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