What about geothermal? There's a technology on the horizon that only flat earthers will ignore. They don't believe there is such a thing as a horizon. Actually, maybe it's beneath the horizon.
Quaise energy has signed a deal to go ultradeep and refit a generator to run off the energy at extreme depth

www.powermag.com/quaise-partners-with-nevada-gold-mine-to-explore-geothermal-retrofit-for-coal-power-plant/

If that one works, your uranium mines lose a lot of value overnight

Select to expand quote

Brent in Qld said..
Agree nothing is perfect and end of life waste is an issue too easily glossed over.
The environmental impact caused from the by-product of renewables is an issue for sure. Yet the by-product of a nuclear industry is almost unfathomable. Check out the timelines and cost the UK is facing dealing with legacy of half a century of large scale nuclear activity.

The cost of decommissioning Sellafield is estimated to be between 116 billion and 253 billion GBP, depending on the complexity and length of the cleanup. The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), which owns Sellafield, believes that the buildings will be torn down by 2125, and the nuclear waste will be buried underground in England. However, the underground project's completion date has been delayed to the 2050s at the earliest. Each decade of delay costs Sellafield between 500 million and 760 million GBP.

Sellafield is a site that includes legacy facilities that date back to the UK's first efforts to produce an atomic bomb. The NDA is a non-departmental public body of the UK government that is taxpayer-owned and -funded.

Also
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield#:~:text=The%20site%20is%20owned%20by,cost%20of%20%C2%A3121%20billion.

Yes, but as has been discussed before on here, and I thought put to bed, Sellafield is not just a nuclear power plant.

It was primarily a nuclear bomb research facility trying to enrich plutonium, along with multiple other nuclear and non-nuclear industrial and military facilities and three generators. The cost of Sellafield decommissioning should be added to the cost of winning a world war and having modern nuclear medicine, as much to the cost of producing electricty.

...and this is half my point. Add the word nuclear to something and everything gets lumped in in one scary big monster. Why not just use an all encompassing "electricity generation" term and say that coal is no different to wind. Because it is nonsense, that's why.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
What about geothermal? There's a technology on the horizon that only flat earthers will ignore. They don't believe there is such a thing as a horizon. Actually, maybe it's beneath the horizon.
Quaise energy has signed a deal to go ultradeep and refit a generator to run off the energy at extreme depth

www.powermag.com/quaise-partners-with-nevada-gold-mine-to-explore-geothermal-retrofit-for-coal-power-plant/

If that one works, your uranium mines lose a lot of value overnight

And if it is an expensive flop and doesn't work it will be like every other geothermal play, outside of active volcanic zones, ever proposed, planned or developed.

I get cammd's point that the only current viable solution to net zero in electricty generation includes nuclear. If you also consider yet to be developed technology it could include Dyson spheres, di-lithium crystals, fusion and brain wave energy from a matrix of humans.

Obviously even blind Freddy can see that those with greater brain wave power will more efficient in the matrix, so maybe scientists and architects could be first cohort ?

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.

I just want to point out that your sample is probably biased. The young adults that you have fathered have probably grown up with the same belief system as you so it doesn't necessarily mean all young people think the same way.

As far as I can tell all young people just think that they are special, and the rest doesn't matter

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.

I just want to point out that your sample is probably biased. The young adults that you have fathered have probably grown up with the same belief system as you so it doesn't necessarily mean all young people think the same way.

As far as I can tell all young people just think that they are special, and the rest doesn't matter

The opinion poll found 65% of young people backed a nuclear transition.
www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/am/younger-australians-supporting-nuclear/104005466

I'll understand if you don't fully trust the ABC to be unbiased in their reporting

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

philn said..

Interesting for me to read this article as rooftop solar is not really present here in Florida. So that raises the question why rooftop solar is so popular in Australia?

I haven't got a solar installation, but I think the reason people do it is the solar rebate and the attraction of the feed-in tarrifs. I don't know what these are though. Hopefully someone here knows the numbers and can provide an example.

It seems so attractive that some people ditch their existing solar setups after a number of years and get a new install, even bigger than the last.

