestep, not because I would hurt my case. Your attempts to make it look like evasiveness are dishonest.

But to answer it anyway:

No other major low-carbon generation sources are being built right now apart from wind, solar, and hydro. That’s because these are the most viable, cost-effective options available today. But the grid isn't relying solely on wind and solar, as you had suggested.

//You can answer a question can't you?//

Yes, I can. Just as well as you can sidestep, apparently.

//While you are thinking up another way not to answer a simple question …//

Heh. “Another.”

As for your link, the narrative that solar is somehow ‘wrecking’ the grid ignores the fact that renewables already contribute nearly 40% of Australia's electricity and that grid instability is something being actively addressed with better storage and forecasting technologies. The NT's specific issues are more a reflection of poor planning and regulatory flip-flopping than an inherent flaw in renewable energy itself.

This is only getting worse for you. When you're in a hole...

Dear John,

«Yes, they do. But they’re not rejecting it because its origins are morally repugnant.»

OK, you are right, I suppose most nuclear-objectors do so because they believe that the outcome is likely to be horrendous, so that is not a good counter-example, but if you stick to your earlier statement that "we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good", then hey, another counter-example could be of someone rejecting nuclear energy because it was predicted by Einstein who was Jewish. Foolish, yes of course, but why impossible?

I was initially intending to use myself as a counter-example to your statement, but then I dropped that idea, noting the requirement that the knowledge/technology in question could be used for good. Assuming, however, that [unlike myself] you think that knowledge about global-warming can be used for good, do you still consider my repugnance and subsequent choice to disengage from it all, to have been impossible?

Whether you believe me or not, of course I was repugnant on hearing about Margaret Thatcher bribing scientists to produce the results she looked for, punishing those who contradicted it, and forging the signatures of others, without their knowledge or consent, on the results she wanted. Is that unreasonable?

You may claim that what I heard was a conspiracy, OK, I cannot comment on it because I did not trace or revisit these sources since, but that cannot change the fact that I believed what I heard at the time.

Mind you, with the perspective of time and benefit of hindsight, if I were to make that decision to disengage from it all today rather than over 15 years ago, then I would probably base it on the future rather than on the past.

[continued...]

[...continued]

«No, global warming was still the consensus and was still backed by a wealth of data.»

I heard otherwise, but this is not something I researched or wish to research. The fact is that even much more recently, the original proponents of global-warming were not too happy that warming would indeed be global and therefore decided to call it "climate-change" instead, so where does that leave this "wealth of data"?

«No, it’s a natural phenomenon with political implications.»

That is the propaganda that governments and supporters try to hammer into us. Eventually, if they could, they would also burn those who refuse to agree with them like witches at the stake.

I obviously am not in a position to comment about the suggested natural phenomenon while refusing to study the topic, but in any case, the political implications are far more severe than any rise in temperatures and sea levels, loss of polar bears, etc.

Myself, I normally avoid that topic which regretfully you are forcing me to address, I am not interested in it, nor have I any influence in the matter anyway: I try not to mention it socially, but that doesn't seem to suffice for the climate-change mob because what the regimes want is subservience and will not be content until everyone joins their hysteria. They don't even mind it when cult-members fly over to Spain for a climate-change-conference, burning heaps of fossil fuels up in the air as they travel, but they are furious when I sit peacefully at home burning almost no fuel, but disrespecting their ideology.

Discussions such as this thread are a clear yet totally disregarded indicator of the abject failure of the direction of education. Pumping people full of information when they clearly don't have the mental ability to absorb is multiple times more destructive than no education.
The problem is that these non-absorbing types are the ones in authority hence society's spiralling towards the inevitable !
Average village idiots are making more sense than these "educated" types !

Yuyutsu,

You’re presenting a hypothetical argument about someone rejecting nuclear energy because Einstein was Jewish, but that’s a complete distraction. We both know this would be irrational, and it does nothing to counter my point about rejecting knowledge or technology based on its origins. If a technology or scientific finding can be used for good, it should be judged by its merits, not by who contributed to its development.

