If it wanted to, that is.

The Agreement specifies a review of nonsensical emission reduction targets every five years, and the government could change its mind in the period 2020-21 if it came to its senses and did a few sums on the cost of achieving zero emissions.

The wildest goals come from Extinction Rebellion: zero emissions by 2025. To achieve this, and retain an ASSURED electricity supply, would require Australia to build 33 nuclear power plants each year from now on.

Greens and the Conservation Council on zero emissions by 2040. 8.5 nuclear plants per year.

Labor Party, zero emissions by 2050, 5.5 nuclear plants per year.

Morrison Government: same as Labor thanks to Turnbull's dirty work before his demise. But, they could legitimately, in 2020-21, come to their senses and follow the US in getting out, and start repairing our economy.

(Based on a report by Dr. Roger Pielke, researcher and writer for IPCC).

They could but they won't as all those hysterical schoolgirls will
be turning 18 at the time of the next election.
Now that information is accumulating that the warming of the last
200 years or so is a natural cycle it could change things but I do not
think it will get ready acceptance by the next election, so the
government should keep on pretending that co2 is warming the earth.
If they stop pretending we will get a government that really is forced
to believe it to keep the greens on side.
The greens and the UN do not appear to believe it either, and it is
looking more and more likely that their position is just the old
socialist dogma writ large.

Isn't it time 97 per cent of scientist lost their jobs. To think I am paying three times as much for power than I should be thanks to Rudd, Gillard and Turnbull. I do hope Morrison has at least a tenth of the courage of Trump who has called these Marxist out for who they are.

runner,
Well, Trump isn't a politician, Morrison is so you might be in for a long wait.

Bazz,

From what I've read, these kids are not really interested in democracy and voting, and they will probably lose interest when real life hits and they are looking for jobs. I think we are getting closer to the point where voting is just a formality. Politicians are not listening to us any more.

runner,

Morrison has no courage; he is a waste of space, and

individual,

you have hit the nail on the head - Trump is doing the right thing because he is not a politician, but look how he is vilified by all and sundry, including those he is trying to help.

The fault is all ours. We have been too complacent for too long. We could be looking at a one party state like you know who. It won't be a matter of being taken over by China, it will be our own mob becoming like China.

Runner the 97% were not 97% did mot all believe AGW.
It was a much smaller percentage.
I think they will vote as they will still have the teachers voice
ringing in their ears.
They might even still be attending demo parties.

I see on tv tonight a Labor party man said that the sea has sisen in
Melbourne but a conservative said it had fallen in Sydney.
They were arguing about tide marks, Fort Denison's is over 100 years old.
Oh well an interesting time ahead.

"It won't be a matter of being taken over by China, it will be our own mob becoming like China."

Exactly.

If you can't look after what you've got, someone else will....just not for you.

ttbn,
>The wildest goals come from Extinction Rebellion: zero emissions by 2025
That's NET zero emissions by 2025.

> To achieve this, and retain an ASSURED electricity supply, would require Australia to
> build 33 nuclear power plants each year from now on.
Firstly, those would be very small nuclear power stations. And large ones are generally better value for money, despite the ongoing attempts to make SMRs cost effective.

Secondly, building some big batteries would drastically cut the number of nuclear power stations required.

Thirdly, nuclear power is an expensive option and there's really no need for it here. We can achieve better results much more quickly and cheaply with renewables. There would need to be an overbuild but that's not a bad thing, as it could become the basis for a hydrogen industry.

Do you see the problem with the way you're thinking? You're overstating the constraints and assuming there's only a single solution available. In reality there are many, and nearly all of them are much cheaper and more practical than yours.

_______________________________________________________________________________

runner, why are you so eager to kill the messenger?

'runner, why are you so eager to kill the messenger?'

actually Aiden I think Trump is an absolute champion in dealing with the gw religion. Why are you eager to kill the messenger?

What the hell does 'zero net emissions' mean anyway?
Seems to me the only way to achieve that is if we're all dead.