Like anything I am sure this will change in the future. Maybe it helps the headline of 'we are moving to renewables' without actually requiring much input from the government to actually do anything apart from paying the subsidies. This is pretty typical of a government where anything in the way of a capital project takes a lot of effort, but if you throw money at the public you can get something to happen even if its not what you really want.

Over the years the feed-in tarrif has fallen a lot as more people get solar setups and the energy provided is creating more of a problem than a solution. There have been calls in the media lately about requiring roof-top solar systems to be remotely shutdown when the energy providers think there is too much in the system, which tells you that we are reaching the peak and there is too much supply at times.

Like all of these systems, base-load is the problem especially when there is no wind or solar input. Our government seem to be trying to shutdown coal powered power plants at the same time they are moving to renewables, but don't have any decent solution to the problem of providing power when there is no wind or sun.

A few people are predicting that coal power stations may stay operational for longer than expected in order to support the grid. To counter this, the owners of the private coal powered stations are running them down as they know that the requirement for them is going to dissappear in the future.

Australia 20 years from now will have really clean air, but no power between 7pm and 6am everyday

WA Chief Scientist Klinken spent a lot of time talking about WA and its potential for renewables. From memory he showed a map of places in the world that are highly suited to solar, WA was second to Morocco (I think), then he showed a slide about potential for wind generation and the SW of WA was right up there. When he showed a map of the solar and wind combined, WA was one of the best places in the world. He mentioned something about using gas for "firmness" which I assume is backup for cloudy non-windy days.

Oh and the feedin tariff for me is minuscule, 2 cents a KW I think, they charge me something like 39 cents when its dark. In the summer over 80 percent of my production goes into the grid. So far this year I've saved over $1,000.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
That's right, so the only emissions free energy that can run a modern country is nuclear but the left in Australia are religiously opposed to it, in the face of all the evidence and lived experience around the world the left in Australia want to build an unreliable expensive renewable grid that will depend on burning fossil fuel into the future for ... ever I guess. Go figure that.

I think nuclear is inevitable in Australia but the left will delay it as long as they can and continue to emit CO2 longer than need be. In the meantime the left will clear land for wind towers and solar panels and the associated additional transmission lines, mine minerals for batteries, create massive amounts of landfill and deliver unreliable expensive power that will hurt business and investment and make Australia less competitive than it already is and increase the cost of living in a already expensive country.

Generally speaking they will hurt the economy and environment and then claim to be the side that cares about the little person and a green clean future.

And they will believe it

Klinken doesn't have anything against nuclear, for countries that are already using it, but he doubts Australia will be able to build and use nuclear in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future, ie before renewables provide most of our energy needs.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
What about geothermal? There's a technology on the horizon that only flat earthers will ignore. They don't believe there is such a thing as a horizon. Actually, maybe it's beneath the horizon.
Quaise energy has signed a deal to go ultradeep and refit a generator to run off the energy at extreme depth

www.powermag.com/quaise-partners-with-nevada-gold-mine-to-explore-geothermal-retrofit-for-coal-power-plant/

If that one works, your uranium mines lose a lot of value overnight

The Chief Scientist showed part of WA that has potential for geothermal, in the SW I think, and of course with our massive coastline, wave and tidal generation is also good.

Select to expand quote

remery said..


Klinken doesn't have anything against nuclear, for countries that are already using it, but he doubts Australia will be able to build and use nuclear in any meaningful way in the foreseeable future, ie before renewables provide most of our energy needs.

Not surprised he doesn't have anything against Nuclear tech, it has most likely been helpful in his medical research

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.

I just want to point out that your sample is probably biased. The young adults that you have fathered have probably grown up with the same belief system as you so it doesn't necessarily mean all young people think the same way.

As far as I can tell all young people just think that they are special, and the rest doesn't matter

The opinion poll found 65% of young people backed a nuclear transition.
www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/am/younger-australians-supporting-nuclear/104005466

I'll understand if you don't fully trust the ABC to be unbiased in their reporting

You very much simplified your response compared to the audio brief on the ABC. I think they said 65% favored nuclear over coal.

