'these pseudo-activists sold the world the idea of "fake energy" by wind turbines and solar panels.'

I'm getting sick of this blokes moronic opinions.

Look I was the first person a few years back to say the whole climate thing was a conjob, that the beach is still where it always was, that we already have climate change, summer, autumn, winter spring.
That climate scientists should be sacrificed to the climate gods by being thrown into volcanos, because it makes as much sense as anything else.

But seriously.

My position is that I am all for things that are better for the environment,
But I don't think we should cut our noses off to spite our faces.
Don't rush to shut down coal power generation just yet....
But they did.

China commissions world’s largest 1 GW open-sea offshore solar project
http://www.pv-magazine.com/2025/12/29/china-commissions-worlds-largest-1-gw-open-sea-offshore-solar-project
China has brought a 1 GW offshore solar power plant online off the coast of Dongying, Shandong province, combining PV with energy storage and aquaculture in what is now the world’s largest open-sea solar project in commercial operation.

China’s world-first megawatt-level ‘windmill’ airship rises 6,560 ft, feeds grid
http://interestingengineering.com/energy/worlds-first-megawatt-airship-rises-6560-ft
The helium-lifted S2000 system uses high-altitude winds and a ducted design with 12 turbines to reach a rated capacity of up to 3 megawatts.

Not everything is all about you and what you think Ronny.
Lots of people, millions in the third world are being lifted out of poverty due to solar panels and batteries which allow easy off-grid power anywhere.

China would not be building this stuff if there wasn't a use for it.
China can, America can't.

"China would not be building this stuff if there wasn't a use for it."

Exactly AC. Wind and solar are enriching China and bankrupting the western world. China is leading the con.

Rooftop solar, remote and mobile generation are fine, but try powering a grid or an aluminium smelter and look at spiraling power costs and you realise that we are being had.

Follow the money. The big spend is on propaganda by the renewable energy grifters. Well over ten billion a year in taxpayer handouts for the scammers.

https://stopthesethings.com/2026/01/25/stop-these-things-weekly-round-up-25-january-2026/

Fester,

You're asserting three things here; none of those claims are demonstrated by linking to stopthesethings.com:

- that wind and solar cannot power modern grids or heavy industry
- that they are bankrupting the West
- that China is "running a con" while enriching itself

China's actions point in the opposite direction. It is rolling out wind, solar, storage, HVDC transmission and electrified industry at scale because electricity is a strategic industrial input. Cheap electricity lowers manufacturing costs, and at China's scale those margins matter. That's why it dominates aluminium, steel, polysilicon, EVs, batteries, and increasingly renewables themselves.

China doesn't pour capital into technologies it believes are structurally useless.

"Can't power an aluminium smelter" is a dated talking point. Smelters need large amounts of reliable electricity, not coal per se. That's why aluminium has long been paired with hydro, and is now increasingly paired with renewables plus firming (hydro, storage, gas, nuclear). Price and reliability matter. Ideological purity doesn't.

As for "spiralling power costs," these have been driven mainly by gas exposure, transmission bottlenecks, delayed coal replacement, and market design failures. Where renewables are paired with adequate firming, wholesale prices are routinely lower during periods of high wind and solar output. That's observable market data.

If the claim is that some renewable policies are poorly designed, fine. But calling wind and solar a "con" while China deploys them aggressively is not following the money.

It's ignoring it.

Poor old Bill Gates is being verballed here.

He woke up that the whole anti-CO2 jihad was a con and has recently recanted. One of the first of many I suspect.

That's a strong claim, mhaze, but you haven't shown it.

//[Gates] woke up that the whole anti-CO2 jihad was a con and has recently recanted.//

Bill Gates has not "recanted" on CO2 or the necessity of climate action. He continues to acknowledge that climate change is real, driven by emissions, and requires decarbonisation, while also emphasising the need for realistic timelines and innovation.

It's a position he's held consistently for years.

More importantly, Gates' personal views are a sideshow. Climate physics doesn't hinge on what Bill Gates thinks this year. Appealing to alleged apostasy doesn't engage with the substance of the argument any more than appealing to celebrity endorsement does.

//One of the first of many I suspect.//

Right. Like AGW was supposedly in its "death throes" 13 years ago?

"More importantly, Gates' personal views are a sideshow."

Well he was raised in the article above and that's what I addressed.

"Climate physics doesn't hinge on what Bill Gates thinks this year."

Oh good. Lucky I didn't say it did. But standard JD. Make up my views and then tell me how wrong I am to have said something I didn't say. When you have to make these things up, you've already lost.

"Like AGW was supposedly in its "death throes" 13 years ago?"

No, more like we had 12 years to save the planet, 20 years ago.

That doesn't rescue you, mhaze.

//Well he was raised in the article above and that's what I addressed.//

Yes, and my point was that raising Gates in that context treats his personal views as probative. They aren't. That's why I called it a sideshow.

//Oh good. Lucky I didn't say it did.//

I didn't claim you said climate physics hinges on Gates. I explained why Gates' views are irrelevant even when they're raised, which is what the article - and your comment - did.

//But standard JD. Make up my views and then tell me how wrong I am to have said something I didn't say.//

No views were attributed to you. I responded to the implication invited by elevating Gates' stance as meaningful. Addressing an implication isn't inventing a quote.

//No, more like we had 12 years to save the planet, 20 years ago//

That's a rebrand of the same recurring claim: that climate concern is about to collapse under its own exaggeration. Variants of it have been made for decades, and they've consistently been wrong.

Ronny should be more worried about U.S. economic collapse and loss of the worlds reserve currency status..
Canada is selling a lot of it's oil to China now
Thank Trump tariffs.

I wonder how much the CCP might be influencing Australia's energy policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7KsqcUxJ7I

Fester,

I watched the talk you linked, and it doesn't support the implication you're making.

Tellesco's argument is not that China is influencing Australia into renewables. It's that Australia supposedly locked itself into a "renewables-only" pathway through ideology, while other countries are "correcting course" by adding firm power (nuclear, gas, hydro) alongside renewables.

That framing overstates the case.

Australia is not pursuing a renewables-only system in any operational sense. Gas is explicitly retained as firming, coal plant closures are being delayed for reliability reasons, and Snowy 2.0, batteries and synchronous condensers exist precisely because the system is designed around firm capacity. That's not ideology replacing physics. It's a slow, politically constrained transition with mixed signals.

Likewise, other countries aren't "retreating" from renewables so much as diversifying based on their own histories and constraints. France's nuclear dominance dates back to the 1970s. Germany's problems stem from shutting nuclear, not from building renewables. The US and Canada are adding life extensions and firming, but wind and solar remain the largest sources of new capacity. That's pragmatism, not reversal.

China appears in her talk mainly as an example of industrial pragmatism, not manipulation. She argues China builds renewables because electricity is a strategic input and it plans around firm supply. That cuts against the idea of a "con", not in favour of it.

Nothing in the talk supports the claims that renewables can't power grids, that they're bankrupting the West, or that Australia's energy policy is being shaped by the CCP. Those claims still need evidence, not insinuation.

If the point is that Australia needs better system design and firm capacity, I agree. If the point is covert Chinese influence, the video doesn't make that case.

And finally global taxes are here

Fossil fuel firms may have to pay for climate damage under proposed UN tax
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/feb/01/fossil-fuel-firms-may-have-to-pay-for-climate-damage-under-proposed-un-tax
Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation could also force ultra-rich to pay global wealth tax