I'd be willing to take more of a 'plan for the worst, hope for the best' approach to the entire matter if I didn't think their claims were overstated.

When I really think about it, there's a kind of metaphor I could apply to the way I feel about the whole climate debate.

Think of when you start to lose control of a motor vehicle if it slides out.
If you back off, you'll lose control completely.
What you need to do is power out of it.

In a way that's the way I feel about all this climate stuff.
The current approach is to cut back on emissions, or back off;
which has the inevitable result of destroying the economy and we'll never be able to afford moving to the better greener technology.

We need to power out of it.
That means not destroy the economy over token gestures that will never be enough anyway if we entertain the alarmists claims.
Power up the economy at the expense of the climate crap;
in order that we can move to greener technology sooner.

Greta Thunberg says "Richer countries such as Canada and Sweden need to get down to zero emissions much faster so people in poorer countries can heighten their standard of living by building the infrastructure we have already built".

What shes saying is we have suffer so the third world can build up.
What she's promoting is wealth redistribution and destruction of sovereignty under global treaties.

Who rules us?
Who decides what's best for us?

Australians or the UN?
So they run a clever marketing campaign to brainwash, peer-pressure, coerce, threaten and guilt-trip and hold 'us' ransom by XR so our views are aligned with theirs?
That's not really 'us' deciding anything.
That's being 'imposed' upon.

There is a petition on the Parliamentary website calling for Australia to leave the Paris Climate Agreement.

aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN116.

The Minister for Energy and Emissions is Angus Taylor:
angus.taylor.mp@aph.gov.au

runner,
I'm not trying to kill the messenger; I'm speaking the truth.
I refer you again to answers that I've already given, which you've chosen to ignore:

From the "Australia’s Liberal Party no longer ‘liberal’" thread:
Considering the lies Trump's told, why don't you think he deserves contempt?
Have you forgotten that Christians are meant to be on the side of truth?

And from the "Losing control of affordable reliable power" thread:
t's bad enough that you've let your own ideology blind you in one eye, but it's worse that you've let somebody else's ideology blind you in the other! How much longer will you keep spreading the neocons' "gw religion" lie?

Open your eyes up! The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is clear, the evidence agains it is non existent, and as Christians we should care about the consequences of our actions.

Don't be fooled by simplistic explanations; always look for the truth.
For example, it's true that the price of electricity has risen substantially in the last decade. But that has very little to do with renewables. There are three much greater factors at play here:
• Spending on poles and wires has risen substantially, and a lot of it has been inefficiently planned and inefficiently funded.
• Power company profit margins have gone up.
• The price of gas went up enormously (partly due to domestic consumers paying international prices after gas companies in eastern Australia started exporting, and partly because of a rise in demand) so users are paying more for electricity when some of it's being generated from gas, which is most of the time.

AC,

Zero emissions is an impossibility. Only suckers in the West believe in it, particularly ignorant kiddies like Greta Thunderbox. Carbon dioxide will always be with us. Every living human being and animal emits the stuff.

Apart from scrapping the Paris Agreement, we should also cut ties with the corrupt UN, which does nothing for Australia, and criticises us non-stop

Armchair,
>What the hell does 'zero net emissions' mean anyway?
It means taking more CO2 out of the atmosphere than we put in.

>Seems to me the only way to achieve that is if we're all dead.
That's zero gross emissions, which nobody is calling for.

>The current approach is to cut back on emissions, or back off;
>which has the inevitable result of destroying the economy
That claim is IDIOTIC!
There are a few dinosaurs on this board who I'd expect such a claim to come from, but I'm a bit surprised. to hear it from you.

It does not destroy the economy. It does not even threaten to destroy the economy.
It threatens some parts of the economy, but boosts others. And even the threatened parts of the economy can often survive and even thrive by innovating.

>and we'll never be able to afford moving to the better greener technology.
We can ALREADY afford moving to the better greener technology!
Indeed not only can we afford to do so, but we can benefit from doing so.
But many people are so enthralled by the coal industry that they can't see that.