It even says that nuclear is 50% more expensive than wind and solar backed by battery.... but it doesn't go into detail, so who can really qualify that?

I don't trust opinion polls in general. Just the other day I had someone from Roy Morgan call me for a survey and I said no as I just can't be bothered with those things. It makes me wonder about the people that do respond to them. Like my local shopping centre years ago, I think it ends up being specific demographics that answer these things. Is it the majority? Well in the poll it is....

I think Nuclear would stand a chance if it was fully costed for its operational time and then placed in a location okay with most people. That alone would be more complex than you would initially assume.

Back to the young people thing... I still wouldn't trust them to have a good opinion on things. Just because they are young doesn't mean that they are any more educated than anyone else. We are all a mix of opinions.

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.

I just want to point out that your sample is probably biased. The young adults that you have fathered have probably grown up with the same belief system as you so it doesn't necessarily mean all young people think the same way.

As far as I can tell all young people just think that they are special, and the rest doesn't matter

The opinion poll found 65% of young people backed a nuclear transition.
www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/am/younger-australians-supporting-nuclear/104005466

I'll understand if you don't fully trust the ABC to be unbiased in their reporting

You very much simplified your response compared to the audio brief on the ABC. I think they said 65% favored nuclear over coal.

It even says that nuclear is 50% more expensive than wind and solar backed by battery.... but it doesn't go into detail, so who can really qualify that?

I don't trust opinion polls in general. Just the other day I had someone from Roy Morgan call me for a survey and I said no as I just can't be bothered with those things. It makes me wonder about the people that do respond to them. Like my local shopping centre years ago, I think it ends up being specific demographics that answer these things. Is it the majority? Well in the poll it is....

I think Nuclear would stand a chance if it was fully costed for its operational time and then placed in a location okay with most people. That alone would be more complex than you would initially assume.

Back to the young people thing... I still wouldn't trust them to have a good opinion on things. Just because they are young doesn't mean that they are any more educated than anyone else. We are all a mix of opinions.

The simplification wasn't on purpose, tbh I didn't listen to it, I just grabbed a quick quote off google to support the claim I made about views from the younger generation.

My claim was more gut feel than actual knowledge .

In saying that I do have a left leaning daughter who is completing a PHD in cosmology, she has no qualms about nuclear and she see's it as a solution to lower emissions.

Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..
I think the younger lefties don't have that same anti nuclear stance ingrained in their being, they can see the sense, anyway that's my experience of being the father of five young adults. That's another reason why it will happen here eventually.

I just want to point out that your sample is probably biased. The young adults that you have fathered have probably grown up with the same belief system as you so it doesn't necessarily mean all young people think the same way.

As far as I can tell all young people just think that they are special, and the rest doesn't matter

The opinion poll found 65% of young people backed a nuclear transition.
www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/am/younger-australians-supporting-nuclear/104005466

I'll understand if you don't fully trust the ABC to be unbiased in their reporting

You very much simplified your response compared to the audio brief on the ABC. I think they said 65% favored nuclear over coal.

It even says that nuclear is 50% more expensive than wind and solar backed by battery.... but it doesn't go into detail, so who can really qualify that?

I don't trust opinion polls in general. Just the other day I had someone from Roy Morgan call me for a survey and I said no as I just can't be bothered with those things. It makes me wonder about the people that do respond to them. Like my local shopping centre years ago, I think it ends up being specific demographics that answer these things. Is it the majority? Well in the poll it is....

I think Nuclear would stand a chance if it was fully costed for its operational time and then placed in a location okay with most people. That alone would be more complex than you would initially assume.

Back to the young people thing... I still wouldn't trust them to have a good opinion on things. Just because they are young doesn't mean that they are any more educated than anyone else. We are all a mix of opinions.

The simplification wasn't on purpose, tbh I didn't listen to it, I just grabbed a quick quote off google to support the claim I made about views from the younger generation.

My claim was more gut feel than actual knowledge .

In saying that I do have a left leaning daughter who is completing a PHD in cosmology, she has no qualms about nuclear and she see's it as a solution to lower emissions.

