So you just regurgitate a right wing commentator. Thats it?
Did you ever suck it up and say which paper was published?You talk a big game. Mate this stuff is in recent peer reviewed journals. It's not something you'll find on a basic google search. If HurleyHepsHird doesn't take up the offer perhaps you'd like to have that bet?
Except they didn’t. It is crackpot nonsense.Scientists fiddled with the data — ocean data, atmospheric data, put their temperature sensors too close to cities. Motivated wanting to keep their funding and get ahead in organisations such as the American Meteorology Society, American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science - which will not allow discussion from any skeptical point of view.
The “realists” know nothing can be done. The denialists pretend nothing is happening, and the fools think that socialism saves the environment (despite its appalling track record)The following graphic will have no impact on the climate change deniers. Hopefully it will of the realists.
Yes but they see most things in profit & loss on the annual balance sheet. Its the long term they seem to ignore.Look at the debacle with Morrison in the pacific. Australia will continue to prioritise coal as a primary energy source as long as we have a liberal government.
You’d think by now the deniers and conspiracy theorists would realise technology and science is the reason we are where we are today and not chasing one another with sharpened rocks like cavemen.
two issues:If we could find a sustainable and safe way to reduce the waste then it would be a great option
Latest CSIRO report comparing the projected costs of various tuype sof power generations, Nuclear is just more expensive than renewables.
I thought we were moving to low CO2 power generation to reduce CO2. It is proven that solar and wind can't achieve that, so do we choose failure or success?Latest CSIRO report comparing the projected costs of various tuype sof power generations, Nuclear is just more expensive than renewables.
Why punt on a untested technology with massive development costs, massive development times and unresolved issues around waste?
untested unproven very expensive technologies that are projected to cost more than over clean alternatives.I thought we were moving to low CO2 power generation to reduce CO2. It is proven that solar and wind can't achieve that, so do we choose failure or success?
Can you point to a single jurisdiction on the planet, that has a renewables strategy, that deliver 40-70g per kwhr, that doesn't rely upon hydro or nuclear? You'd probably struggle to find one that get within 5 times worse. Germany is likely to be 10-15 times worse than that in 2035 after blowing $1.5 trillion.
All of the US's waste would fit into a storage facility 6m X 35m X 15. That's tiny and given the "waste" can be reused in gen 4 reactor, this will shrink again to a small fraction of that.