Surprising how many people have not heard that there is a different
explanation for the warming of the last 2 or 3 hundred years.
To misquote somebody; "It is the Sun Stupid".

The reduction in the number of co2 believers might well be explained by
Svenmark and others. The next few years should be interesting to watch.
At least it answers some questions that the current theories go not.

Aidan you continue to make these bold statements with not a single piece of evidence to support them. Obviously you accept all the global warming scam garbage, & probably believe that global warming makes it cold.

I can't believe anyone who has looked at the continual failure of the scam promoters to get their predictions anywhere near right, & continually have each new bit of research they promote shot down with in days, can still fall for this rubbish.

It must be an eyes wide shut business, or you would see the truth.

Bszz,
The problem with the "it's the sun" explanation is that observations have shown it isn't.
See http://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You seem to think climate science is stuck in the 20th century, But it's moved on a long way since then, and solar variations are not ignored.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen, is there really any point in my posting evidence for you? Can you honestly say you don't reject all the evidence that doesn't fit your predetermined conclusions?

>Obviously you accept all the global warming scam garbage
On the contrary, I accept the science and reject all the global warming scam garbage that you always fall for hook line and sinker!

>& probably believe that global warming makes it cold.
I understand how (by altering ocean currents in the North Atlantic) global warming can make Europe cold despite average global temperatures rising. Would I be correct in thinking that's something you don't understand?

>I can't believe anyone who has looked at the continual failure of the scam promoters
>to get their predictions anywhere near right, & continually have each new bit of
>research they promote shot down with in days, can still fall for this rubbish.
Great irony there: an accurate description of your own behaviour, and you still can't believe it!

Despite the fact that there were no mechanical means of transport, no heavy industry, no electricity, fewer people and fewer farting cows in these periods, the years 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, and 1400AD, were all HOTTER than the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.

Hey ttbn,

"Apart from scrapping the Paris Agreement, we should also cut ties with the corrupt UN, which does nothing for Australia, and criticises us non-stop"

On the one hand I'd be happier if we weren't constrained by all these 'international obligations';
you know I see it as international democracy imposed upon nation states.

On the other hand I know some proponents of Israel also aspire to remove the UN and govern all nations from Jerusalem, which I don't support nor wish to play into the hands of this ideology.

Hey Aiden,
I'm questioning myself on whether or not I chose the right words.

"The current approach is to cut back on emissions, or back off;
which has the inevitable result of destroying the economy"

Maybe 'destroy the economy' was going a step too far;
or maybe in some ways it was valid;

My point is that if you increase the cost of EVERYTHING
- by way of increased fuel and energy costs to a nation
Then the nation in no way is in a better financial position to afford moving to better technology.
Exports are less profitable or even non-viable;
And the middle class has less money to purchase green alternatives.
That's how I see it with my limited knowledge, but maybe there's other issues I'm not seeing or considering.

"It threatens some parts of the economy, but boosts others. And even the threatened parts of the economy can often survive and even thrive by innovating."

You're far more knowledgeable on financial issues than I am.

"We can ALREADY afford moving to the better greener technology!
Indeed not only can we afford to do so, but we can benefit from doing so."

Can we do it without shooting ourselves in the foot and increasing the cost of everything?

"But many people are so enthralled by the coal industry that they can't see that."

I'll gladly kick coal in the butt when something better comes along but not a moment before;
In the meantime I do think there's probably a lot more practical things we could do to address the problems.

I don't like the idea of carbon taxes for the sake of it without a practical plan.
Develop a practical plan with practical ideas and I most likely will go along with it, so long as said ideas hold merit.
I'm not opposed to change if it genuinely is for the better.

AC,

You having a go at me about Israel:). I haven't heard that one. I'd say Israel was a bit too busy for that

ttbn,
> the years 700, 800, 900, 1000, 1100, 1200, and 1400AD, were all HOTTER than the years 2017, 2018 and 2019.
What gives you that impression?

