It has been suggested, by one of the many commentators that you don't get to know about if you stick to mainstream media, that the CSIRO is "slipping dangerously out of its lane, crossing the line from applied science to active propaganda”.

They are dabbling in behavioural science in the name of Net Zero by imbedding climate messages into “reality” TV shows.

An example used is the behavioural scientist the organisation has hired to develop narratives for Channel 9’s ‘Renovate or Rebuild’ program.

If you watch that, you might recognise what is claimed.

I have noticed something similar with fiction authors I have been reading for years suddenly inserting their personal politics into plots - without adding anything to the story.

It’s a sort of ‘subliminal’ advertising (or brainwashing). We used to regularly hear about subliminal advertising in big shopping centres. Not so much now. Because it’s working well, maybe?

The CSIRO’s behavioural scientist would call it ‘social normative messaging’. The messengers being ordinary people uttering scripted lines about their batteries, solar panels etc, just as they would to mates over a cuppa.

And, no surprise, the behavioural scientist advises that viewers are more likely to buy the ‘planet saving’ goodies than non-viewers of the program are.

She also said, “We can leverage this for ‘good’ ….. (with) these people engaging in behaviours we’d like the viewership to adopt”.

How the elites want people to behave.

They can’t win the argument without playing mind games with the unsuspecting.

My source (subscription only) compares these ‘nudge tactics’ with those used during the bullying of the Covid period, with so much of the ‘science’ now proven to be totally wrong.

CSIRO has strayed from “transforming nature for human benefit” to “reshaping humans” to fit a constrained view of nature.

I believe that more money is spent by private companies promoting net zero for their own gain than is spent on campaigning by all the political parties.

Net zero is a total con and rife with graft and corruption. Thank goodness for the many honest and decent Australians like Dr Ridd exposing the dishonesty.

Fester,

That could be true. But is it their money, or ours, in the form of subsidies handed to them by the government from our taxes? We are the mugs having our money used on crazy schemes to get even more money off us.

No, it’s expanding its lane, ttbn.

//CSIRO is slipping dangerously out of its lane, crossing the line from applied science to active propaganda.//

Behavioural science is part of applied science - used in everything from road safety to anti-smoking to energy efficiency. CSIRO’s work on Renovate or Rebuild is public, documented, and well within the scope of science aimed at solving collective-action problems.

//They are dabbling in behavioural science in the name of Net Zero by embedding climate messages into reality TV shows.//

Correct - and openly.

CSIRO partnered with producers to design a show that promotes sustainable housing. The goal? Help consumers make better-informed, low-emission choices. It’s called "applied behavioural insights," not "embedding" in the sinister sense implied here.

//It’s a sort of subliminal advertising (or brainwashing).//

Hardly.

Subliminal messaging is hidden. This was overt. The show uses everyday characters modelling behaviours like "installing solar" or "insulating properly." That’s no different than how health campaigns promote quitting smoking or wearing seatbelts.

//We can leverage this for ‘good’… (with) people engaging in behaviours we’d like the viewership to adopt.//

Yes - and?

This is literally how all public-good campaigns function. If you disagree with the goal (i.e. reducing emissions), say so. But influencing behaviour isn’t inherently sinister - it’s normal practice in public health, road safety, and energy conservation.

//They can’t win the argument without playing mind games with the unsuspecting.//

Or perhaps the facts are clear, and using emotionally engaging media helps convey them. Besides, the show was voluntary viewing, clearly sponsored, and backed by both public and private funds. Nothing was hidden.

//CSIRO has strayed from transforming nature for human benefit to reshaping humans to fit a constrained view of nature.//

That’s a false dichotomy.

Sustainability requires us to reshape human systems to avoid damaging the environment that sustains us. "Transforming nature" without regard for limits is exactly the attitude that got us into this mess.

An all-round fail, I'm afraid. Ten points for effort, though.

Well John Daysh made an excellent valid point:

"Besides, the show was voluntary viewing"

Once again, thank God I do not have a television!

However, all those big propaganda screens on roads are designed to be forced on innocent drivers without consent, who only try to get from A to B. They hurt and are also a distracting hazard: Why does government allow them?

I think ttbn is jealous that the show wont come down to the swamp and rebuild his hovel.

170 million dollars spent last financial year alone.

" the Senate inquiry that was meant to investigate the supposed “misinformation” from those opposing Net Zero has instead shone a massive spotlight on the deceit of the climate and Net Zero activists."

https://www.advanceaustralia.org.au/shocking_scale_of_foreign_funding_for_net_zero_campaigning_revealed

It's a complete scam.

"These groups masquerade as grassroots campaigns. They’re not. They’re well-drilled, well-funded, and well-co-ordinated. Their goal? Eliminate coal and gas from Australia’s energy system and block any potential transition towards nuclear power.

With a war chest of over $170 million dollars in the 2023/24 financial year alone, the organisations that we investigated have raised more in one year than both major parties spent combined at the last election.

Their success in demonising fossil fuels has handed a bonanza to renewable giants, who are now reaping billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies through the government’s Capacity Investment Scheme."

https://www.page.org.au/2025/10/article-overseas-cash-behind-local-green-gaslighters/

Fester,

Thanks for that. I am familiar with Gerard Holland. He knows what he is talking about, and often appears on ‘The Otherside’ with Damien Coory.

“Make no mistake: this is the biggest foreign influence operation in modern Australian history”.

He is right. As with too many things, Australia politicians and local carpetbaggers are servants to foreigners, making huge amounts off ordinary Australians, who don’t know what is happening, their only source of information being the lying mainstream media. There’s no way these Australians are going to educate themselves, however, and they therefore have to take much of the blame. Democracy is wasted on those people.

Hi Fester,
Good article, I think the whole world is fake, phoney and false, and constantly manipulated by narratives and agendas.
It's like the whole world has become one big psy-op.
And why, because they get better results manipulating us to go along with whatever they want, then if they were just honest.

Maybe for these people honesty is not the best policy anymore.
Better to scare the shite out of people instead, so they're more willing to go against their own interests.

Yes, Fester, and it was disclosed.

//170 million dollars spent last financial year alone.//

The Page Research Centre and ADVANCE cite that figure as the combined revenue of numerous Australian environmental groups, not secret bribes. These organisations (e.g. Greenpeace, The Australia Institute, EDO) don’t hide their goals: to push for faster climate action and cleaner energy.

Whether one agrees with them or not, "being effective" is not the same as being deceptive.

//These groups masquerade as grassroots campaigns.//

That’s rich coming from ADVANCE - an astro-turfed outfit itself, backed by conservative donors and with no grassroots base beyond talkback radio. When your only argument is "they’re coordinated and effective," it sounds less like a critique and more like envy.

//With a war chest of over $170 million … they’re now reaping billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies…//

First, the $170M includes donations, not taxpayer subsidies. Second, renewable energy companies benefit from public investment just like fossil fuel companies have for decades. The difference is: one industry is trying to mitigate climate risk. The other caused it.

//Foreign interference!//

The claim here is that $108 million over 10 years came from overseas funders. That’s $10M a year spread across dozens of NGOs, law firms, research institutes, and campaigns. In contrast, the fossil fuel lobby globally spends billions per year on ads, lobbying, misinformation and election influence.

If that’s not foreign interference, what is?

//The Senate inquiry … shone a massive spotlight on the deceit of the climate and Net Zero activists.//

That’s an interpretation, not a finding. The inquiry uncovered funding flows - but didn’t find fraud, disinformation, or criminality. The Page Centre’s submission is not a final report. It’s one of many voices, not gospel.

