ALTRAV,
Welcome to the thread. I'm glad you've shared your concerns, as there's quite a lot you need to be made aware of.

Doesn't Snowy count as a real example of renewables installed decades ago?

But if you only mean wind and solar, the problem is that decades ago, and indeed throughout the 20th century, they were hopelessly uneconomic. They were sometimes suitable for remote locations, but nowhere near competitive enough to power the grid. Indeed some of the early solar panels took more energy to make than they ever generated.

But technology has moved on. All that research spending has had ENORMOUS results (even if you've never noticed them). Solar power is now cheaper than coal power. Renewables are now responsible for over 20% of Australia's electricity generation, and that figure is rapidly rising. You may have heard why they won't work, but if you open your eyes, you'll see you were lied to; they're working already!

As for the effect of humanity, the concentration of atmospheric CO2 has risen by about a third of its preindustrial level. The amount that was added by the burning of fossil fuels was substantially more than that, but some of it was absorbed by forests, oceans etc. So the idea that humans aren't responsible ranks somewhere between fanciful and absurd.

Aiden, simple challenge. Why if renewable solar and wind are cheaper than coal has my bill increased four fold?
The fact is we are being gouged by merciless power suppliers who welcome this nonsense, AGL for example as well.
This will be noted in centuries to come as was Tulipomania and the South Sea Bubble as just a complete fraud. Of course this never comes out in the MSM as they are the biggest problem.
Find out about the South Sea Bubble, it was a fraud perpetrated by well connected individuals (Lead by the King of England) that ruined everyone. I await the CC end game.

Two important things come up in this discussion
Privatization of power supply, those who now own it bought it to make a profit
Too climate change like it or not is linked
Some feel the need to reject one because they see links to the other
This morning, the NSW Liberal government, facing an election next year
Has claimed it Federal brothers are out of touch
True or not it is the opposition to both climate change and renewable energy that stalls change
And privatization drives the high cost of power
Aiden has in his last post just about rapped up the true current state of renewable s,battery storage is going to be the future.

"CO2 has risen by about a third of its preindustrial level".

And, well before that, before there was large-scale industry, the CO2 level was much higher than it is now. But the likes of Aidan are totally ignorant of history, and the Middle Ages warming period. They are too ignorant to argue with. Dud science has blinded them to what is known to have happened. They believe in 'models' and the wild guesses produced by those models. They are useful idiots for the shysters taking billions of dollars out of the system that could be used for adapting to the natural phenomena of climate change. Shameful people who will never be made to pay for their stupidity when the lies run out and they are proven to be irrefutably wrong. They are just like the flat-earthers and witch-burners, also part of the history they ignore or have never studied.

For a long time I have been agnostic on climate change, mainly because
I thought it was irrelevant anyway as the falling ERoEI of coal and oil
ensured that later it will not be economic to exploit them.
However I heard Prof Ian Plimer make a point on TV recently about CO2.
He said that in the atmosphere in every 85,000 co2 molecules just one
has been produced by human activity !
His point was do you think 1 in 85000 would have any noticeable effect ?

That seems to be a very reasonable argument although perhaps some will
argue on its accuracy. I guess that it is possible to calculate the
amount of co2 produced knowing the amount of coal & oil burnt.
Then knowing the volume of the atmosphere it would be possible to
calculate the daily input and then subtract plant absorption.
If he out by two times that would be 2 in 85,000 !
Must be several PHDs in that.

In the longer term nuclear and/or fusion has to be the answer.

Bazz, in reading your post I am reminded of a question I raised some years ago.
In talking about calculations and stats, I wondered whether it was possible to calculate the actual, (or near enough) fossil fuel burnt over the past or as far back as is possible on record.
We record 'everything' these days, so therefore it is possible that there exists records of how much coal, petrol, and gas has been consumed in the past, in Australia alone, to a reasonable accuracy.
Because all I have heard so far is that we (humans) are a bunch of selfish pricks for destroying the environment and our future generations.
So as I have said previously, I don't deny that pollution exists, it's just that I reject the charge that we (humans) are responsible for all of it.