I have daughter who is a Dr Astrophysics, a son in law is a Dr Bio Med and the another son in law is a nuclear medicine technician.

Just a proud dad moment...

Apologies for the interruption, please carry on with opinions about the Eisenhower era nuclear plan to save our childrens, children from us.

Cheers

No apologies nessasary, proud dad moments are good.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Not surprised he doesn't have anything against Nuclear tech, it has most likely been helpful in his medical research

And?...

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

Sounds like drivel to me.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
No apologies nessasary, proud dad moments are good.

Proud dad moment... my kids aren't high achievers (yet) .... but I am.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
Proud dad moment... my kids aren't high achievers (yet) .... but I am.

Can't say I've ever bumped into you at our national MENSA get togethers.

My kids are good at things as well.

They can hit stuff with sticks. If there is a stick on the ground they can pick it up and start hitting anything they can see with it. Sometimes they even connect. The neighbours cat and several dented cars can testify to that.

I blame the skools.

My kids get smeared all over every crossing button from home til the centrelink office

#prouddadmoment

If you can take one thing from the documentary the quote that "everyone has a great plan until you get punched in the face "is inevitable.
www.macrobusiness.com.au/2024/09/australias-net-zero-targets-dont-add-up/
Nothing adds up and and a hand full of rich countries that can,t afford it anyway won't make a jot of difference to global emissions as most of the world, Asia and Africa are planning on getting richer .

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..
Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

You are being dishonest on purpose, aren't you? You show it from the way you dishonestly use the term "scientific shrills" (without any proof that they deserve that insult) and then either lie or stupidly claim that their research was funded because it was about climate science. The alleged 98% don't get funded because of their belief in climate change. Your claiom is simply either ignorance or a lie.

The average Australian scientist has spent years at their own expense getting educated, in a system that only allows the smartest to succeed, and then earns about the same as the average person working on mines. The grants scientists get go to their research, not to the scientist. AHRC pays about 7% of grants. Only a stupid person or a conspiracy theorist would claim that most people get into science for the money or that 98% of scientists agree with climate change because of the money. It's clear that you don't even understand the "98%" claim.

It is utterly stupid to imply that "life giving stuff" cannot be harmful IN EXCESS. Water is life giving, but excess water drowns land, animals and people. Co2 is life giving, but it also kills in excess. It is dishonest and childish to say that because something is "life giving" in certain quantitities it cannot be harmful in higher quantities.

The cult is the people who fall into line, sheep-like, behind the PR put out by the world's biggest industries.

CSIRO doesn't think Dutton's Nuclear vision stacks up, either do I. Dutton is a bit of a Qld douche. But to be fair, I'm tiring of Albos whining voice. So election is another tough decision: Dutton's ugly chromus domus or another 4 years of whining Albo.

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
Dutton's ugly chromus domus or another 4 years of whining Albo.

3 year federal terms here in Australia.

Unless you thinking Albo will go for constutional change a second time and ask for four year terms.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

peacenlove said..
Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

You are being dishonest on purpose, aren't you? You show it from the way you dishonestly use the term "scientific shrills" (without any proof that they deserve that insult) and then either lie or stupidly claim that their research was funded because it was about climate science. The alleged 98% don't get funded because of their belief in climate change. Your claiom is simply either ignorance or a lie.

The average Australian scientist has spent years at their own expense getting educated, in a system that only allows the smartest to succeed, and then earns about the same as the average person working on mines. The grants scientists get go to their research, not to the scientist. AHRC pays about 7% of grants. Only a stupid person or a conspiracy theorist would claim that most people get into science for the money or that 98% of scientists agree with climate change because of the money. It's clear that you don't even understand the "98%" claim.

It is utterly stupid to imply that "life giving stuff" cannot be harmful IN EXCESS. Water is life giving, but excess water drowns land, animals and people. Co2 is life giving, but it also kills in excess. It is dishonest and childish to say that because something is "life giving" in certain quantitities it cannot be harmful in higher quantities.

The cult is the people who fall into line, sheep-like, behind the PR put out by the world's biggest industries.