_______________________________________________________________________________________

Armchair,
>My point is that if you increase the cost of EVERYTHING...
Then it's already a case of garbage in garbage out, because you're starting with a false assumption.

>- by way of increased fuel and energy costs to a nation
Firstly, that doesn't always result in higher overall costs, because t often spurs investment in increasing efficiency, lowering costs.
Secondly, solar and wind power are already cheaper than fossil fuels.

Hey ttbn,
"You having a go at me about Israel:). I haven't heard that one. I'd say Israel was a bit too busy for that"

Sorry if it came across the wrong way.
I did hesitate to state "...some proponents of Israel also aspire to remove the UN and govern all nations from Jerusalem";
- But then I just did it anyway when I probably shouldn't have.

I truly wasn't having a go at you about Israel though;
I feel like you think I am sometimes when I'm honestly not.
Sorry if I said things in the past which made you think I might be.
I think you're a valuable forum contributor like all the other regulars here;
I agree with most of your sentiments and I appreciate that you often start threads.

I was simply stating the pros and cons that came to my mind.
And yes it is some kind of Jewish Messianic belief.
http://www.breakingisraelnews.com/118979/sanhedrin-nikki-haley-president/
I'm actually trying to make an effort to try and curb those kinds of comments, but it's difficult sometimes when these things seem to almost automatically come to my mind.

Hey Aiden,

"Then it's already a case of garbage in garbage out, because you're starting with a false assumption."

Call me dumb if you want, but I honestly don't understand how it's a false assumption.

Whether you produce a product or provide a service;
Surely increased energy costs will result in increased production costs.
Increased fuel costs will increase the cost of transporting said product;
Or the costs of any kind of service to a consumer.

Think about a car for example;
That means every single component costs more to make and ship.
- Before it's even assembled -

Tell me a product or service that wont cost more with increased transport and energy costs?

And that lowers the profitability of everything we export and also means some things become non-viable to export; which therefore then contributes to a trade deficit.

How do we make the nation more competitive in relation to other countries if it's not popular to lower wages?

The only way is to lower transport and energy costs.

If we removed these added 'climate' costs and lowered the governments take of fuel tax we'd increase our exports and create jobs, and have a leg up on all the other fools with their climate ball and chains, and we'd get the cash to fix the problems before anyone else could afford to.

Look I'm no economist, I honestly don't even understand the most basic stuff.
I really need to spend some time on http://www.investopedia.com/
They have some good educational tools, so I'm told.

Without the two greatest emitters i.e. the US and China committing to reductions the Paris agreement is worthless.

Notably, Australia is pretty much one of the best achievers so far.

AC,

I was joking about Israel, hence the :) sign. You have nothing to apologise for. But, where did you hear anout Israel running the world?

I came upon an incredible concept used quite extensively in the 40's, 50's and 60's.....it' was referred to as 'turn it off if you're not using it'...
That concept alone kept energy bills down quite considerably....
The other concept was ' if you can't afford to run it don't buy it'... of course these were referred to as 'common sense' concepts of the day, an attitude long discarded and replaced with 'make it cheaper because I want, I want'

Back on topic.

Pigs might fly. They definitely will before Morrison does anything as serious as dumping Paris. He is a vote buys as much as Shorten tried to do, but with slightly better policies. He would never have the guts to do anything drastic, even if he knew it was the best thing to do.

Fact is I believe, he is just dumb enough to actually believe the global warming myth, & probably honestly believes CO2 is the mother of all evil.

'Fact is I believe, he is just dumb enough to actually believe the global warming myth, & probably honestly believes CO2 is the mother of all evil.'

he did take a piece of coal into Parliament Hasbeen. You might be largely right but give him some credit.

Armchair,
>I honestly don't understand how it's a false assumption.
Couldn't you have kept reading to find out?

Firstly, increased energy costs don't always result in increased production cots, as there is usually scope for big efficiency improvements to enable firms to cut their energy use. Though the best run firms will do that anyway, most on't - but higher energy costs encourage many more to.

