579, I only know one person who, due to lack of mains supply, tried to depend on solar panels, who did not take a sledge hammer to them, either sooner or later. After spending much money & effort on the useless things, I don't blame them. Oh, that other one sold up & moved to a place with mains power, such was his frustration with them, & his dislike of diesel generators, the only thing that really works.

I will admit I did have a, quite expensive, solar panel system for keeping the battery on my tractor charged, & it worked well for the 17 months it lasted before dying.

I also have a wind generator, carefully stored on the bottom of the Corral Sea, about 60 miles north of Willis island, if you would like it. The whirring damn thing broke down once too often, so I gave it a float test, it didn't. A friend suggested I could have sold it for a reasonable amount of money, but I could not think of anyone I hated enough to even give it to.

That was of course before the days of lying conniving climate scientists, yes that's right, the ones who continue to make a fool of you Anthonyve, I'd love to give it to one of them.

Take electricity for example.. this is worth a squiz,if only it would happen just like it is being done in the USA. Average price for power
9.2 cents/KWH [ just returned from there last month - visited 5 states ]
AV power here T21 - 20.9 cents/KWH go figure.
"http://thadeus-sez.blogspot.com/2011/06/cheap-power-idea-everyone-wins.html"

Peter Hume's presumably rhetorical question , is water a pollutant, needs a sensible answer, which is, yes. Anything, no matter how 'natural', can be a pollutant if it is in the wrong place in the wrong quantities.
Just ask the residents of Bangkok.
Or to take another example: Tobacco smoke is the natural result of the natural process of burning the natural plant tobacco.
Is it a pollutant?
Er, yeah.
Anthony
www.observationpoint.com.au

Hasbeen I can not figure out what you are saying. Do you mean the solar panels don't produce power, or not enough power. Something is not right if it makes you put an axe through it.
Five 200 watt panels will give you a 1000 watts of power, a fridge will use 350 watts to run, the rest will go to the grid for credit, or batteries if you are not on the grid. As for saying wind generators don't work, you never had the battery back up to collect the power. I think you are talking about early versions of alt; power.

Carbon as an element is not the problem.

In this context, the word "Carbon" is being used as a generic term for ALL greenhouse gasses, of which carbon is but one.

The problem is the supposed outcome when when there is TOO MUCH carbon for the environment to deal with.

Not a difficult concept, surely.

Meanwhile it's interesting to see a subtle shift from outright denial of the existence of any climate change at all to an argument over how it can (or can't) be dealt with.

"""
Meanwhile it's interesting to see a subtle shift from outright denial of the existence of any climate change at all to an argument over how it can (or can't) be dealt with.
"""

I've never met a solitary person that denied the climate changes.
What's at argument here is whether man causes the climate to change and he undoubtedly does as does any living or non living object on this planet, it's physics and no one denies it. So by how much does man change the climate and by how much can man maintain a fictitious stable climate by implementing a carbon tax?

It seems no one can answer these simple questions, most of all the frauds that want our labour!