As for your own choice to disengage from the global warming discussion, you’re admitting that your decision was based on hearsay and speculation about Thatcher’s alleged actions, which you acknowledge you haven’t even made an effort to revisit or verify. So, even if your repugnance at the time was understandable, basing an ongoing refusal to engage with climate science on a 15-year-old belief that you’ve never verified is, at best, intellectually irresponsible.

You’ve made it clear that you don’t want to research or discuss climate change further. However, dismissing the renaming of 'global warming' to 'climate change' as some kind of attempt to dodge the data is just another furphy. The term 'climate change' is more accurate because it encompasses the broader effects of global warming. It wasn’t about hiding the truth; it was about refining the terminology to reflect the reality of what’s happening.

Your disengagement from the topic reads more like a refusal to confront the reality of climate science than the result of a lack of influence in the matter. (How many other topics do you debate and discuss despite having no influence on them?) You continue to use conspiratorial and paranoid language, by claiming that the big boogeyman regimes are demanding subservience and painting those concerned about climate change as part of a 'cult.' These are not arguments - they are emotional reactions to a topic you’ve chosen to avoid.

At the end of the day, calling the science of climate change 'propaganda' while admitting that you refuse to study it isn’t a stance rooted in facts. It’s simply an excuse to disregard something that challenges your worldview.

«We both know this would be irrational»

Of course, but one counter-example is sufficient whether the character(s) in it behave rationally or otherwise. There could also be other examples where they do behave rationally.

«If a technology or scientific finding can be used for good, it should be judged by its merits, not by who contributed to its development.»

That is a new claim.
The fact that it CAN be used for good, ignores the more likely probability that it will be used for evil.

Also, just to correct a potential misunderstanding, my decision to reject and disengage was not based on WHO contributed, not on the person (Thatcher may have done many good things in other areas), but on my refusal to benefit from the fruits of wrongdoing.

«basing an ongoing refusal to engage with climate science on a 15-year-old belief that you’ve never verified is, at best, intellectually irresponsible.»

It was neither verified nor unverified.
Actually, even when I did mention Thatcher's actions in the past as my basis for refusing to engage, all I got in response by climate-change supporters was "but new evidence [about climate-change, not about Thatcher's actions] has emerged since", a complete avoidance.

«The term 'climate change' is more accurate because it encompasses the broader effects of global warming.»

Maybe, maybe not, I won't get into it.
But what it shows, is that the "consensus" (if indeed there was such) which you claimed existed even before Thatcher's war on the coal-unions, was not based on solid grounds.

«Your disengagement from the topic reads more like a refusal to confront the reality of climate science»
+
«At the end of the day, calling the science of climate change 'propaganda'»

No, it is you who calls climate-change a science.
I am not referring to science, but to politics, very dangerous politics at that.
If indeed there are scientists who genuinely want to know about climate - genuinely, not because they seek grants, promotions or fame, then we could call their work "science", and that I am not rejecting, just let them keep the results to themselves.

Yuyutsu,

Your counter examples - rational or irrational - are all irrelevant for the reason I have mentioned three times now.

//That is a new claim.//

No, it’s implicit in what I’ve now said three times.

//The fact that it CAN be used for good, ignores the more likely probability that it will be used for evil.//

This spurious probability of yours is mere speculation.

//… my decision to reject and disengage was not based on WHO contributed, not on the person (Thatcher may have done many good things in other areas), but on my refusal to benefit from the fruits of wrongdoing.//

I realise this. But you’re still using a computer, which suggests to me that you’re not telling me the real reason.

As for these people you encountered in the past, whether or not they directly addressed your claim about Thatcher doesn’t absolve the responsibility to engage with the data we have today.

Again, your refusal to revisit this issue for 15 years means you’re stuck in a past narrative . The scientific consensus has grown stronger, and regardless of what Thatcher might have done, the evidence supporting human-caused climate change has been rigorously tested, peer-reviewed, and independently confirmed by thousands of scientists worldwide.

Basing your refusal to engage on an unverified belief from years ago is still intellectually irresponsible because the scientific debate has moved on, and so should any honest inquiry into the topic.