Secondly, increased energy costs are not an inevitable result of switching to renewables, because it actually costs less to generate electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels.

Do you understand now?

>How do we make the nation more competitive in relation to other countries if it's not popular to lower wages?
The market does that automatically by lowering the value of the Australian dollar until the nation becomes competitive again.

Hey Aiden,
"Couldn't you have kept reading to find out?"

Of course I read it, lol;
I'm just not sure if I completely agree;
- On the first point at least:

"Firstly, increased energy costs don't always result in increased production cots, as there is usually scope for big efficiency improvements to enable firms to cut their energy use."

Of course they do (increase energy costs = increased production costs);

But I suppose I accept your point in that;

These increased production costs CAN BE offset by improvements in efficiency;
- But it requires additional capital investment.

I don't necessarily see
1/energy and production costs - as being relative to:
2/ improvements in efficiency.
I suppose I'd look at them independently, in their own right.

I'd look at the energy costs in their own right;
Then I'd look at the improvements in efficiency relative to the capital costs required to make it happen.

I'm not economist, business person or CEO etc, but if I was the head of a multi-national company I'd be looking at all these costs tax issues, wages, energy, transport etc in choosing which nation I might base certain parts of the business in.

I just think increasing fuel and energy costs hamstings us from the start, when we already have the issue of higher wages to contend with in our international competitiveness.

So on the first point, not sure I completely agree with you.

On the second;

"Secondly, increased energy costs are not an inevitable result of switching to renewables, because it actually costs less to generate electricity from renewables than from fossil fuels."

Umm... O-Kay.

Truly, I'm NOT against finding better ways to do things.
If you think we can do renewables for less (and it's not bs) then fine.
- Then lets do renewables IF IT COSTS LESS

But I still think we should export coal so long as others want to buy it and it provides jobs and puts food on tables of Aussies.

- It's better than profiting off racehorses being turned into pet mince -

But hey, people need jobs right?

Hey ttbn,
"But, where did you hear anout Israel running the world?"

Well if you want to know the WHOLE story...

Around 12 years ago one of my friends has a friend of his come over from America, and he showed us the Alex Jones documentaries.
He'd always carry on about 'Jews running the world'.
I really didn't buy into his rants but myself and housemates at the time did start watching Alex Jones, and I sort of went down that 'conspiratorial' type path.
I never really had any interest in Jewish, Zionist type conspiracy theories, or religious or satanic type stuff but I did start to be opposed to all this UN globalism type stuff;
Because I saw it as infringing upon national sovereignty.
Eventually around 2010 I came across a video called 'Beyond September 11' by Sheikh Imran Hussein.

Sheikh Imran Hosein - Beyond September 11 (Part 1)
(Go to the 30min mark where he says "Israel has a PHD in deception...")
http://youtu.be/DeQ_wfUBjws

This probably started me thinking there was more to the story.
I looked at things like Protocols of the Elders of Zion as well as David Duke stuff, which is really not so much racist towards Jews as much as he lays out some biases.
I listened to some David Icke 'Rothschild Zionist' stuff and looked at Israels own geopolitical issues such as Zionist Plan for The Middle East.
David Icke - Rothschild Zionism
https://youtu.be/VskFmitRpbo

[Cont.]
But I still wasn't interested so much in religious or even satanic type conspiracy stuff, and I started to focus on global geopolitical issues, because globalism, or the destruction of national soverignty to be more specific was what really drove my interest.

I didn't like the idea that Australia's future would be decided by people other than Australians, whilst at the same time I started to look more at the political landscape in our country and abroad.

