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