Bro, please don't make an assumption that i support totally irresponsible industrial practices because I'm calling out the CLimate Change Cult's lies. I'm a passionate conservationist and old school greenie. I just happen to think the whole CLimate Change Agenda is about creating false scarcity and control by a group of self-appointed elites, bankers (www.zerohedge.com/markets/21-quotes-about-central-banking-show-why-fed-must-be-shut-down) and,

hysterical psychopaths.

Well, didn't the shills warn that:

1. The dams would be empty, when in truth they have overflowed several times since?
2. The Arctic's summer sea ice would be gone by 2013, when the truth is it's increased significantly?
3. The polar bear faces extinction, when in truth their numbers are still rising?
4. The Great Barrier Reef's coral systems are in terminal decline, when in truth at present the reef's coral systems are flourishing and have actually increased in some areas?
5. Contrary to the shills at the UN, the oceans are not quote "boiling" unquote?
etc.

ZeroHedge === ZeroCredibility

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

Chris 249 said..

peacenlove said..
Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

You are being dishonest on purpose, aren't you? You show it from the way you dishonestly use the term "scientific shrills" (without any proof that they deserve that insult) and then either lie or stupidly claim that their research was funded because it was about climate science. The alleged 98% don't get funded because of their belief in climate change. Your claiom is simply either ignorance or a lie.

The average Australian scientist has spent years at their own expense getting educated, in a system that only allows the smartest to succeed, and then earns about the same as the average person working on mines. The grants scientists get go to their research, not to the scientist. AHRC pays about 7% of grants. Only a stupid person or a conspiracy theorist would claim that most people get into science for the money or that 98% of scientists agree with climate change because of the money. It's clear that you don't even understand the "98%" claim.

It is utterly stupid to imply that "life giving stuff" cannot be harmful IN EXCESS. Water is life giving, but excess water drowns land, animals and people. Co2 is life giving, but it also kills in excess. It is dishonest and childish to say that because something is "life giving" in certain quantitities it cannot be harmful in higher quantities.

The cult is the people who fall into line, sheep-like, behind the PR put out by the world's biggest industries.

Bro, please don't make an assumption that i support totally irresponsible industrial practices because I'm calling out the CLimate Change Cult's lies. I'm a passionate conservationist and old school greenie. I just happen to think the whole CLimate Change Agenda is about creating false scarcity and control by a group of self-appointed elites, bankers (www.zerohedge.com/markets/21-quotes-about-central-banking-show-why-fed-must-be-shut-down) and,

hysterical psychopaths.

Well, didn't the shills warn that:

1. The dams would be empty, when in truth they have overflowed several times since?
2. The Arctic's summer sea ice would be gone by 2013, when the truth is it's increased significantly?
3. The polar bear faces extinction, when in truth their numbers are still rising?
4. The Great Barrier Reef's coral systems are in terminal decline, when in truth at present the reef's coral systems are flourishing and have actually increased in some areas?
5. Contrary to the shills at the UN, the oceans are not quote "boiling" unquote?
etc.

If you really are interested in data, facts and analysis, I suggest you start here: scholar.google.com/

Select to expand quote

remery said..

peacenlove said..

Chris 249 said..

peacenlove said..
Does anyone else think that the whole anti-Climate Change agenda seems to exhibit some of the signs of a cult?