I came across some stuff like 'The Greater Israel Project'; and these:
'What You're Not Supposed to Know About America's Founding' John Birch Society.
https://youtu.be/364cxeR5EAg
The Unholy Trinity of Frank, Weishaupt, and Rothschild
http://youtu.be/K0tBGK7UKL4

A couple years back I had another look at the Freemason stuff 'Albert Pike's 3 Wars' and the Illuminati stuff.
And then about a year ago someone showed me the 'Know More News' YouTube channel
I watched 'The Jewish Conspiracy',
https://youtu.be/syUSQEUpTTQ
then at some point I found this:
Top Illuminati Grand Wizard: “We Control Islam and We'll Use It to Destroy the West.”
http://youtu.be/0dXD2H0m74g
And I also sometimes listen to a YouTube channel IsraeliNewsLive with Steven Ben-Nun, who was a Christian Zionist years ago when I first saw channel, but now he's critical of Zionism, but just as importantly he speaks and reads Hebrew.
At some point I found a list of Rothschilds 25 point plan for World Domination.
https://www.facebook.com/SAINTMICHAELSANGELS/posts/whats-wrong-with-this-pictureevery-catholic-must-learn-thisread-it-all-to-the-en/1127463037304783/
And finally I found the '1666 Redemption through Sin' by Robert Sepher,
Secrets of the Kabbalah and 1666
http://youtu.be/MoOrOZH049o

I did support Trumps nationalist stance at first, saw how he's very Pro Israel and found the news article I shared with you earlier.

[Cont.]
I think that when I comment the way I do people have nothing else to go on and they automatically think my motivation is racist against a single group - Jews, but it's not that's not my motivation.

The primary motivation is oppostion to globalism, this One World Goverment 'New World Order' idea, and the reason why I oppose it is because I don't like the destruction of my own countries national sovereignty.

It's opposition to an idea and an ideology not necessarily people associated with it.
Sorry for the long story, but that's pretty much how it went, of course there's many smaller videos and bits of info I got along the way.
One problem I had over the last few years is we had no TV reception, (finally fixed) so I had to rely on the internet for all my viewing.

I'd say thats a fairly good general outline of how I came to go down this so-called 'anti-semitic Jewish conspiracy theory' type path.

This happened over many years, so I'm not really 'nutty' in any way over it, I only took little steps watching videos now and then over a long period of time.
I don't spend my time stressing about it or losing sleep over it anyway.

If I do go a bit far I just pull back and ground myself by reminding myself I have my own problems and to not worry about things I cant change.

[Cont.]
I just realised that my list couldn't be complete without Texe Marrs.
He's probably the first Christian I listened to who opposes Zionism.

He's actually quite entertaining in his radio shows;
But he's retired now and doesn't do them anymore.
Here's a sample of one of his shows.

TEXE MARRS - Holy Serpent of the Jews - JUNE 25, 2016
http://youtu.be/o6Thzu5qPKk

Armchair, from around 700 ad odd when the Arabs invaded Spain the Jews
were prohibited from being traders, politicians, teachers etc.
The only work available to them other than being a slave was as a
financier and banker. They were not allowed to charge interest,
So for the next 1000s + years that was their trade and they were successful.
It appears they still are successful.

Re Aiden, I have had this argument previously with him about the cost
of renewable energy.
He is right when he says renewable solar and wind is cheaper.
The problem is the duplication that has to be done to get near 100%.
A country the size of Australia "might" be able to do it.
It does however need a very large and high capacity grid to chase the
wind around the country. No one has come up with a cost including
batteries. Batteries will help of course but they do have to be
recharged at the same time the grid is still under high load.
That will require more generation. Electric cars would complicate the
off peak arrangements.
I seriously doubt we can afford it.

Hi Armchair

thanks for sharing how you got to your views on Israel. As you know I am probably what people call a zionist although it seems the left so pervert language that its almost a badge of honour to be demonised by them. They can't even distinguish between male and female.

It interests me that you write

'The primary motivation is oppostion to globalism, this One World Goverment 'New World Order' idea, and the reason why I oppose it is because I don't like the destruction of my own countries national sovereignty.'

Strangely enough I to am opposed to globalism and One world Government. I mean how could the UN be taken seriously when they are lectured to by a 16 year mentally challenged girl.

I will be the first to admit that it is hard to work out exactly who is behind this idiotic one world push that seems to be sponsored by the likes of Soros and other rich and powerful figures behind the scenes.