So yes, some groups get international support. But that doesn't prove ttbn’s "mind control" fantasy, nor does it excuse decades of fossil-funded lobbying dressed up as patriotism.

Shall we compare funding totals over time?

Hi John Daysh,
I'm not entirely sure what to think here.
I don't like the idea of foreigners driving up costs for aussie battlers.
I've always said that I've got no problems with doing things that are better for the environment, but I won't support cutting our nose off to spite our faces.

I guess you have 2 groups of people.
The ones who are climate conscious and don't mind paying more to protect the environment, and others who struggle from week to week and couldn't care less about the environment over and above the electricity bill.
The bigger issue is adding costs to businesses, and making us less competitive when it comes to exports.
So for me, I want the cheapest energy possible, but others might argue that if it was cheap we'd use so much more, and this is not acceptable.
You could argue some might want to make power more expensive, so we use less, which might be ok if you're rich you'll still use the same amount, but not if you having to decide whether or not you can afford rent, bills and feeding your kids all at the same time.

The way Fester and that article put things, it is a bit of a grift.
Feels like the Israel Lobby playbook, give congressmen enough to fund and win their campaigns, or give it to the other candidate instead.
Might cost a few millions from rich private donors, but the return in Israels benefit is counted in billions.
US taxpayers spent 35 billion on Israel since October 7.

I don't like the deceit.
I see the same playbook Fester laid out when it comes to NGO's and so-called grassroots activism in relation to foreign wars and western lead regime changes.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply, AC.

To be clear, I don't dismiss cost-of-living pressures. In fact, reducing electricity bills has been one of the main justifications for the rooftop solar rollout. Those households aren’t doing it for ideology - they’re doing it because it works financially. (I'm about to buy a battery for my solar because the current rebate means the repayments for it will be covered by what I don't spend on power from the grid.)

This is just behavioural economics in action.

I also agree that we need to be cautious about unintended consequences, but that’s exactly why serious decarbonisation plans include targeted business energy support, not a blanket cost burden. The idea that "Net Zero" equals "higher costs for everyone forever" isn't an inevitability, it's a distortion - one that circulates endlessly within echo chambers, and is repeated ad nauseum by right-wing politicians and commentators.

Where we part ways is on the foreign influence angle.

Yes, international philanthropic funding flows into climate NGOs. It’s all disclosed and legal. And yes, those funders have goals: to accelerate climate action and reduce fossil fuel dependency. But comparing that to the Israel Lobby playbook is… quite a leap.

Your analogy breaks down fast:

- Fossil fuel lobbying in Australia and globally still outweighs green group funding by a wide margin - and often comes with direct policy access and campaign donations, not just media pressure.

- NGOs pushing for renewables aren’t asking for weapons or war - just faster infrastructure rollouts and stricter pollution standards.

- The Israeli lobbying comparison implies clandestine manipulation, but most climate philanthropy is channelled through tax-deductible environmental charities, many of them long-established. They fund research, litigation, and awareness - not regime change.

Your discomfort with perceived manipulation is understandable, but need you to distinguish between influence and corruption, and coordination and coercion. The mere fact that groups are funded to shift policy doesn’t make it a grift. That’s how most causes operate - from pro-gun to pro-wind.

If there’s deceit, then we need to see the evidence for it.

Blowhard Bowen’s Big Plan is falling apart.

The Eraring coal generator was meant to be closed down this year.

Now, with 3 of its 4 turbines going full bore last Friday, the fantasy closing date has been moved out to 2029.

Almost nothing has gone to plan since Bowen began stuffing up 3 years ago, sucked in as he was by the 2022 AEMO plan.

All that the foreign money is doing is enriching the very same foreigners and making Australians poorer.

China is the biggest beneficiary of Australia’s stupidity. That’s the mob that has just once again menaced one of our military aircraft in international air space.

Military ambitions has nothing to do with building sustainable power.
Wind and solar is going to plan, How can their plan be falling in bits. That is for right jargun, and nothing to the point.

Crying about nukes will never see the light of day. That sort of talk will see more of your dear law makers join the one nation.
Who is the biggest critic of one nation the far right supporters.
Tax cuts is the word from what is left of that mob in desperation.

That's not really saying much about the state of the plan, ttbn.

//The Eraring coal generator was meant to be closed down this year.//

More precisely, it was scheduled for closure in 2025 by Origin Energy - not Bowen, not AEMO - and this was always contingent on new capacity being in place first. The extension to 2029 was made precisely because the system operator and government are choosing reliability over ideology.

That’s not a collapse, it’s just prudent energy management.

//Sucked in as he was by the 2022 AEMO plan.//

You mean the Integrated System Plan, which projected the least-cost path to decarbonisation while maintaining reliability? That plan factored in different scenarios, and was never a rigid prophecy. It's updated every two years precisely to reflect changing realities.

//All that the foreign money is doing is enriching the very same foreigners and making Australians poorer.//

No. Foreign donations to climate NGOs don’t result in higher energy bills. The cause of high power prices in recent years has overwhelmingly been fossil fuel volatility - gas price spikes during the Ukraine war being a prime example.

Let’s not pretend coal is cheap just because it’s old.

//China is the biggest beneficiary of Australia’s stupidity.//

A neat deflection.

China is a major manufacturer of everything, including solar panels, but also most of the coal-fired power components we import. If we truly wanted to reduce our reliance on China, we’d invest in local renewables and storage manufacturing. Instead, the Coalition cancelled advanced battery funding and fought against renewable zones.

So, to recap:

- No, the Eraring delay doesn’t disprove Net Zero. It demonstrates built-in flexibility.
- No, foreign philanthropic funding doesn’t mean climate action is a grift.
- And no, invoking "China bad" doesn’t rescue a fossil fuel model in structural decline.

If you want to debate grid security or capacity investment specifics, let’s. But enough with the bumper-sticker bluster from the echo chambers.

Hi John Daysh,
The price of batteries have become quite cost effective, so long as you're generating enough excess during the day to say during peak hours.
I've seen 12kw batteries priced just over 4k.
Green Bank Solar LiFePO4 12.28 KWH Lithium Battery 48V 240AH GB48240 $4290
http://greenbanks.com.au/products/green-bank-solar-lifepo4-8-4-kwh-lithium-battery-24v-350ah-xmj24350

"The idea that 'Net Zero' equals 'higher costs for everyone forever' isn't an inevitability, it's a distortion - one that circulates endlessly within echo chambers, and is repeated ad nauseum by right-wing politicians and commentators."

Hmm, I guess there's more than one way to skin a cat.
I think that just as in any business the costs are passed onto the consumers, and what consumers are paying for is a rushed transition.
My point about the cat, is that if rooftop solar wasn't economically viable, then someone might attempt to change the laws shut down a few coal stations, and with supply reductions you get increased prices and then viola, suddenly rooftop solar is cost effective.
But would it still be cost effective if we hadn't shut the other coal stations down, that's the question.
Seems more like a balancing act.

I understand we need to try and do best by the environment, but I can't help thinking that if foreign lobbyists drive up the cost of energy, not only are they stealing from Australians wallets, (and I oppose that, others shouldn't force me to pay for the changes they want) they also make our country less competitive when it comes to business and foreign trade, worst of all, is seeing people cut back on essentials.

I saw a woman in Woolies about a fortnight ago, she was having an anxiety attack at the checkouts, two little kids in the trolley trying to be good. As I stood there waiting to be served I overheard the situation, she'd bought $100 worth of stuff but only had $70.
When I saw her starting to unload essentials like home brand margarine, well I couldn't cop it anymore staff gathered around while the woman was clearly stressed, so I offered up the $30.

