Max writes: "Why do we give $11.6 billion in government subsidies to big coal and oil?"

and then provides a link that doesn't show any subsidies to coal and oil interests. It does show government infrastructure spending which normally people like Max (and the Australia Institute) would applaud and encourage. But on this occasion they are trying to give their claims a thin veneer of scholarship, which fails.

Still the point of the article was to confuse and beguile people like Max and in that regard it was spectacularly successful.

But evidence of subsidies .....nope.

Then he claims that 'pollution' is causing think-of-a-number-and-double-it dollars damage to the health system. Again he provides an article that makes the claim but provides zero evidence for the claim. But again, the point was to convince the anxiously gullible and, in Max's case, it was extremely successful.

FYI, wet pet food is a by-product of the meat industry, we don't farm cattle and other livestock for the single purpose of producing chum.

You punch out all these grand plans and statistics like you have claimed worldly knowledge that the rest of us are incapable of understanding, but I'm seeing little in the way of honesty, practicality, human dignity or just basic common sense.

Subsidies for renewables are predicted to be $22 billion by 2030. At least fossil fuel subsidies go towards money making exports. There is no money in renewables/unreliables.

If the fantasists and crackpots hadn't started fiddling with our energy - to the point where they can now not back off without looking as stupid as we know they are - none of this nonsense would be happening, and there would no pointless arguments with nutjobs on OLO.

Throughout the Western world, political decisions to undermine the cheapest and most reliable energy sources are bringing about economic stagnation and, possibly, the collapse of the Western world.

In Australia, always tail end Charlie, our moronic politicians have had the opportunity to see what has happened overseas because fossil fuels have been rejected. Are they taking any notice? No. They are rushing over the cliff behind Europe.

It is not climate change that is a threat to our way of life, but energy shortages exacerbated by net-zero emissions policies, and the relentless push towards unreliable wind and solar.

Wind turbines are the single-use plastic bags of the renewables industry. The only reason we don’t talk about how awful they are more often is because their reputation is protected by an axis of social media, political egos, and billionaire investors.

Two million of the things will be ripped out and put into landfill every year.

Solar panels will also be a nuisance, not worth recycling for the $8.15s worth of reusable material in them.

You know Max Green,
I do think you are somewhat courageous for coming here.
It would be so much easier for you to hang around your own kind;
That is, with other members of the climate religion where everyone just thinks the same among themselves.
- But still, you came.
You may not stay long, I guess we'll see.

I wonder what motivated you to deliberately go someplace where you knew the nuts were going to be hard to crack.
Did you think you could convince the 'deniers' to move closer to your position?
Or are you looking to test your arguments on merit with those who might think differently to you?

Thinking about myself and Fester on the topic of Russia and Ukraine, we support different sides, but we can find points of agreement.
I wonder if people like you in the climate religion will ever find points of agreement with people like us?

I'm not opposed to doing things that are better for the environment.
If you think that all your arguments hold merit, then why not also recognise that arguments on the other side also hold merit too.

Why doesn't your side work on more practical plans that everyone will support?
Both sides need to find points of agreement.
It shouldn't be about climate changers v's deniers.
Nobody wants to go out of their way to deliberately wreck the environment
99% of people would agree on that.
- Though obviously some care about it more than others.

If you don't like being labeled a climate-religion, then stop being one.
Bring back the honesty, practicality, human dignity and basic common sense.

How are you going to pay for all these things on your climate wish list;
If the changes your already making send us broke and back to the stone-age first?
FYI, I like your dam ideas, effectively making them giant batteries.
- Something I've previously suggested myself.

On subsidies. How about the ones that the idiot Bowen has a agreed too? Indebted Australia, along with other "rich" Western countries, are going to hand over money to 'developing' countries - including China!

This "loss and damage" funds will amount to many billions of dollars ever year.

The West does not have to wait to be wiped out by Third World hordes, it is doing itself in - even bringing the hordes inside the tent with mass immigration, including 1.4 million Chinese already here.

There are 50-60 million Chinese spread throughout the world. These migrants (Xinqiao) and PRC nationals living abroad (Huaqiao) are considered by the CCP to be part of the 'United Work Front' (Qiaowu), which has the purpose of mobilising community groups sympathetic to the interests of the CCP abroad. Suppression of any Chinese deemed hostile to the CCP is also expected.

The CCP believes that the unity of Chinese people at home requires the unity of those Chinese abroad.

Since the 1990s, virtually all Chinese language media in Australia has pushed loyalty to China.

Let me ask you something Max, purely from a financial point of view.
Lets say the hydro upgrades, solar generation, offshore wind and rebuilding the power grid cost a trillion dollars.

Lets also say that you could click you fingers and magically 1 trillion dollars worth of coal gas and oil from across our nation was instantly loaded at our ports waiting for export to foreign buyers.

Which means that 'if you click your fingers' all those resources will be extracted, but you will almost instantly have the financial ability to do all the things on your climate wish list.

What do you do Max, do you click your fingers and extract those resources, so that we can make changes that are better for the environment?

Or do we leave them in the ground, and leave ourselves unable to move to these improved ways of doing things?

The bigger issue, the 'elephant in the room' is whether or not people like yourself, who want to leave those resources in the ground are not yourselves the ones who are preventing us from moving forward?

How are you going to pay for it?
You lot want to reduce supply, increase the cost to consumers, reduce exports, cost people jobs, take their dignity and send the country broke.