John,

"The same goes for catastrophes that were predicted by religious prophets that never eventuated."

The data shows warming, but thinking that validates predictions of many decades hence makes you no more educated than the followers of those past failed prophets. Nor does it justify uncosted, untested and environmentally destructive measures to be taken on a national scale. You might think of how long it took Kevin Rudd's NBN grand vision to be obviated by technical advance with the development of the smart phone and wireless internet. Further, you might think of Messmer reacting to the dire emergency France faced in the 1970s (oil was going to run out apparently), only to abandon the project fifteen years later with the French oversupplied with expensive power.

Yet half a century later people like you, reacting to a predicted problem nearly as calamitous (remember that 99% of people would die if we just stopped oil), think a nuclear build impossible in 25 years, and instead, with the assistance of your taxpayer subsidised billionaire buddies, want to go on a koala clubbing, continent destroying odyssey, taking God knows how long, and leaving Australia covered with a dysfunctional mess of wind turbines and solar panels. I'd guess you might wonder why I'm such a stick in the mud and won't warm to the idea?

Here's a fun video showcasing an example of the wonderful Utopias people dream up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl5gyzezgL8

Fester,
The data doesn’t just show warming, it shows that human activity is responsible for 100% of it.

All the data points in one direction, too, so it’s not surprising that you’re resorting to false analogies to sustain a pseudoscientific belief. All the predictions from climate modelling thus far have been shown to be either accurate or too conservative. So, the data “validates predictions of many decades”.

There are no measures being taken to mitigate climate change that are uncosted or untested. Nor are they more environmentally destructive than nuclear power and fossil fuels. I think we’ve covered this sufficiently in the past.

Smartphones and wireless internet both utilise and require the NBN; they compliment it and require it. They have not superseded it. The NBN has proven to have been more necessary than we had even realised when it was proposed. Remote industrial and surgical operations, autonomous vehicle operations, and high-frequency trading systems are just a few examples of tasks that require the stability and speed of a physical network.

As for the French response to peak oil, the project wasn’t abandoned because it failed, it was abandoned because it met its goals. It led to France having a low-emissions energy sector. Moreover, the peak oil fears were speculative; the science behind climate change, on the other hand, is backed by decades of extensive research with all of the data pointing in one direction

Both your analogies are invalid.

Thanks Fester for your feedback. Many Woke/ Marxist's just deny the existence of Marxism in modern politics. In simple terms leftist parties follow Keynesian economics and rightist parties follow Friedman Monetarist economics. Not everyone can see the Marxism in things- I can see it- maybe you are just not ready to see it. But by mentioning it you will be able to watch and see if I'm correct- or not. I'm not going to force you to believe what I do- you need to act in your own interest- and trust in your own judgement.

Andrew Forrest is a fan of China being one of his biggest customers it seems so perhaps a fan of Marxism.
Turnbull is an ex-banker, probably sees the world through the lense of Ayn Rand and Naive Idealistic Libertarianism, but vulnerable to the principle "capitalists will sell you the rope to hang them". At least Ayn Rand understood that you can't do business with those that want to destroy you (such as China and Maoist Marxism).
Not sure about Holmes a Court, Cannon Brookes but I assume that the faults with them are similar issues of so called Left and Right Liberalism as opposed to Traditionalism.

Sadly Libertarian's (Right Liberals/ Capitalists/ Industrialists/ choose your synonym) only see things through the lense of money, money is very important, but this can make them vulnerable, and blind.
Turnbull seems to be as pure a capitalist possible, compared to other types of industrialist.

I could explain what Marxist principles are ...
- From those with the ability to those with the need
- Dialectic materialism- The false consciousness of culture and economic power
- How Marxism/ Classical Fascism relate to Hegel the father of Naive/ Absolute Idealism. And Hegel from Kant the father of Idealism.
- How Marxism relates to blank slate nihilism and tearing down the superstructure of society.
- Gramsci and cultural hegemony and the march through the institutions.
- On education of children
- On total war
- The evolution of Marxism from the French Revolution according to Dostoevsky.
- "Two Concepts of Liberty" was the inaugural lecture delivered by the liberal philosopher Isaiah Berlin (See Adam Curtis' Documentary's). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Concepts_of_Liberty
- Existentialist Nietzsche's Genealogy Of Morals and "the opposing Aristocratic and Priestly Codes" (See Jeffrey Kaplan on Youtube).
- Many others...

I see western environmentalism through the Greens and others, known as Watermelon's (Marxist on the inside), as a weapon to destroy western (business) strength to reduce the wests competitive advantage over other nations.

The best lies contain some truth.

Fester said that he finds it hard enough to keep track of the economics let alone politics. He may be referring to the economics of renewable energy or more generally. But please see a simple explanation of "political economics" below.

In simple terms-
- Keynesian (Left Liberal/ Democrats/ Labor ALP) economics see unemployment as the problem.
- Friedman Monetarist (Right Liberal/ Republican/ Australian Liberal) economics see inflation as the problem.
- Marxist economics is sort of Keynesian in a sense but where all businesses and production are state ideologically controlled.

Essentially it seems that Marxism entails rule by the Academics (according to Bob Whittacker). You can see how DIE (Diversity, etc), green, political correctness, etc policy allow academics to heavily influence policies ideologically within the means of production (companies). Traditionally the means of production drew from a broader (or at least a different) cross section of the community. The means of production was controlled by the productive- no longer. The Academics are the new priesthood of society- they have global reach- and are seemingly loyal to no nation. And don't care about normal people. In the recent interview Elon Musk (endorsing Donald Trump) talked about the two impediments to economic efficiency- red tape and government spending. One of the functions of the Academy appears to be to hold the people hostage by controlling the ideology of production.