[Cont]

Yes maybe the Israel Lobby comparison was a big jump, sometimes I'll exaggerate things if there's an easy way to explain something and make a point, and well that's what I came up with at the time.
It expressed my thoughts.

There was a story I read a few weeks back.

Outback residents lose solar farm as Ergon battles push owner to close
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-03/normanton-solar-farm-turns-off-after-ergon-energy-negotiations/105843958

When you read stories like this, it just seems like greed on the part of the energy companies, maybe it's them that are getting the best deal from rooftop solar, buying peoples excess back into the grid cheaper than they can probably produce it.

Australia is awash with ‘ dark money’ bypassing disclosure laws, and avoiding public scrutiny and accountability.

What is this bloke talking about now. if you have any sort of proof lay it on the line. Accusations do not jell. Speak now or forever hold your peace.

The Sunrise Project tries scaring us with this nonsense:

“The climate crisis threatens the future of life on earth. To help solve it, an energy revolution is moving the world beyond fossil fuels. How, and how fast that revolution happens will determine the future of humanity…”.

They claim to be “passionate about building networks who can drive the transmission from fossil fuels to clean to energy to reduce greenhouse pollution (sic) and create a healthy and prosperous future for everyone”.

Sorry, folks. That’s the job of competitive private enterprise offering options to customers in accordance with elected government’s legislation. Not busybody NGOs. And prosperity comes only from cheap, reliable energy.

This mob sounds a bit WEFish to me.

There are lots of happy looking board members (look them up at sunriseproject.org and funding (disclosed) of $123 million in 2023.

Our very own Mike Cannon-Brookes, an investor in renewables, is one of the donors.

Excellent subject choice ttbn.

Expect to see every hot day used to shore up the fight against climate change. Net zero reminds me of that poem about a duke:

That grand old Duke of York,
he spent a trillion quid,
on something that didn't work,
for something it never did!

Hats off to you for what you did at the checkout, AC.

Regarding batteries - exactly. They’ve reached a tipping point where, combined with the right rebates and feed-in arrangements, they’re no longer just "green" but smart. I agree the economics only work if you’re generating enough daytime excess and have the right usage profile - but that’s true of any investment. (And yes, I’m sizing mine carefully.)

You raise a good point with this:

//…if rooftop solar wasn't economically viable, then someone might attempt to change the laws [and] shut down a few coal stations…//

That’s a fair suspicion.

But in practice, coal plants are closing because they’re increasingly uneconomic - not because of conspiracy, but because 60-70 year-old machinery struggles to compete with near-zero marginal cost renewables. Add the cost of repairs, emissions compliance, insurance, and litigation risk… and even Origin wanted out of Eraring before any law forced them.

As for your main concern - that foreign-funded activism might be pushing up costs and harming battlers - I get it. But the story’s more nuanced:

Most cost increases come from global fuel volatility, network upgrades, and underinvestment in transmission - not green NGOs.

Foreign donors aren’t setting polic, they’re backing publicly accountable, tax-deductible advocacy groups. (And ironically, so are fossil fuel companies, including multinationals.)

If prices rise without safeguards for the vulnerable, that’s a domestic policy failure - not proof of foreign corruption.

Your Normanton solar farm link is a case in point. That wasn’t a green grift. It was corporate greed from the energy utility underpaying for exported solar. You and I are on the same side there.

I defend the principle of Net Zero, but I’ll just as strongly oppose leaving people behind. That’s not compromise, it’s how you bring everyone along.

I've been thinking about Johns response to our claims of deceit.
He points out that "It’s all disclosed and legal."

I'd like to point out something from my perspective looking at regime changes.
The point I want to make here is that the information about who USAID and the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) were funding was accessible on their own website.
They didn't hide it, (but now do)

Between the U.S. own policy documents
ttbn knows one of them 'Which Path to Persia' by the Brookings Institute for Iran for example.
And the information listed on the NED's own website, you could see who they were funding and figure out what their intentions were if you understood their game.
What I'm saying here is that they weren't hiding too much, but barely anyone in the world knew about what they were doing.

So what am I saying...

Just because they weren't necessarily hiding something, doesn't mean they wanted everyone knowing.

So instead of using the word 'deceit'
Maybe a better word might be 'obscure'
As in not hide what they're doing.
- But certainly not advertise it either.

Make it difficult for the average Joe to truly understand what's been happening.

So if I said they've made foreign funding of climate change agenda a little obscure, in order that the majority are 'lead to believe' that all efforts are grassroots in nature...

As in not advertising that there is foreign funding by wealthy philanthopists.

This fact may not have been hidden, but it certainly isn't advertised.

Take a look at this article for example...
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2019/01/us-regime-change-in-venezuela.html

If you scroll down the page, you'll see an image.
Exxon Mobil, Waste Management, Citigroup, Hilton, Goldman Sachs, McDonalds, Boeing, VISA, Conoco Philips.

- Corporate Donors -

Also, fyi...
That page article listed an entity called 'Ballmer Group'
This group has given 1.32bln via 562 grants in the last 12 months.
The group is not organized as a nonprofit foundation and operates as a corporate philanthropy, and they give grants in the millions.
Some of those grants don't seem to be sinister though.

Fester,

That’s a catchy little rhyme, but unfortunately, the facts don’t scan quite as neatly.

//…on something that didn’t work, for something it never did!//

Let’s be serious. Net Zero isn't some mystical end-goal - it's a framework to stabilise the climate, not to reverse it like magic. Nobody promised we'd end heatwaves by 2030. The point is to avoid catastrophic escalation, not eliminate every hot day.

And the idea that it "didn’t work"? That’s premature at best. Most major countries only began serious decarbonisation efforts in the past 5-10 years. Australia's emissions have dropped 24% since 2005, largely due to changes in electricity generation. That’s not nothing.

Meanwhile, most of the actual trillion-dollar losses have come from climate-related disasters - floods, fires, and heatwaves - not from transition spending. According to Munich Re, 2023 saw $250 billion in global climate-related damages. Net Zero isn’t waste, it’s damage control.

And if we’re talking taxpayer dollars, the fossil fuel sector still receives billions in subsidies - direct and indirect. So if we’re going to do poetry, maybe this one’s closer to the mark:

That old king of coal,
got rich off the dole,
then blamed the renewables
when prices took a toll.

All jesting aside, if you’ve got data that shows Net Zero policies cause more harm than good, bring it. But if all you’ve got is rhymes and vibes, I’d say the Duke of York has better odds of holding a hose than that argument has of holding up.

Appreciate the clarification, AC.

You're right to say that obscurity and deception aren’t the same thing, but that doesn't make the former sinister by default.

The fact that Ballmer Group, for instance, isn’t a traditional non-profit foundation but still publicly lists its grants - including millions to early education and health - isn’t proof of stealth. It's just how many philanthropic entities operate these days: a bit bureaucratic, rarely advertised, but still discoverable.

You made a good analogy with NED and USAID. But here's the key distinction: those organisations are state-funded, and often operate with foreign policy objectives baked in. Their funding of civil society in other countries can function as soft-power regime change - especially when coupled with covert ops, sanctions, or military pressure.

That’s simply not what’s happening with climate philanthropy in Australia.

No one’s overthrown a government by installing rooftop solar or defending native forests in court.

If a Ballmer or Rockefeller Foundation gives money to an Australian NGO that challenges a coal project or supports emissions reform, the agenda isn’t geopolitical - it’s environmental. And it's enforced via domestic legal pathways - media, litigation, and lobbying. You still need public support and legislative wins.

