"I did not say they were right Protagoras, just that they had an opposite scientific opinion and that it might be worth discussion. If on the other hand, you don’t want a debate because you have already made up your mind, that’s fine. All I can suggest is that as the scrambled egg approaches, DUCK!"

Spindoc

Has it escaped your attention that I am the only one so far to debate your post regarding the "opposite scientific opinion" of the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute?

Could that be because it has nothing to do with the topic, the topic being the pros and cons of nuclear energy for Australia, which to my knowledge is not mentioned in the report you provided so how can the report be of an "opposite" "scientific" opinion?

Since you give the impression that you have read the entire but irrelevant and off-topic 880 page report, authored by Singer and Idso, why not start your own thread rather than corrupt the threads of others by throwing in red herrings to benefit your own agenda?

Not a corruption of the thread at all Protagoras. Barry Brook states specifically that the need for nuclear energy is to solve climate change. I suggested that nuclear energy should stand on its own merits and that the case for AGW is not conclusive, citing the NIPCC report as another reason for opening the debate further.

You said you were << the only one so far to debate your post regarding the "opposite scientific opinion" of the NIPCC and the Heartland Institute >>. Try as I might, I have failed to see anything close to a “debate” in your post. You simply attacked anything and everything about that report, then got stuck into the authors. Your post is angry, vindictive, abusive and insulting. A debate? I don’t think so.

Some might describe your post as a definitive description of whom and what you are. When you flare like that, and you are getting worse, you are telling me that you lack the capacity to debate anything, a closed mind. I picture you with hands over ears shouting la, la, la, la, la.

Spindoc

Yes, I have read the report. But as you say, “there is no way that facts will be allowed to replace stubborn ideology.”

I do have a lot I could say about Singer’s and Idso’s Heartland publication (and their peer’s review of it), but here is not the place – I am with Protagoras on that.

I feel we may agree on nuclear power (I don't share Protagoras' view, I think) like Barry Brook. However, I have my doubts as to whether Australia needs to go down that track, just yet. Other countries yes, and they are.

Oz has a lot more to do (because it can) in other forms of energy generation. Fwiw, coal will be around for a long time (we can’t shut it down overnight) but there is no such thing as “clean coal”, despite what the industry’s (and government/opposition) lobbyists claim.

As I have said in another lost thread, it is not about right/wrong, yes/know, black/white, etc. It is NOT a binary system ... I can only suggest you read those comments again.

Cheers

The problem with the effort to fight climate change is that the only people emotionally motivated to give a damn are those fruity enough to believe that it can be done without a realistic alternative to coal.

Sadly, when in 2020 we have had an increase in CO2 the public will wake up to reality of stark choices.

Mean whilst, after all that is said and done, more is said than done.