Max I may never reach your level of education but first thank ise mise for the question
Forgive me for this but first yes nationalise the whole power grid
Doing that we should aim for cheaper power so industrys can remain in this country
Nuclear power maybe three reactors and make them safe
Yes export uranium
We after such moves will have lowered the WORLD'S carbon output by much more than our own is right now
Please understand the benefits in leading other countrys to do the same
But me no buts about how low out outputs are compared to other countrys
Based on population ours is much much more than some countrys
We should be part of a world wide move to help other countrys get cheaper reliable power grids
Power, like water, can make or break an economy so sometimes subsidies [power] should go to such things as producers of steel and aluminum

Dear Belly,

These sorts of decisions will be made behind the closed doors of the Chinese Communist Party meeting rooms in Beijing. So don't go worrying yourself about these things because the Chinese will take care of us.

Ha ha ha, Mr Opinion, stop being deadpan sarcastic and start putting in more wink marks and emotion indicators like (sarcasm) or something or people will believe you're 'one of those'. ;-)

Mr O from not long after your arrival you have warned me the Chinese are in massive numbers and intend to buy us out
Never going to happen the Japanese and Americans are not willing to sell
But yes we need to watch them and maybe plan for a day our trade comes under threat
Look for positives ,this country can and should lead by providing cheaper power grid,by that supporting a whole new set of industries, some who fled may even come back
I still FIRMLY thing renewables will be the fill in until we and the world develops better

SR,

Well that's the difference between us. When I see new information I set out to evaluate the data as data. Does it stand up. What are the sources. Can I see the sources. Are the sources reliable.

When you see new data you first evaluate if it supports your prejudices or not. If yes, its immediately accepted, no questions asked. Otherwise, rather than addressing the data you see if you can find any reason to reject it, valid or not. Oh, our author works for people I don't like...reject anything he says. That's apparently following the science in some circles.

"Name one more.".

Well I did show a site were you can see hundreds more. But for fun, try Marcott et al 2013. You might find it hard to discredit the author, given that he's a fully fledged alarmist, but to save you time, just start talking about the data he tacked onto the end of his graph. Its invalid and he himself accepts that, but I'm sure that won't bother you.

Belly,

"I want you to live long enough to see the deniers fold their tents, "

Well, since I not a denier, I don't care what they do. But thank you for wishing immortality on me.

Imagine you're having a long discussion with someone about Australia politics and the future of decision making. Then you suddenly find out that they are utterly ignorant of the fact that Federal Australia has two houses of parliament. They are utterly ignorant of the existence of the Senate. Would you bother continuing the discussion or wait a year or three while they re-evaluated everything they know based on this new information?

The entire climate hysteria is based on the predictions from the various authorities about what will happen in the future. And integral to those predictions are the four major Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). These are scenarios (guesses) about what will happen with emissions over the next century or so. Based upon these scenarios, the climate models are set to make their guesses about what will happen to temperatures.

You can only evaluate those guesses if you know where they came from. You can of coarse accept the guesses based on blind ignorant faith in your alarmist gurus but that's not really science, although you might convince yourself otherwise.

Max knows nothing about the various RCP's but nevertheless professes utter faith in the models...blind ignorant faith. I suspect Belly is the same. Mr O is probably lost by the logic of it all. Pretty sure SR knows about it because I gave him an education on RCPs a few years back.

But just as I'd cease all discussion with our Senate-ignorant comrade, I really can't see any reason to discuss future climate predictions with Max. Opinions based on ignorance are really not worth engaging.