That’s not obscurity. That’s advocacy.

And let’s not forget, fossil fuel majors do the exact same thing. They fund think tanks, buy influence, seed talking points into media, and bankroll campaigns - often without disclosure. But when climate NGOs get disclosed philanthropic support, suddenly it’s a scandal?

You said, "they don't hide it, but barely anyone in the world knew." That applies more to fossil fuel lobbying than anything Greenpeace or CANA has ever done.

So yes, most people may not know where all the money flows. But that’s a transparency challenge, not a conspiracy.

And unlike the Ballmer-funded solar groups, Exxon and Boeing didn’t fund grassroots democracy, they funded war. Big difference.

Net Zero , and everything resulting from it, is a train wreck. Even if you believe Bowen’s buffoonery, the ‘transition’ will not be fast enough to save the Australian economy from ruin.

Only private enterprise and the market - the Australian way until all this nonsense started - can do that; not politicians who have overreached themselves instead of trying to improve their performance related to the relatively few functions required of them.

Let’s flip that, ttbn.

//Net Zero is a train wreck… the transition will not be fast enough to save the Australian economy from ruin.//

It’s precisely the failure to transition fast enough that poses the greatest economic risk. Every serious modelling body - from the IPCC to AEMO to the IEA - shows that delayed action = higher long-term costs. The physical impacts of climate change don’t pause for ideological grandstanding.

//Only private enterprise and the market… can do that.//

Strange then that the market is already voting with its feet:

Origin voluntarily slated Eraring for closure because it couldn’t compete.

Super funds are dumping fossil assets.

Investment in wind, solar, and storage is booming - not because of government fiat, but because the economics have shifted.

And guess who helped make that shift possible? Public R&D, policy certainty, and government-backed infrastructure.

You say "Bowen’s buffoonery" - but what specifically are you blaming him for? Keeping the grid running? Extending Eraring to ensure reliability while new capacity ramps up? That’s pragmatism, not wreckage.

//The Australian way until all this nonsense started…//

Ah yes, the golden age before climate policy - when government built the Snowy Hydro scheme, owned telecoms, subsidised coal rail, and funded CSIRO to invent Wi-Fi. The myth of a purely market-led Australia never existed.

Climate policy isn’t some foreign imposition. It’s the necessary evolution of infrastructure in a world where clinging to 1950s coal tech makes both economic and environmental outcomes worse.

You want to "save the Australian economy"? Then maybe don’t bet it on the energy source that’s bleeding investors and being outcompeted in its own backyard.

Hi John Daysh,
Thanks for your time and responses.
You've a busy schedule responding to everyone.
You won me over, by acknowledging what the U.S. does...

"That’s simply not what’s happening with climate philanthropy in Australia."
Maybe you're right, I'm not sure.
I just wanted to deal with this idea of deceit, I like Fester, and I think it's somewhat valid that many people aren't impressed with the 'idea' that foreign funding is used to push an agenda that many are 'lead to believe' results in coal plants closing prematurely and in turn impacting electricity prices and increased costs for everyone.

The reason I mentioned helping that lady at woolies was to point out that if I choose to open my wallet and give my munny to others, then that's completely different to allowing those I don't know or care about to help themselves without asking.

I know you stated other factors for domestic energy prices are responsible, such as war in Ukraine (don't get me started on that), and fluctuating gas prices.

"And let’s not forget, fossil fuel majors do the exact same thing. They fund think tanks, buy influence, seed talking points into media, and bankroll campaigns - often without disclosure. But when climate NGOs get disclosed philanthropic support, suddenly it’s a scandal?"
- I can't argue with your logic, big oil certainly aren't saints.
Anyone watched 'Landman' on Paramount with Billy Bob Thornton?
I thought it was a good watch, but it may depend on ones taste regarding tv series.

"So yes, most people may not know where all the money flows. But that’s a transparency challenge, not a conspiracy."
- I can accept that, but it probably isn't entirely unreasonable to say that some of these funders prefer we don't 'follow the money'.

I like your dedication to facts and the truth.
One day soon I'm sure you make me look stupid, [smile] but I like discussions with those who seem smarter than myself.
I get smarter too, and you'll help to keep me from going too far off track as I often do.

Here's a question though...

If renewables are the most cost effective, then why is China who manufactures renewables still building coal plants?

Climate change cannot be stopped.

And what am I supposed to make of this?

Google 'Carbon is making the world greener'

Yes, carbon dioxide (CO2) is making the world greener through a process called "CO2 fertilization," which boosts plant growth by increasing photosynthesis. This has led to a global greening trend, particularly in the last 30 years, with satellite data showing a significant increase in leaf cover. However, while greening seems positive, this phenomenon has consequences, including potential impacts on water supplies and ecosystems. 

CO2 is making Earth greener for now
http://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
http://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

With CO2 Levels Rising, World’s Drylands Are Turning Green
http://e360.yale.edu/features/greening-drylands-carbon-dioxide-climate-change

Well I'm no climate scientist, so I don't know.
Seems to me if the world is becoming greener then that's a good thing.
Better a green planet than a dry dead one.

That’s a fair point, AC.

Now that you point it out, I can completely understand the discomfort - feeling like big changes are being driven from a distance, or that the full picture isn’t being made clear until after the fact.

Whether it’s foreign funding or domestic lobbying, the concern over who’s really steering the ship is valid. The fact that most of us don't have the time to properly familiarise ourselves with the science showing the need for the changes wouldn't exactly help matters either.

On the China question, you’ve touched on a tension that confuses a lot of people: why would the world’s biggest producer of solar panels still be building coal plants?

The short answer is: China is trying to do everything at once.

They’re leading the world in renewables investment and still building coal. Not because coal is cheaper long term, but because:

- Their grid is fragmented. Some provinces are mostly renewables, others are still highly industrial/coal-reliant.
- They’re obsessed with energy security. Coal is domestic and predictable - even if it’s inefficient.
- Their "new" coal plants are often designed with impermanence in mind, and are only there as a back up for renewables. For this reason, they're specially designed to fire up and shut down very quickly.

It’s a massive, messy, state-directed transition - not a clean ideological pivot.

Ironically, when China does keep building coal, it’s often used as a talking point against renewables here. But in China’s case, they’re not doing it because renewables have failed. They’re doing it because they’re trying to engineer control at every layer - supply chain, energy mix, and geopolitical insulation.

It’s not a model we’d want to copy - nor need to - but it does make sense within their system.

You're keeping me on my toes, AC.

I went through the 'CO2 greening' bit in quite some detail with mhaze last month. Unfortunately, he was too busy trying extract a contradiction from my comments to really absorb any of it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656&page=0

CO2 fertilisation is a known short-term effect. But here’s the key thing: greening =/= climate benefit.

Why?

- It's uneven and temporary. The gains are concentrated in specific plant types and regions. Many ecosystems - especially tropical forests - are already showing signs of diminishing returns from CO2 fertilisation.

- It doesn’t offset warming or biodiversity loss. You can have more leaves and more ecosystem stress. Some greening comes from invasive species, or short-lived growth that collapses in drought.

- It comes with trade-offs. More plant growth means more water demand in some areas, which can worsen water stress. It also doesn’t stop the loss of cold-dependent ecosystems or permafrost melt.

- And most importantly, the greening effect doesn’t cancel out the damages from heatwaves, sea-level rise, extreme weather, or disrupted agriculture - which are driven by the same CO2.

The NASA and Yale sources you linked both explain that. In fact, one headline literally ends with: "…for now."