Let me have a crack at it, so, it goes something like this .
1. DON"T QUESTION OUR BELIEFS: Anyone who questions the beliefs of the cult are ostracised, shamed and belittled, despite protestations to the orthodoxy that are supported by hard scientific facts and knowledge. The people of Broken Hill cult cell are fuming, after their renewables experiment failed and left the town powerless for days.
2. Policy Agility A.K.A. making stuff up as you go. The core cult beliefs remain the same and, the constantly looming disaster that can only be saved by our benevolent central banker$, non-government organisations based in neutral countries with agendas like quote "by 2030 you will own nothing and be happy" and rage down at us with insane warnings like "boiling seas" and, of course, our beloved politicians and policy shonks who NEVER lie when it comes to austerity, health emergencies and false scarcity. Meanwhile, the details and actions day to day change constantly to support the increasingly ridiculous statements and beliefs of the arch-strategists.
3. DEMONISING NATURAL STUFF. Perfectly natural life-giving substances like CO2, which are vital to life on Mother Earth are magically transformed into pollutants, against factual scientific knowledge such as the fact that in the Cretaceous and Carboniferous geological periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were 6,000-7,000+ ppm, and life flourished with mega-fauna and flora. There was never more abundance of life as far as we know. Another fact lost on most cult members is that in the deepest ice age approx. 120,000y.a. (I think) CO2 levels went so low, that mass extinctions and near death of all land life took place. Does it sound to anyone else like a "war on CO2" is a war on life?
4. 98% agree. Well, 98% of the scientific shills who's research funding was approved because they used the magic words "climate change" or "global warming" in their funding applications and so have a vested interest in agreement. This core belief is once again, in wilful denial of the thousands of scientists and thinkers who vehemently disagree with the doomsaday Climate Change Cult.

I could go on, but it sounds like the secular version of any Salvationist redeemer religion, A.K.A. Cults that have grown.

You are being dishonest on purpose, aren't you? You show it from the way you dishonestly use the term "scientific shrills" (without any proof that they deserve that insult) and then either lie or stupidly claim that their research was funded because it was about climate science. The alleged 98% don't get funded because of their belief in climate change. Your claiom is simply either ignorance or a lie.

The average Australian scientist has spent years at their own expense getting educated, in a system that only allows the smartest to succeed, and then earns about the same as the average person working on mines. The grants scientists get go to their research, not to the scientist. AHRC pays about 7% of grants. Only a stupid person or a conspiracy theorist would claim that most people get into science for the money or that 98% of scientists agree with climate change because of the money. It's clear that you don't even understand the "98%" claim.

It is utterly stupid to imply that "life giving stuff" cannot be harmful IN EXCESS. Water is life giving, but excess water drowns land, animals and people. Co2 is life giving, but it also kills in excess. It is dishonest and childish to say that because something is "life giving" in certain quantitities it cannot be harmful in higher quantities.

The cult is the people who fall into line, sheep-like, behind the PR put out by the world's biggest industries.

Bro, please don't make an assumption that i support totally irresponsible industrial practices because I'm calling out the CLimate Change Cult's lies. I'm a passionate conservationist and old school greenie. I just happen to think the whole CLimate Change Agenda is about creating false scarcity and control by a group of self-appointed elites, bankers (www.zerohedge.com/markets/21-quotes-about-central-banking-show-why-fed-must-be-shut-down) and,

hysterical psychopaths.

Well, didn't the shills warn that:

1. The dams would be empty, when in truth they have overflowed several times since?
2. The Arctic's summer sea ice would be gone by 2013, when the truth is it's increased significantly?
3. The polar bear faces extinction, when in truth their numbers are still rising?
4. The Great Barrier Reef's coral systems are in terminal decline, when in truth at present the reef's coral systems are flourishing and have actually increased in some areas?
5. Contrary to the shills at the UN, the oceans are not quote "boiling" unquote?
etc.

If you really are interested in data, facts and analysis, I suggest you start here: scholar.google.com/

So the five examples of hysterical fear mongering above are agreed? They all turned out to be false?

Select to expand quote

myscreenname said..
ZeroHedge === ZeroCredibility

Read the quotes. It's got nothing to do with political leanings or credibility, or what a corporate fact checker or unreliable Wikipedia might say.

The quotes, are what the article is about. Are you claiming that the quotes are all false and the ZeroHedge fabricated them?

I think ZeroHedge is sharp, thoughtful, peaceful and accurate. Far more than the crap woke globalist media we get fed in Australia.

As for the central bankers, Earth has seldom seen such a band of scum and violent psychopaths as these vile creatures.

Select to expand quote

peacenlove said..

So the five examples of hysterical fear mongering above are agreed? They all turned out to be false?

Brother/Sister/Unisex, I'm a busy man, how about you provide some peer-reviewed research for your five made-up examples.