Foxy,

Your claim that "All I do is pass on information and opinions of scientific experts modelled on their findings and found in various scientific reports." Is more than a little disingenuous.

Most of your comments are based on activists and have very little to do with science. For example, Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review was largely an opinion piece based on the economic assessment (not a scientist or engineer quoted) of the effects of using renewables that for example claimed that the economy would be $13bn greater with the accelerated program but only at the end showed that it required an additional $13bn of public or private funding to do so.

What it absolutely forgot to mention that in doing so the cost of power would sky rocket and most manufacturing jobs would evaporate.

Secondly, a detailed analysis of statistics shows clearly that nuclear power per unit of power generated has half the injuries or fatalities of even renewables, and a quarter of that of coal generation.

Thirdly, while you are extolling the virtues of China you are forgetting that in the last couple of decades China has virtually doubled its rate of burning fossil fuels.

SM, hear hear, good to see someone setting certain people straight.
Some people get way too far ahead of themselves and refuse to accept what is, instead insist on seeing and promoting only what they wish to see, completely evading the realities of life.

Shadow Minister,

Eloise Fowler's article in The Financial Review was
based on a Report by the consulting firm PwC and the
United States multinational engineering company -
Jacobs. She also cited information from the report
- " The Future of Energy: Australia's Energy Choice."

But I mentioned all of this in my post.

You however, as always have chosen to take the stance
that the article was merely an "opinion" piece.
Which it clearly wasn't. This makes me realize that
either you are ignorant and don't understand what you are
reading. Or you didn't read it at all. Or it does not
agree with your opinion. Facts tend to often do that
when you think in terms of only black and white.

Take a look at who's egging you on and supporting you.
I'd be extremely concerned if I was you. The bar has certainly been lowered.

cont'd ...

As I stated earlier - I merely pass on the information.
If you disagree with what's being presented all you
have to do is rebuke it with your own evidence.
I'm not pro - China and as I keep stating - Australia
shall make it's own future energy choices - without
either your or my help or our opinion.

We shall have to wait and see what that will be.

SM, certain people say they only quote others and are not pushing any singular agenda, well that's clearly not the case here.
If you are not partisan, you seek and quote ALL and any information and then you can prattle on about being non-partisan.
Instead she has once again, in her haste to make her point, failed in explaining how she is clearly invested in her particular, and peculiar brand of intercourse, or more so, discourse, which has always had an agenda and in no way intended to allow the reader to make up their own mind.
The reader is given specific excerpts of information, with actual determinations and results to confirm a particular point she is attempting to make, and not one of generality where-by the reader can assess and evaluate the material freely and objectively.
Instead, her references and links are ALL intended to lead the reader towards her particular beliefs or convictions.
One word, only one of many to describe this attitude: patronising.

The cited reports gave their findings based on facts.
I deliberately chose The Australian Financial Review
because it is apolitical.

However - in discussions it is usual customary to
rebuke the information. Nothing else.

In any case, don't judge me
I was born to be awesome
Not perfect.