So yes, CO2 fertilisation is real. But it's not a reason to keep burning fossil fuels. It's more like a short-term side effect of an overdose that hasn’t hit full swing yet.

Unfortunately, it gets cherry-picked by bad-faith actors to cast doubt on the bigger picture.

But I need to go to bed now...

Since it came under the purview of the CSIRO, the Australian Academy of Science seems to have forgotten that “knowledge is built on observation, experimentation and evidence”. (Dr. Bill Johnston in ‘The Australian Academy of Nonsense’).

The AAS has over-relied on complex models, invoking “The Science”, leading to questionable conclusions about climate change.

It chooses advocacy over science, and activists rather than scientists have written such twaddle as:

“Heatwaves, bushfires, storms and coastal flooding, have become more frequent and intense in recent times … risks are likely to escalate as global temperatures continue to rise …our capacity to respond becomes compromised as frequency increases”.

Many - too many to list - of the “terrible” effects of climate that have ‘never occurred before now’, have been debunked by history. They have occurred before now, when Australia’s piddling little emissions were higher than now.

The claims that hideously expensive government action will stop climate change are absurd.

Climate change cannot be stopped.

Net Zero is a failure of science.

On the contrary, ttbn, Net Zero is based on the core principle of climate science.

//Net Zero is a failure of science.//

That being that atmospheric CO2 traps heat, and that human activity has driven its sharp increase over the past century. That conclusion isn't based on models - it's based on direct observation, experimentation, and evidence: precisely the method you quoted.

//The AAS has over-relied on complex models…//

Models aren't crystal balls. They're tools for projecting possible futures, constrained by physical laws and empirical data. And they're tested against historical outcomes for validation. But the evidence for climate change doesn't rest on models alone. We've already observed:

- Rising average temperatures (land, sea, air)
- Melting glaciers and sea ice
- Rising sea levels
- Ocean acidification
- Shifts in species migration and habitat collapse

None of those are predictions. They're happening now.

//Many of the 'terrible' effects... have been debunked by history.//

No, they haven't.

Yes, Australia has always had heatwaves, droughts, and fires. What's changed is their frequency, intensity, and overlapping occurrence. Historical comparison doesn't disprove worsening risk - it provides the baseline that lets us detect it. It's not about individual events being "unprecedented." It's about statistical shifts in the overall pattern.

//Climate change cannot be stopped.//

True - it's already underway. But rate and scale matter. The point of Net Zero isn't to freeze the planet in place - it's to limit further destabilisation and avoid runaway effects. That's not utopian, it's risk management.

//The claims that hideously expensive government action will stop climate change are absurd.//

What's more absurd is pretending that inaction is free. The damage bill from floods, fires, droughts and heatwaves is already astronomical - and it's still growing.

Net Zero isn't a gamble. Ignoring it is.

How much do banks and insurance companies have to gain with the climate change agenda?

Can banks charge higher interest rates if there is higher climate change risk?
And can insurance companies deny claims fail to insure based on increased climate change risk?

Always have to consider corporations financial interests.
Not to mention those who benefit from changes in government legislation.

The year 2035 is still 10 years away. Denialism is cheap talk. Can you predict the future or just rely on the future to disbelieve the outcomes.

All i know is the colonials who fled their own country did not do that for no reason. And yet they are the hardest right of govt in AU history.

The AU people speak by right of vote, so be it. Not so simple agitators continue to disrupt the law of the electoral vote.

Govt: is not a game of football or religion where your preferences are assigned to you the day you are born.

"Can you predict the future or just rely on the future to disbelieve the outcomes."

Five year forecasts are mostly garbage. Twenty year forecasts are complete garbage. The shortcomings of a grid powered by wind and solar are based on solid science and are becoming apparent with high and rising electricity costs along with massive destruction of farmland and natural heritage. Dispatchable generation like coal is still essential, and the cost and viability of renewable energy infrastructure has been grossly underestimated.

Nuclear power is a viable and proven option for low carbon generation, and the French have demonstrated that an entire grid can be powered with nuclear one and a half times over in fifteen years if there is a will to do it. Trump is laying the groundwork for nuclear power in the US by overhauling the extreme regulation which has hamstrung the industry for nearly half a century.

The woeful economics of a wind and solar grid would be apparent without all the secrecy about the details. Australians are being conned and bled dry by renewable energy carpetbaggers.

Nobody knows what will happen 10 years down the road. The West could collapse before then, the way it is going. Given China's aggression, the whole world could be a smoking ruin. And, a good many of the people making wild predictions will be out of public life, or dead.

In the meantime, climate change cannot be stopped.

Chris Bowen’s Climate Change department is refusing to release information about intentions that they came up with just after the election.

They are claiming exemptions under the FOI Act.

Unelected bureaucrats are even more dangerous than politicians.

For all we know, they are pulling Bowen's strings: putting the ridiculous words into his mouth. After all, he is clearly not very smart, and his excited gabbling and jumping around in Parliament is that of a hyperactive toddler.

"For all we know, they are pulling Bowen's strings:"

Previous releases of information have been very embarrassing when scrutinised, so the secrecy is no surprise and is likely from the executive.

Attacks on critics and expenditure of $170 million last year to sway public opinion has been suggested as evidence the naysayers are winning according to Peter Ridd.

Just seen: the department is now considering opening up.

I hadn’t thought of that Fester. Could be even more embarrassing than tosh we do know about.

Peter Ridd might be right too. Aggression used in defense. Often used in the hope that the criticism might stop.

ttbn,

Fortunately many are not giving up. The Centre for Independent Studies is doing excellent research and doing its best to warn Australians of the renewable energy disaster we are heading towards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiv9hcLYjWo

Fester

Good video. It's a pity that more people don't look for options to the mainstream media. Too many other things to worry about perhaps; and that's the way politicians like it - hence things like multiculturalism, mass immigration, cost of living, climate scaremongering, all things that cause stress and keep minds of the politician's and elite's dirty tricks.

Armchair Critic,

Asking who benefits can be useful, but only after there's some evidence of foul play. If we start with that question before we’ve even established a problem, it becomes a tool for confirming suspicions, not discovering truth.

Every policy benefits someone. Every change creates winners and losers. So asking who gains from climate action, government regulation, or energy transition will always turn up someone - banks, insurers, consultants, tech firms, even tradies installing solar. But that alone tells us nothing.

If this logic had predictive power, we’d be living in a world run by Big Seatbelt and the Smoke Detector Lobby.

What matters is whether the public also benefits, whether the science checks out, and whether the trade-offs are transparent and justified. If the answer to that is "yes," then pointing to someone making a buck from the process is just a distraction.
_____

ttbn,

Freedom of Information exemptions are built into law for a reason - sometimes to protect policy development processes, national interest, or sensitive commercial data. Claiming "refusal" without clarifying what exemption was cited is misleading.

//They are claiming exemptions under the FOI Act.//

Yes, as is their legal right. If you think the exemption is misused, challenge it through the Information Commissioner. But invoking the law =/= hiding corruption.

//Just seen: the department is now considering opening up.//

Which undermines your whole previous line about secrecy and refusal. Seems like the process is working as intended.

//Peter Ridd might be right too. Aggression used in defense. Often used in the hope that the criticism might stop.//

Or, maybe criticism is answered with firmness because it’s been rebutted already - multiple times. Ridd is entitled to his views, but you don’t get to claim they’re being silenced just because people disagree with and debunk them.

As for Fester's video, I have some bad news for you...

Fester,

"Likely from the executive" based on what? You're assuming intent based on vague past impressions.