As far as Israel is concerned and especially Jerusalem it is very easy to establish that the capital was set up by King David thousands of years ago. For sure they have had times of occupation and defeat. Mohammed himself never visited Jerusalem except in some made up vision. I suppose it makes sense that the left who also believe in the gw myth back this lie.

Personally I have no doubt that Christ will return to Jerusalem and the hardened people ofm Israel will then believe the One most of them rejected as Messiah. So in a sense whatn I think or what you think probably is not going to make any difference.

I'm surprised at you Bazz. I thought you would understand that the only form of battery of any real use on a grid scale, is pumped Hydro. Anything else on grid scale is merely decoration. Was Malcolm right with Snowy 1.2?

Renewables are only even approaching economic viability, if someone else is providing the back up with coal, gas or nuclear, & renewables can simply supply when it suits them, & avoid the cost of back up.

Sixty years ago, my farming relatives had a single cylinder engine in the shearing shed to run the shearing machines during the season, and produce a little light for the house. The little bit of electricity produced was stored in a bank of 12 volt batteries. There wasn't enough for refrigeration, so they had a frige powered by kerosene.

That's where we are heading back to; only the kerosene will not be available.

Hasbeen,
Batteries could smooth out for particular solar farms when
clouds go by or short drop in the wind.
At a cost of $1 a watt it would be expensive. They would save a lot
of switching of power around the country for just three or four minutes.
I see the Germans who were the poster boys for renewables are doing
a rethink on renewables.

Being as the Indigenous who existed for XX,000 years....as someone put it,....and were so backward, how is it they didn't have these problems?
Seems to me the rest of you are indulging in playing the shell game without the pea.

Special Delivery, I lived on my yacht for about 10 years. 20Lb of gas supplied my cooking & a small fridge, & 3 liters of fuel put enough charge in my batteries to give me 12 volt lighting foe a week.

This was fine while cruising, or working at a plantation, with some shore facilities available. However when working seriously in Sydney I had to be at a marina with water, 240 volt shore power, & in the days before mobiles, a phone. Without such facilities I could not even wash & iron my shirts. Would you believe I never ironed my & shirts.

What I'm saying is different lifestyles require different facilities, however I have not seen a single island village refuse 240 volt power when it was available, need it or not.

Columnist Tim Blair has today described climate change as man's 'greatest invention'. He then refers to PMs whose careers were wrecked by it: Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Malcolm Turnbull. And, there's Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, also losing his job because of it.

Morrson is having a five bob each way - saying nothing, doing nothing - in the hope that climate change won't do for him as well.

If they are dumb enough to believe the scam, or devious enough to try to use it to their advantage, they should never have been elected in the first place.

Dear Bazz,

Geez mate you talk out of your backside.

“Armchair, from around 700 ad odd when the Arabs invaded Spain the Jews
were prohibited from being traders, politicians, teachers etc.
The only work available to them other than being a slave was as a
financier and banker. They were not allowed to charge interest,
So for the next 1000s + years that was their trade and they were successful.
It appears they still are successful.”

What an absolute crock!

The time under the Muslim occupation in Spain is regarded by many as the most fruitful time for the Jewish culture since the fall of the temple. They absolutely flourished. When the Christians took over and again forced out the Jews it was Arab countries which gave the refuge.

You really are a nasty little propagandist aren't you.

Shame.

Dear Hasbeen,

Global warming is supported by robust, peer reviewed science and the only place it is regarded a scam is in the addled brains of the ideologically tainted.

Get a life.

Steely if you keep repeating that bull dust to yourself for long enough, loudly enough, you just might be able to convince yourself it is true, if you are feeble minded enough.

Rather than dump Paris, Two-face Morrison has handed out another 1 billion taxpayer dollars to private companies for more unreliable energy experiments. The man is as bad as Turnbull. Turnbull has, in fact, tweeted his support for this latest waste of public money and total disregard for Australia's energy future.