//… what it shows, is that the "consensus" (if indeed there was such) which you claimed existed even before Thatcher's war on the coal-unions, was not based on solid grounds.//

No, the shift in language reflects the evolving understanding of climate science, not a lack of consensus.

//No, it is you who calls climate-change a science.//

No, I call it a phenomenon. It’s the study of it that is a science.

And why should the scientists keep the results to themselves? It seems your use of computers isn't the only area in which your concern for ethics is tossed out the window when it suits you.

I wonder how many real scientists there are on the teat in comparison to the myriad of Tax dollar paid pseudo intellectual guessers ?

Indyvidual,

The notion that climate scientists are somehow on the 'teat' of tax dollars and therefore biased or dishonest is a tired old conspiracy that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. It's clear you have no understanding at all of how science actually works.

Most scientists (of any field) undergo a rigorous peer-review process designed to minimise bias and ensure their findings are credible. No one 'guesses'. They follow strict methodologies and submit their work to the scrutiny of the global scientific community.

Further to this, scientists who receive public funding are accountable to multiple oversight bodies, and their work is published openly for scrutiny by other experts - even the general public.

These scientists aren’t exactly getting rich off tax dollars, either. They’re paid mediocre wages to do vital research that informs everything from energy policy to disaster preparedness.

If we’re questioning the credibility of researchers based on their funding sources, then by that logic, shouldn’t we also be questioning scientists and lobbyists funded by the fossil fuel industry, whose profits depend on denying climate change? Those interests have poured billions into climate change denial campaigns, and this is well-documented.

So if we're talking about bias, I’d say there's a far more dangerous bias among those funded by industries that have a vested interest in ignoring the realities of climate change.

Somehow I don’t think you’re too interested in that, though. I know Yuyustu isn’t. Your concern is purely political.

Dear John,

I have a busy life and so I need more time to properly respond to your most intelligent posts.

However, there is nothing intelligent about your potentially implied suggestion in your address to "Indyvidual" that my opposition to the climate-change movement could be based on some financial benefit or connection with the fossil-fuel industry.

Categorically, it is not.

I am retired, I do not work for anyone nor seek employment.
I have no friends or relatives working in the fossil-fuel industry either.
I hold no shares of any kind, directly or indirectly, not even in my superannuation (other than my formal $1 share as an SMSF trustee), thus should the fossil-fuel industry collapse I wouldn't lose a cent.

Even at the time I heard about Thatcher's misconduct and for a while longer, my superannuation was invested in an ethical fund - and before that, until then, I even voluntarily paid a few dollars extra to my electricity provider to supply me with "green" energy.

I hope this settles this ridiculous suspicion.

Yuyutsu,

An issue being political for someone doesn’t necessarily mean that there are financial gains to be made or that there must be some connection to the fossil fuel industry. There are many political reasons that are purely personal:

-Ideological
-Cognitive biases
-Identity politics
-A short-sighted fear of economic disruption
-A distrust of authority

The list is seemingly endless, but it always stops short of evidence - hence the need to cherry-pick data, or appeal to emotion or personal experience.

In fact, the idea that you may be financially benefiting from the fossil fuel industry, or personally connected to it in some way, has never crossed my mind.

//… I even voluntarily paid a few dollars extra to my electricity provider to supply me with "green" energy.//

Well, we can rule out hyper-masculinity then. :) My father-in-law absolutely refuses to put solar panels on his roof because it’s “greenie poofter sh!t.”

Dear John,

«The list is seemingly endless, but it always stops short of evidence»

Politics is not about the external material world - politics is about what people want, then what to do when the wills of different people clash.

How is it possible to produce empirical evidence to prove one's will?
brain-scans maybe?

«My father-in-law absolutely refuses to put solar panels on his roof»

I wanted to have solar panels on my roof, so I invited a company to inspect my home and give me a quote: I was happy with the location and price, but then they told me that as part of the installation they will have to include some "converter" (which would be compulsory even if I did not insist on exporting energy to the grid and only used the energy myself), which would in turn require to convert my electrical-meter box to digital as well. That was, sadly, bye-bye solar panels.