//Previous releases of information have been very embarrassing when scrutinised, so the secrecy is no surprise and is likely from the executive.//

There are many reasons FOI exemptions are invoked - especially when policy or commercial negotiations are involved. The fact that some information was embarrassing doesn’t suggest all future secrecy is cover-up.

//Attacks on critics and expenditure of $170 million last year to sway public opinion has been suggested as evidence the naysayers are winning according to Peter Ridd.//

That’s not evidence of "naysayers winning." It’s evidence the government is pushing its policy agenda - like all governments do. Public awareness campaigns exist across all departments (road safety, tax compliance, etc.). The logic here is like saying the presence of sunscreen ads is proof that dermatologists are losing.

Also: quoting Peter Ridd, who has a very clear ideological position and a history of conflict with climate science institutions, is fine - but treat him as a partisan source, not an oracle. His claims should be judged on evidence, not alignment with pre-existing beliefs.

As for the CIS video you linked to, it's not the checkmate you think it is.

It strings together a lot of familiar tropes - cherry-picked German prices, inflated nuclear expectations, and the tired "what about manufacturing jobs?" lament - all wrapped in a veneer of authority.

But it ignores:

- The plummeting cost of wind and solar globally (including Australia).
- The record levels of renewable generation and exports in states like SA.
- That AEMO’s ISP and the CSIRO GenCost reports - which actually model grid reliability and cost tradeoffs - point to renewables plus firming as the cheapest path forward.

No mention of Australia’s world-leading rooftop solar, our declining wholesale prices (until coal outages spike them), or the structural changes making 20th-century baseload thinking obsolete.

As for "secrecy" and "carpetbaggers"? That’s projection. The most secretive energy lobbying in this country has always come from the fossil fuel sector.

Why is secrecy okay for them?

John,

I have a word that sums up your nonsense: Johnnywaffle.

"Peter Ridd, who has a very clear ideological position and a history of conflict with climate science"

How does that relate to him reporting that a reef that was supposed to be dead was in fact alive? Ideology would better describe what motivated JCU's reaction to Dr Ridd's scientific research.

"As for the CIS video you linked to, it's not the checkmate you think it is."

It pointed out that the more renewables there are, the more expensive the power. You've responded with your "Correlation is not causation." comment in the past, but as you well know, the comment is dishonest as the problem is one of accounting, not determining the cause of a cancer. The economic decline in Germany coincides with large power price increases. You might also note that CO2 emissions in wind and solar Germany are 75% higher per capita than they are in nuclear France.

"- The plummeting cost of wind and solar globally (including Australia)."

Another misleading statement from you. As you well know, the reason for the wholesale price drop is grid saturation, not because wind and solar generating costs are getting cheaper. And as pointed out in the video, dealing with grid saturation (curtailment, storage or transmission) leads to even higher power prices. The dishonesty of your comment is in suggesting that it is evidence of power costs dropping when the opposite is true. You might note that the taxpayers pay for wind and solar generation whether or not it is used.

ctd

"No mention of Australia’s world-leading rooftop solar, our declining wholesale prices (until coal outages spike them), or the structural changes making 20th-century baseload thinking obsolete."

Indeed there was mention of these things, via saturation, the prospect of rooftop feed being remotely switched off, and the deferred closure of fossil fuel generation.

"The most secretive energy lobbying in this country has always come from the fossil fuel sector.

Why is secrecy okay for them?"

That's projection on your part John. Cheap coal fired power has been a major economic driver in Australia. The wind and solar con has always fallen well short of what was promised, and with big price hikes, huge taxpayer subsidies and falling reliability, the economic consequences are all too apparent.

In its efforts to trash the economy with Net Zero, change the climate, and "protect" the environment - except where they plonk windmills and solar panels - the unhinged Albanese government is going to spend more and create more restrictions by setting up another quango to be called the National Environment Agency to “overhaul” federal environment law.

A bit late to stop the damage they, nobody else, has done to the environment and farmland with windmills, panels, and pylons.

They are even claiming that these will remove red tape now impeding ‘projects’, while saying there will be powers of “stop-work orders in the case of unacceptable environmental risks”.

Who will decide what is an environmental risk? An ideological minister of the most ideological government ever.

The Opposition and the Greens are against the idea.

Ridd didn’t simply "report a reef was alive," Fester.

//How does that relate to him reporting that a reef that was supposed to be dead was in fact alive?//

He framed the entire scientific consensus as corrupt, without credible evidence. His reef "discovery" was a cherry-picked misrepresentation used to undermine broader coral studies.

//Ideology would better describe what motivated JCU's reaction to Dr Ridd's scientific research.//

False.

The High Court found JCU acted lawfully not because of his research, but because he repeatedly breached codes of conduct. That’s employment law, not ideology.

//...the more renewables there are, the more expensive the power.//

Germany’s energy prices pre-date renewables scaling and are shaped by taxes, market structure, and grid design. And France’s nuclear fleet was built under a nationalised monopoly in the 1970s, not free-market liberalism.

You leave that bit out.

//The economic decline in Germany coincides with...//

Sure - but again, so does COVID, global inflation, and the war in Ukraine. Are they all caused by renewables too?

//CO2 emissions in wind and solar Germany are 75% higher per capita than they are in nuclear France.//

Again, misleading.

Germany’s emissions come from its legacy fossil fuel mix, not its newer wind and solar buildout.

//...the reason for the wholesale price drop is grid saturation...//

And what do you think "grid saturation" means? That too much cheap energy is being produced! You’re pointing to growing pains, not proof that renewables are a "con."

//Taxpayers pay for wind and solar generation whether or not it is used.//

Yes, as they’ve done for coal and gas for decades. Fossil fuel subsidies are still much larger globally than renewables support.

//Indeed there was mention of these things, via saturation, the prospect of rooftop feed being remotely switched off...//

Which proves my point: rooftop solar exists in such abundance that it’s reshaping the grid. That’s not a failure, that’s success requiring upgrades.

//The wind and solar con has always fallen well short of what was promised...//

No, wind and solar now consistently outbid fossil fuels at auction. Their variability is a technical challenge, not a scam.

Something needs to be done about the Belarusians.
They are launching unauthorised hot all balloons.
We'll never make net zero at this rate.

Lithuania vows to shoot down Belarus smuggler balloons disrupting air traffic
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-27/lithuania-plans-belarus-border-close-after-balloon-disruptions/105940242

"Lithuania has drawn up plans to shut its border crossings with Belarus indefinitely, after the capital's airport was repeatedly disrupted by suspected sightings of balloons carrying contraband cigarettes.

The repeated disruption has prompted the country's prime minister to vow to shoot down balloons, accusing its Russian-backed neighbour of being part of a campaign of 'hybrid warfare' against NATO."

'hybrid warfare'?
So this is a state sanctioned?
- 'The Great Russian Free Cigarette Plot of 2025'?
Alexander Lukashenko's side hustle - Selling the cheap smokes?
Maybe Putin's in on it directly, he managing the entire operation from the Kremlin?
Why delivery by helium weather balloons though?
He's a sneaky one that Putin.
Seems like a lot of trouble to go to, why not send heroin smuggled from Afghanistan? that would be more believable.
Cocaine for Zelensky?
How do they even know where the helium balloons will land to collect the smokes, do they have an air-tag?
And does the receiver send the hot air balloon back with the cash?
What if the wind is blowing the wrong way?
They Lithuanians could end up sending the money to Sweden instead.
Not a very well though out smuggling operation.
Silly Putin.

Drones would be far better for a smuggling operation one would think.
Maybe the real crime here is the price of a packet of smokes in the EU.
Their government must be robbing their people too.
Maybe that's the REAL hybrid warfare.