Meanwhile all that investment in renewables is delivering tangible benefits.
SA had Australia's lowest wholesale electricity costs in October – see http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-had-lowest-cost-of-supply-in-main-grid-in-october-25382/

Aidan,

Stop making misleading statements about 'low' electricity prices. Householders do not pay wholesale prices; they pay retail prices. Prices this year are 38cents per KWH, the same as they were this time last year. Politicians who say prices are coming down are liars.

If you want to be a useful idiot for a bunch of lying politicians and generators, that's your business. But, nobody with any knowledge and common sense takes any notice of you

ttbn,
You are the one making misleading statements.

I SPECIFIED that the link referred to wholesale prices.
I DID NOT CLAIM that householders paid wholesale prices (although allowing householders to buy their electricity on the wholesale market would be a very sensible reform IMO)
I DID NOT CLAIM that retail electricity prices were any cheaper than last year.

So there was not even a hint of deception on my part.

Are you of the opinion that wholesale prices don't matter at all? I'd expect them to result in lower retail prices in the future. But even if they don't, lower wholesale prices are good for the state's industrial competitiveness.

Aidan,

You don't know what you said. In fact, you said nothing; you merely referred to third party information that suited you, which was useless because it merely says the same as you say. You non-original conduits for other peoples' lies and nonsense don't realise that quoting or referring to someone else who agrees with you is never going to convince anyone who thinks differently. Name one poster who has changed his mind because of what you have said.

The IPCC’s modelled pathways show that US $2.4 trillion must be invested in new clean energy every year up to 2035, an almost sevenfold increase on the $333.5 billion invested in renewable energy in 2017. In total, we’re looking at aggregate investment of $48 trillion. The interest bill alone (at say 5 per cent pa) would be $200 billion per month – more than the whole world currently spends on childhood education and environmental protection combined.

All this pain for no gain. And the pain will be suffered by ordinary consumers.

ttbn,
>You don't know what you said.
Yu seem to be having a bit of pronoun trouble there, mate!

>In fact, you said nothing;
So having wrongly criticised me for saying something I didn't say, you now dismiss it as noting?

>you merely referred to third party information that suited you,
Having recently been criticised by Hasbeen for making bold statements without posting supporting evidence, I make no apologies for linking to the evidence!

>which was useless because it merely says the same as you say.
Are you saying evidence is useless when it concurs with my summary of it?

The article does go beyond what I said: for instance it showed what the wholesale prices were in each state on the NEM.

>You non-original conduits for other peoples' lies and nonsense
You think SA didn't have the lowest wholesale electricity prices in the NEM last month? Then perhaps you could try to identify the flaw in their methodology or data?

> don't realise that quoting or referring to someone else who agrees with you is never
>going to convince anyone who thinks differently.
It may surprise you to learn that not everyone is s stupid and pigheaded as you - most people can be swayed by evidence. But that doesn't mean they announce it when they do. And if they're sensible, they'll probably seek confirmation from other sources first.

ttbn,

>The IPCC’s modelled pathways show that US $2.4 trillion must be invested in new clean energy
>every year up to 2035, an almost sevenfold increase on the $333.5 billion invested in
>renewable energy in 2017. In total, we’re looking at aggregate investment of $48 trillion.
That sounds about right.
As an engineer, big numbers don't scare me. Do they scare you?

>The interest bill alone (at say 5 per cent pa)
Ah, the old trick of using an unnecessarily high interest rate!

>would be $200 billion per month – more than the whole world currently
>spends on childhood education and environmental protection combined.
Spending less on renewable energy won't make more money available for childhood education or environmental protection, though increasing the renewable energy spend would probably reduce air pollution, and so probably reduce the need to spend so much on environmental protection.

>All this pain for no gain.
On the contrary, the gain would be enormous! Much less would need to be spent on fossil fuels. And check out what the world currently spends on fossil fuel subsidies – you'd better google it yourself, as you won't believe ti coming from me!

>And the pain will be suffered by ordinary consumers.
And the gain will be enjoyed by ordinary consumers.