Fester,

You're playing semantics while trying to frame the whole debate as if it’s just a matter of taste in analogies. But let’s be clear:

//I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero.//

You chose a Nazi project - not just any folly - and used it to frame modern climate policy as delusional, ideologically driven megalomania. The Hitler comparison didn’t have to be made. You chose it. You keep saying the problem is "cost," but your analogies invoke totalitarian delusion, not budgeting errors.

And now you're backpedaling - slicing hairs between "megalomania," "folly," and "ideology," insisting you're talking about people pursuing net zero and not the CSIRO itself.

If your argument made sense, it wouldn’t need so much retroactive dissection.

On GenCost transparency:

You've quoted Grok but you haven't provided a link to it so that others can see the full analysis, or determine how leading your question was.

Very suspicious!

I'm also willing to bet that you've removed a clarification from the "Final Verdict."

Quoting a middle-of-the-road assessment like it’s a smoking gun is misleading. Cherry-picking nuance doesn't make you nuanced.

The CSIRO responded to criticisms by adding explanatory material in later editions. That’s transparency in action, not the absence of it.

On capacity vs demand:

//That is double average demand, so that means that half of what is generated is curtailed or wasted.//

No, that’s not how modern power systems work. You’re comparing total installed capacity (spread across different times, resources, and weather conditions) to average demand, and drawing the wrong conclusion.

Curtailment is already modeled - and is one of the reasons storage, demand management, and grid interconnection are baked into GenCost assumptions.

//As OLO’s most profligate and compulsive liar…//

Ah, the inevitable drive-by insult when your position starts crumbling. When you need to tell people your opponent is dishonest, instead of showing it, that’s usually a giveaway.

If you want to keep reaching for WWII analogies, go ahead. But don’t be surprised when no one else finds them as profound as you do.

John,

"and used it to frame modern climate policy"

More lies from you. Not climate policy, net zero.

"as delusional, ideologically driven megalomania"

No, I said "an example inspired by megalomania with a complete disregard for cost". But you, with your aggressive interrogation and dishonest verballing, are doing a mighty good impersonation of a lunatic.

It was a simple analogy to suggest what the CSIRO was not sharing. A lack of transparency acknowledged in the Gencost Report and reported widely, yet delusional you called me a tinfoil hatter for mentioning this, and followed with an idiotic fabrication, falsely claiming that I'd called people delusional Nazis and CSIRO employees megalomaniacs. Here is a quote from CIR about the lack of transparency:

"Renewables’ ongoing need for taxpayer support makes it increasingly difficult for the government to argue they are cheap. GenCost’s annual crowning of renewables as the cheapest is crucial for protecting the government’s narrative.

While coal is cheaper than renewables for GenCost’s 2024 analysis, the report also compares cost estimates for projects built in 2030, and this is where the CSIRO’s claim that renewables are cheaper comes from. But integrated renewables only look cheaper in 2030 because the CSIRO assumes pre-2030 storage and transmission projects will be built for free.

Worst of all, the CSIRO have chosen unrealistic assumptions that make new coal plants look more expensive than they would be in reality. When these assumptions are fixed, coal is hands down the clear cost winner."

And over the weekend we heard the first mention of the cost of net zero by government. About $20,000 per person, much higher than my estimate, and given the government is about as dishonest as you are John, the figure could be three times as much.

And the rest of your reply is just as lie ridden and unhinged. I seriously doubt your grasp of reality.

Fester,

I know it stings when people respond in detail rather than just nod along. But let’s walk through the actual words and logic - yours and mine - step by step.

1. "Not climate policy, net zero"

Net zero is climate policy. It’s the primary decarbonisation framework adopted by governments worldwide. If you’d like to argue that "net zero" is not "climate policy," good luck - even the Net Zero Economy Agency and Safeguard Mechanism legislation in Australia would disagree.

2. "An example inspired by megalomania…"

You now say:
"No, I said ‘an example inspired by megalomania with a complete disregard for cost.’"

But earlier you wrote:
"I think the folly of Germania to be a perfect analogy for net zero."

If you consider something "a perfect analogy," you are likening it to the core features of that thing - in this case, the delusional scale, cost-blindness, and yes, megalomaniacal ambition of Germania. That’s not me "verballing" you - that’s your frame, your analogy, and your quote.

Don’t blame me for pointing out how jarring that comparison is.

3. Your new source: The Centre for Independent Research

You now quote CIR to assert that the CSIRO’s assumptions are flawed and that coal would be cheaper "when fixed."

Here’s the thing:

The CIR is not an independent body - it’s a small, ideological think tank. Their critique isn’t peer-reviewed, and their assumptions are built to favour coal. GenCost, by contrast, uses a publicly documented and consultative modelling process (including with energy producers, grid operators, and academics), publishes underlying assumptions, and revises them yearly based on feedback - that’s transparency.

CSIRO, meanwhile, responded to those transparency concerns by adding a detailed "Cost Components" breakdown in GenCost 2023-24. That’s not "hiding the truth," it’s called listening to feedback.

If your analogies start with megalomania and end in partisan talking points, don’t be shocked when others call it what it is.

Finally, calling me a liar only makes my job here easier, because it means I don't have to work so hard to show that you're fast losing your grip on the argument.

https://www.facebook.com/reel/790276013400210

Just saw this on FB ! I wonder how the facts line up with this bloke's statement ?

Indyvidual,

The federal government hasn't asked people to look into the science themselves, and that bloke is a good reason why they wouldn't. He should stick to manual labour.

The claim that Australia’s 24 billion trees absorb 453 million tonnes of CO2 per year might sound like a "gotcha," but here’s the thing: those trees are already part of the existing carbon cycle. They’re not some untapped climate solution, they’re already doing all they can just to keep things vaguely stable.

You can’t treat that absorption as a free pass for emitting more. It’s like noticing your savings account earns interest and declaring you’ve solved your credit card debt without changing your spending.

And carbon absorbed by trees isn’t locked away forever. It’s released again when the trees die, burn, or decay. That’s why scientists talk about "net" emissions. Cutting fossil fuels removes ancient carbon from the equation permanently. Trees just shuffle it around temporarily.

As for the implication that solar farms require mass deforestation? Most are built on degraded farmland, not pristine bushland. Some even support livestock grazing. If old mate is suddenly concerned about tree loss, tell him that the biggest cause of deforestation in Australia is agriculture, not climate policy.

That'll shut him up good 'n' proper!

If trees really did have the problem covered, atmospheric CO2 wouldn’t still be climbing. But it is - sharply. Nature only absorbs about half of what we emit. The rest builds up in the atmosphere and oceans. That’s why actual climate scientists say we need to reduce emissions, not just hope the existing biosphere can mop it all up.

If you’re filling the bath faster than it can drain, the solution isn’t to blame the plughole, it’s to turn down the tap.

Just spent a week in CO2 choked Sydney, good to be back to the "relatively" clean air of Brisbane. ANDREW HASTIE, what a gift to the LABOR PARTY is dear Andy, he's threatening to take his marbles (he's lost most of them) and go go home, unless the NOALITION drops any pretence of having a net zero policy. Andy might be a man of principle, as well as being in the pocket of Big Coal, and Big Oil. As we know Hastie is looking for an opportunity to stab Ditzy Ley's in the back, or the front it don't much matter, she's cactus as it is. I still can't believe that the NOALITION made Ditzy opposition leader, but there was a choice withh Poor Angus as the alternative. Let the NOALITION play their silly game of self destruction, it might win them an election sometime in the 22nd century!