John,

Dr Ridd was first acted on JCU for reporting on the live reef that was supposed to be dead. The High Court found that Dr Ridd was within he academic freedom doing this and JCU had no grounds to act on him for it. It was Dr Ridd's complaints about JCU's groundless action that got him dismissed.

What Dr Ridd found from his research was a growing reef in good health, so wouldn't cherry picking better describe examples of dead or dying reef, such as the report ho sent his researchers to check on?

As for Germany's high CO2 being a fossil fuels legacy, why didn't France have the same outcome? Your claim is nonsense. And neither is there anything illiberal about France's nuclear build, at least no more illiberal than the pursuit of net zero in Australia

CO2 is a global problem, and global problems need global solutions. Multinational cooperation to mass produce nuclear reactors could repeat France's effort half a century ago on a global scale. Wind and solar are barely 2% after decades of development. They have failed as they are failing her

Fester,

You're just repeating yourself - substituting recycled talking points for engagement with what you actually argued.

//Dr Ridd was first acted on JCU for reporting on the live reef that was supposed to be dead.//

That's just your headline, not actually what happened.

Ridd publicly accused colleagues of fraud and scientific misconduct without evidence, breached confidentiality agreements, and ignored repeated directives. The High Court upheld JCU’s right to discipline him for the latter.

//The High Court found that Dr Ridd was within he [sic] academic freedom doing this...//

Wrong again. They ruled JCU couldn’t punish him for the initial comments alone. But they could and did sack him for persistent insubordination, not research.

//It was Dr Ridd's complaints about JCU's groundless action that got him dismissed.//

Yes, and those complaints breached confidentiality agreements he had signed. That’s called a contractual breach, not academic martyrdom.

//What Dr Ridd found from his research was a growing reef in good health...//

Cherry-picking is the issue. A healthy reef section doesn’t negate widespread bleaching documented across hundreds of reefs. That’s like filming one green paddock during a drought and claiming the whole region is fine.

//Why didn't France have the same outcome [as Germany]?//

Because France made different choices decades earlier. France went nuclear during the oil shocks of the 1970s. Germany doubled down on coal after Fukushima. That’s policy divergence, not proof that wind and solar are to blame for CO2 levels.

//Neither is there anything illiberal about France's nuclear build...//

France’s fleet was built under a centralised, state-controlled monopoly - exactly the kind of "big government" model you're normally railing against.

//Wind and solar are barely 2% after decades...//

Flat-out false. Globally, wind and solar together made up over 12% of electricity generation in 2022, and over 30% in Australia. They're the fastest-growing sources of new power.

//They have failed...//

Only if you ignore record investment, falling costs, and emissions-free generation. By that standard, I guess smartphones "failed" in the 1990s too?

A Dutch study has found that global warming/climate change is not raising sea levels. Levels have not continued to rise as predicted.

The result is based on “real world” data rather than satellite pictures and models. And, 200 tide gauges that have been accurate for 60 years.

Natural oscillations occurred between 1993 and 2020. Nothing since then.

That is important knowledge for Holland, fair bit of which is below sea level.

Climate change cannot be stopped.

There have been over 150 instances of community-led opposition to renewable energy projects across Australia since 2008, in rural areas where our food is produced.

Albanese would have us importing food as well as everything else.

The loss of food production is just collateral damage to the Net Zero vandals.

Only 21% of Australians now believe NZ by 2050 is worth it.

Climate change cannot be stopped.

No, it hasn't, ttbn.

//A Dutch study has found that global warming/climate change is not raising sea levels.//

It claimed a recent slowdown in sea level rise based on a subset of tide gauges, not that sea levels aren’t rising. Satellite data (which the study ignores) shows clear, accelerating rise above 3 mm per year - and 2023 saw one of the largest annual spikes ever recorded.

//The result is based on 'real world' data rather than satellite pictures and models.//

Misleading.

Satellite altimetry is real-world data - just with better coverage and accuracy. Every major climate science body uses both tide gauges and satellites, precisely because each captures different aspects of sea level dynamics.

//Climate change cannot be stopped.//

Is this a re-framing of the long-clarified "The climate's always changing"? It’s not pragmatism, it’s just nihilism dressed up as tough love.

//There have been over 150 instances of community-led opposition to renewable energy projects across Australia since 2008...//

Correct, and thousands of projects proceeded without issue. Resistance to local infrastructure isn’t new or unique to renewables. NIMBYism is not a climate policy.

//Albanese would have us importing food...//

Solar panels cover <1% of Australian farmland. The real threat to agricultural land is urban sprawl, not wind farms. Also: solar farms can coexist with grazing. We’re not choosing between crops and electrons.

//Only 21% of Australians now believe NZ by 2050 is worth it.//

That figure is from a single ambiguous Lowy poll question. Broader polling consistently shows majority support for net-zero targets and renewable energy investment.

Context matters.

55% of people polled by Compass opted for the use of coal to reduce electricity bills.

But, neither member of the uniparty takes notice of its members or supporters because they are obsessed with a mythical “centre”.

Yes, ttbn.

//55% of people polled by Compass opted for the use of coal to reduce electricity bills.//

And the same Compass poll showed even stronger support for renewables when framed the same way. You left that part out.

Also: "opting for coal to reduce bills" doesn’t mean people prefer coal in general - it reflects how the question was framed.

The cost of living crisis makes any solution sound tempting, even if it’s based on outdated assumptions. (Note: new coal is more expensive than wind and solar.)

//But, neither member of the uniparty takes notice of its members or supporters because they are obsessed with a mythical ‘centre’.//

The "centre" you call mythical is where most Australians live politically - not on X, not in conspiracy YouTube videos, and not in hyperbole about wind turbines and crop failures.

Daysh

If, in your disagreeable arrogance, you think that I am responding to you, or that I am interested in anything you have to say, you are wrong. Your ramblings are not worth a pinch of poop.

You lurk, like a snake in the grass, waiting to disagree with everything other people say about anything.

You are not man enough to start a thread of your own: you just run down people who are. You are a sick, sad individual, whom even the similarly know-it-all mhaze has lost interest in arguing with.

Get a life. Get treatment. But piss off and leave us alone.

Hi John,

There is no fart like an Old Fart, smelly, obnoxious and rude. The "us" is this Old Fart himself and the cuckoo's who agree with him.

John,

"Wrong again. They ruled JCU couldn’t punish him for the initial comments alone. But they could and did sack him for persistent insubordination, not research."

You contradict yourself there. I've said all along that the High Court upheld Dr Ridd's intellectual freedom. JCU's initial censure of Dr Ridd was invalid: Dr Ridd was sacked because he breached his confidentiality agreement with JCU by complaining about the censure to the press. As the High Court observed:

"Dr Ridd should not have been given the 2016 Censure."

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/eresources/2021/HCA/32.pdf

"//Wind and solar are barely 2% after decades...//

Flat-out false. "

All too true as it happens. When it comes to total energy, over 80% comes from fossil fuels, 4.7% comes from nuclear, and a bit over 3% comes from wind and solar.

https://www.iea.org/world/energy-mix

Not quite the meteoric rise you claim, and the wind and solar scam has lots of problems in Australia that the government is trying to hide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ1PTEX-OEg

There's no contradiction, Fester.

//You contradict yourself there. I've said all along that the High Court upheld Dr Ridd's intellectual freedom.//

The Court ruled that JCU was wrong to issue the initial censure, but correct in dismissing Ridd for repeatedly breaching confidentiality and conduct rules after being warned. Upholding academic freedom doesn’t grant immunity from workplace obligations like respectful communication and internal grievance handling.

