"I always think its a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem."

I dunno, just the look of some people makes me want to 'ad hominem'
Maybe they were holding back the entire time just to be polite.
I wouldn't necessarily call being abused a victory.

If you want, I could help you to become an even bigger winner?
Only thing is I don't necessarily go out of my way to 'ad hominem'
And I don't even have anything against you mhaze...

Hi Armchair,
except if you bothered to read what the BOM actually said, you'll find Hasbeen really is a Hasbeen and is full of it, once again.

He cannot define the difference between weather and climate.

He cannot understand that even in a radically climate changed world, there will be periods of rain after long droughts.

Record breaking droughts.

Record breaking fires in areas where they don't usually burn, especially with that intensity.

And then we have close to record breaking rain!

D'uh! (slaps hand to forehead).

Add onto this the fact that Hasbeen DIDN'T find a BOM source that said ANYTHING like "no rain till May" and you've got a glimpse of how utterly retarded the trolls in here are.

From the BOM 2nd January 2020 Climate Outlook:-
>>January rainfall is likely to range from average to drier than average in eastern Australia, while average to wetter than average conditions may occur over much of WA and SA.
>>In February this pattern is likely to weaken, and although there remains a slight dry signal in parts of the east, much of the country shows no strong tendency towards either wetter or drier than average conditions for February to April.
>>Days and nights are likely to be warmer than average for much of Australia from January through to April.
>>The positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has weakened, with most climate influences now neutral.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/outlooks/archive/20200102-outlook.shtml

THAT is what they said!

But whenever you show these absolutely retarded dumbarses that they're wrong from the official sources, they say "Oh everyone knows TV media blah blah blah!" But that's because these rejects are listening to right-wing shock-jocks like Alan bloody Jones! D'uh! Good job guys, you really showed me! ;-) No really! ;-) Great sources guys, I'll go off and lick my many (non-existent) wounds!

MHAZE:
Hey, Mhaze, want to take that victory do you? Boy, you must be desperate, given I caught you lying to the list about something as basic as how many CO2 emissions / kwh nuclear is 'supposed' to emit. You only exaggerated it by 11 times! (Dumbass.)

But really, fission doesn't emit ANY emissions, does it?

What we're looking at is an accounting trick to spread out the CONSTRUCTION emissions into the OPERATION emissions. But really, there are no operation emissions. NONE! ZERO!

Because, fission, right? You do know what that is? Fission = atom splitting, not combustion? Are you with us?

See, it's just an accounting trick. People want to know figures like CO2 emissions per kwh, and include the life cycle analysis of the steel and concrete etc for wind and nuclear in that and spread it out over to get an hourly basis.

But what we can confidently say is that a 100% nuclear + EV (& other synfuel) civilisation would have NO *energy* emissions moving forward. None. Sure there would have been CO2 in building that world, but the moment we shut off the last coal mine, gas pipe, and oil well, is the moment energy finally becomes clean and sustainable and CO2 neutral. It's when our skies clean, our geopolitics stabilises and we stop making deals with countries that don't like us very much, the oil wars stop, the cancer rates reduce, and our climate stabilises.

And all these Denial-tards can do is sneer? One has to wonder what serious psychological problems and life challenges they have to ignore all the many OTHER benefits of solving climate change.

Hey Max Green,

I'm more of a practical person, and I don't want to cut my nose off to spite my face;
- That is I won't support shutting down coal plants before a better alternative comes online.

I don't care about emissions any more than I care about rolling blackouts.

"Sure there would have been CO2 in building that world, but the moment we shut off the last coal mine, gas pipe, and oil well, is the moment energy finally becomes clean and sustainable and CO2 neutral."

I can't argue with what you're saying, it holds merit.

I think there would likely be some CO2 cost in waste disposal;
but more importantly what they'll do is reprocess that waste into ammunition and radiate some country until the people living there (the ones that weren't killed by the wars) have all kinds of birth defects etc.

I don't like that idea, it goes against my ethics that
'everyone has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative and detrimental effect on others.'

I can support the power generation side of things, but I'm not sure I can support the waste side of it.
I'm not sure that I even support them putting the proposed waste facility in on native land against the native peoples wishes.

Ideally I'd like a win with Alan B's thorium and mox reprocessing type of ideas as a preference, but I'm not necessarily opposed to nuclear in principle.

I think the nuclear industry on the whole is extremely shady.
There are some SMR's however that look pretty good though.
http://www.nuscalepower.com/

HASBEEN,
I'm really not sure what you intended to convey in your rant but you just sound a bit unhinged right now. According to your 'logic' every National Academy of Science on the planet are in on a 'conspiracy' and the basic laws of physics have been faked since Eunice Foote in 1856. Seriously, seriously unhinged.

As for all your Denialist "authorities" I have only one thing to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

" given I caught you lying to the list about something as basic as how many CO2 emissions / kwh nuclear is 'supposed' to emit. You only exaggerated it by 11 times!"

Well I can't let the "lying" accusation stand.

There are any number of estimations about how much each of the forms of energy production emit in a whole-of-life scenario. I used one of the more informed estimates. Max found another lower one.

But given his proven incompetence about numbers (I don't call him 565gtMax for nothing) Max thinks only the number he found is correct and that any deviation from the one true value is a lie. He has no understanding of estimations and ranges and MoE's. Totally above his head.

My number isn't a lie just as his number isn't a lie. They are just different estimations of the same issue. Max won't comprehend that.

But, nonetheless, nuclear does involve the GHG emissions, contra Max's original assertions.

" (Dumbass.)"
More ad hominems = More winning. Thank you.