The lowest income families spend 15% of their income on electricity; the highest income families spend 1%.

Thanks to the net zero/unreliable generation of electricity and subsidies to foreigners, prices have risen by 50% over the past two years.

We now have the highest electricity prices in the world.

In the latest outrage, foreign company BP, with Australian taxpayer subsidies, intends to install 740,000 Chinese solar panels on prime grazing land on Gundary Plains near Goulburn.

This is an area which has a mere 88 days of clear sunny weather a year; snow in winter, and severe frosts.

No compensation for the 60 farming families - unless you call free solar panels for their homes compensation. One grazier has already installed his own panels as an experiment. OK in the short sunny period, useless the rest of the year.

When these 740,000 panels reach the end of their lives, there is no requirement for whichever robber barons are operating them at the time to pay for their removal.

As mhaze says, the whole scheme is to make money for rich people and leave the mess to the rest of us when the obvious happens.

Relax ttbn.

British company BP with its 740,000 solar panels near government and associated businesses linked to Canberra, would likely gain vast promotion from that albeit subsidised caper.
Plus a return from whatever electricity they might produce.

WTF,

I don't expect an immediate answer to my question.
Climate science is definitely incomplete.

The answer to the percentage of melted polar and glacier ice water that is evaporated into the atmosphere where it adds to cloud on this planet should be known in order to assess any AGW linked increase in sea level.

I will let you know if I see such data and would appreciate you and anyone else doing the same for me.

As when we found that WTF didn't have the faintest understanding of how anomalies are used in climate science, we now find that he's completely missed the point of the study I linked.

Even though he claims to be quoting from the report I linked, he's actually quoting from a completely different report. Go figure!!

The point, which he appears to have utterly missed, is that the report I linked shows that the traditional temperature records over-estimate the actual temperature increase over the previous 150 years by up to 40%. WTF seems to think that all the databases being in broad agreement means something. Yes, it does, It means they all over-estimate temperature by roughly the same amount.

I had previously schooled SR on why the major surface temperature databases are in broad agreement, being that they all basically use the same raw data. I haven't got the heart to do it all over again with WTF.

So when he says temperatures are increasing by "0.08 to 0.09 of a degree C per decade" the new study shows this is more likely to be 0.05c per decade. Of course, you can't build a scare on 0.5c warming be century, so they use the larger, fictitious number.

JF Aus,

Ya what?

mhaze,

WTF doesn't have "faintest understanding", period; which is why I intend to give him a wide berth in future. It's futile trying to deal with such people. They are as entitled to their opinions as anyone else, and that's it.

"As I have said before, mhaze, you do agree with me that warming continues to occur."

Yep, but our reaction to that fact is very different. The sky-is-falling crowd think that any warming is a harbinger of disaster.

I think that the mild warming we've experienced to date and are likely to experience in the next century or so is beneficial to humankind and is to be welcomed. Monitor the warming to be sure. And adapt where necessary. But jumping at shadows isn't rational.