//JCU's initial censure of Dr Ridd was invalid: Dr Ridd was sacked because he breached his confidentiality agreement with JCU by complaining about the censure to the press.//

Exactly.

That was the point. He wasn’t sacked for his research or views, but for persistent insubordination after lawful warnings. That’s what the High Court upheld in HCA 32 (2021).

//All too true as it happens. When it comes to total energy, over 80% comes from fossil fuels, 4.7% comes from nuclear, and a bit over 3% comes from wind and solar.//

Cherry-picking global total energy to make a point about electricity, where wind and solar are growing rapidly, is misleading. In 2023:

- Wind and solar made up 12.4% of global electricity (Ember, Global Electricity Review 2024).
- In Australia, it’s over 36% of electricity - not 3%.

Fossil fuels dominate transport and heating - sectors wind and solar haven’t fully penetrated yet. But in electricity, their rise is meteoric.

//Not quite the meteoric rise you claim...//

Wind and solar were virtually non-existent in the 2000s. Now, they are the cheapest source of new electricity globally, according to the IEA, CSIRO, Lazard, and others. That is meteoric by any meaningful definition.

//The wind and solar scam has lots of problems in Australia that the government is trying to hide.//

Referring to growing pains and technical challenges as a “scam” is ideological spin, not analysis. Every major grid transformation in history has faced implementation challenges.

That doesn’t invalidate the technology - it highlights the need for planning and integration, not retreat.

John,

You wax on about how fair and reasonable JCU was toward Dr Ridd, yet the whole matter was predicated on a censure of Dr Ridd by JCU that the High Court thought was wrong.

And more of you cherry picking allegations, all the more ridiculous as you are the one cherry picking. Net zero is about all C02 emissions, so all energy production is relevant. What purpose is there for you to limit your view to electricity production beyond cherry picking? Looking at the whole picture shows how minuscule wind and solar compared to other energy sources.

"Now, they are the cheapest source of new electricity globally, according to the IEA, CSIRO, Lazard, and others."

That is a dishonest and misleading statement. As you are well aware, when the cost dispatchable power is considered, wind and solar are very expensive as Australia is proving. Those costs also extend to environmental destruction and economic loss from the destruction of productive farmland and loss of industry like aluminium smelters.

As it happens, there is long term data on energy costs which shows nuclear power to produce dispatchable power at similar cost to non-dispatchable wind and solar, a finding supported by the IEA, suggesting a cost for nuclear with life extension to be less than half what the CSIRO's dodgy modelling claims for dispatchable wind and solar.

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

Rising C02 level is a world wide phenomenon and comes from all energy production. It will not be corrected by a nation accounting for 1% of emissions replacing its electricity generation with a prohibitively expensive and nonviable alternative.

Australia is headed for an economic and environmental train wreck. Time to end the wind and solar con.

Fester.

The Court also found that JCU was justified in terminating him for repeated breaches of conduct policies after the censure. That distinction matters. Upholding his initial freedom of expression does not equal blanket approval of his subsequent behaviour.

That’s not opinion, it’s what the High Court ruled.

//Net zero is about all CO2 emissions, so all energy production is relevant.//

And yet, electricity is the first and most tractable sector being decarbonised - that’s why it gets focus. Globally, power generation accounts for around 40% of CO2 emissions, and it’s the easiest to clean up. So no, it’s not "cherry-picking" - it’s targeting the low-hanging fruit first, as every credible roadmap recommends.

//Wind and solar are very expensive as Australia is proving.//

Flat-out wrong. The CSIRO GenCost 2023-24 report, AEMO, and international comparisons all agree:

- New wind and solar are the cheapest forms of generation per MWh.
- The rising retail prices are due to coal unreliability, war-driven gas prices, network upgrades, and underinvestment in firming - not renewables themselves.

//Destruction of productive farmland...//

Again: emotive overreach. Australia has vast land reserves. According to the Clean Energy Council:

- Utility-scale solar and wind require 0.02% of Australia’s landmass.
- Renewables can coexist with grazing and agriculture, and many do.

Compare that to fossil fuels, which require dedicated mining zones, waste management, and pollution controls.

//IEA says nuclear produces dispatchable power at similar cost...//

The 2020 IEA report does not support your conclusion. In fact:

- IEA and CSIRO both note nuclear’s high capital cost, long lead times, and economic unviability in Australia.
- CSIRO’s 2023 modelling shows nuclear as the most expensive option for new generation in Australia - even using best-case overseas benchmarks.

And again, no private investor is willing to build one here - that’s the real-world cost signal.

//Australia accounts for 1% of emissions, so it doesn’t matter.//

By that logic, no individual action matters, which is a nihilistic cop-out. Every tonne counts in a global system. Pretending we don’t matter ignores both our emissions intensity and international responsibility.

Power firming means battery back up.
Solar trades in negative figures probably now until may next year.
Where do the dirty tricks come in?
Nukes were voted out so forget it. Has nukes power ever traded in negative figures?
Why be one sided it will not get you any satisfaction at all.
Coal power stations are on their last legs. Ten years of Scomo sealed that to the scrap heap.
That mob were happy to see au power to cease altogether.
Thank the good lord for sunshine and wind.

Liberal's have vote on Net Zero. 28 against, 17 for it.

Whatever the Noalition decides on climate change action is irrelevant, just a few cow cockies led by Barnyard Joy, the vast majority of Australians demand action, and they give voice to that demand at the ballot box. Its also of no consequence what a couple of old reprobates might think on the subject, they are destined to "go up the chimney", in the not too distant future, and add their bit of CO2 to the debate.

p/s The Liberal are about to dump the ineffective 'Ditzy' Ley, and replace her with god knows who, maybe Coco The Clown might make a comeback!

Renewables also create new ways to use electricity.

Take e-scooters and e-bikes as an example.
In the past the rest of us used our legs and pedalled.

Boy charged over fatal Sunshine Coast e-bike crash that killed 8yo child
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-19/boy-charged-over-fatal-sunshine-coast-ebike-crash/106027202

"The boy has been charged with dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death, unlicensed driving, and driving an unregistered and uninsured vehicle."

Two kids have a head on collision on their bikes.
One dies and the other has the book thrown at him.
We don't know what happened, what speed each was doing, who swerved in front of the other etc.

I see plenty of kids riding e-bikes, I don't see police handing out fines or doing anything to prevent them from doing so.

Some of the laws in this country are stupid.
Take vapes as an example.
They allow them, people get addicted, and then they ban them.
Do you think banning them makes people who are addicted to them not want them anymore?
FYI I don't vape.

There's a place not far from where I live that sells cheap tobacco and vapes, and it's a stones throw from the local copshop.
Why would I want to pay $100 at woolies for something I can get for less than $5?
We have cheap tobacco and vape shops everywhere up here.
And why are people who buy it bad when it's government greed and authoritarianism that caused the problem?

Now not only does the government get no money from tobacco excise, it has created a black market that costs hundreds of millions to police.
Nation run by idiots.

I bet there a few coppers out there that don't mind their vapes either.

Here's a good video that puts another angle on things.
It's about planned obsolescence of washing machines.
We worry so much about what is good for the climate, but we don't look at the blatent consumerism that exists when products are not repairable or not built to last.

http://youtu.be/138S0rSbZ10?si=Xl35H77krAuY9m2q

My last washing machine was a Fisher and Paykel.
I bought it in 2004, and it finally gave out last year.
20 years I got out of that thing, Aussie made.

The bloke in the video makes a good point, in that the government doesn't care because they can earn more tax if you have to replace your appliances more regularly.