The war against renewable energy

Remove this Banner Ad

Bradesmaen said:
It's more people like you have a closed mind and ignore the very basics of science.
Click to expand...

My science knowledge is indeed basic matric back (physics & chem) ... I'd guess my understanding of both sides of the argument is fine, you?

I've had well qualified engineers report to me in business if thats relevant.
 
Kwality said:
My science knowledge is indeed basic matric back (physics & chem) ... I'd guess my understanding of both sides of the argument is fine, you?

I've had well qualified engineers report to me in business if thats relevant.
Click to expand...
So what part of the "argument" for climate change would you like to dispute?

Are you querying the science behind the greenhouse effect phenomena, which was first observed nearly 200 years ago?

Are you questioning the ability for humans to accurately monitor the historic carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by examining ice cores from the arctic and antarctic?

Are you not sure that humans can adequately determine how much carbon dioxide they produce into the atmosphere by making calculations based off the amount of fossil fuels that we know we've burnt?

Are you having doubts about the ability to measure the strength of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere?

I am a well qualified engineer, please let me help you.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

_Swoon said:
So what part of the "argument" for climate change would you like to dispute?

Are you querying the science behind the greenhouse effect phenomena, which was first observed nearly 200 years ago?

Are you questioning the ability for humans to accurately monitor the historic carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by examining ice cores from the arctic and antarctic?

Are you not sure that humans can adequately determine how much carbon dioxide they produce into the atmosphere by making calculations based off the amount of fossil fuels that we know we've burnt?

Are you having doubts about the ability to measure the strength of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere?

I am a well qualified engineer, please let me help you.
Click to expand...
_Swoon said:
So what part of the "argument" for climate change would you like to dispute?

Are you querying the science behind the greenhouse effect phenomena, which was first observed nearly 200 years ago?

Are you questioning the ability for humans to accurately monitor the historic carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere by examining ice cores from the arctic and antarctic?

Are you not sure that humans can adequately determine how much carbon dioxide they produce into the atmosphere by making calculations based off the amount of fossil fuels that we know we've burnt?

Are you having doubts about the ability to measure the strength of sunlight penetrating the atmosphere?

I am a well qualified engineer, please let me help you.
Click to expand...

As I said, indeed as you quoted:
My science knowledge is indeed basic matric back (physics & chem) ... I'd guess my understanding of both sides of the argument is fine, you?

Perhaps you might review the context of my comment, compre?
 
Kwality said:
As I said, indeed as you quoted:
My science knowledge is indeed basic matric back (physics & chem) ... I'd guess my understanding of both sides of the argument is fine, you?

Perhaps you might review the context of my comment, compre?
Click to expand...
If the bolded were true, you'd know yourself that there really wasn't an argument about it (hence my " " in the previous post) and you wouldn't be whinging about how "one side" is argued. If you disagree with the scientific theory of climate change without any new, well-observed and conclusive evidence to bring to the table, you're just plain wrong.
 
Kwality said:
My science knowledge is indeed basic matric back (physics & chem) ... I'd guess my understanding of both sides of the argument is fine, you?

I've had well qualified engineers report to me in business if thats relevant.
Click to expand...

The arrogance of people who think they know better than 98% of scientists without themselves being scientist - oh, but some engineers reported to me!!! - never ceases to amaze.

There's a reason that the only people still debating this are shock jocks and politicians with an interest in coal. It's because the science of it is settled.
 
_Swoon said:
If the bolded were true, you'd know yourself that there really wasn't an argument about it (hence my " " in the previous post) and you wouldn't be whinging about how "one side" is argued. If you disagree with the scientific theory of climate change without any new, well-observed and conclusive evidence to bring to the table, you're just plain wrong.
Click to expand...

Given you appear to know what you are talking about, I draw your attention to my comments about the inability to prosecute an argument - clearly you didnt take in Simon Holmes A Court responding to the pro coal position of Richo, not anti climate change, but pro coal. This may not be the terms on which you choose to couch the argument, its Richo's though & you'd be the wiser if you found it & listened to both sides of the discussion.

Personally I'm not against climate change reality, I'm pro reliable, cheap power for ordinary people & jobs, aka industry in Australia for Australians, just as China looks after its citizens, India or Japan or Germany or the US.
 
nobbyiscool said:
The arrogance of people who think they know better than 98% of scientists without themselves being scientist - oh, but some engineers reported to me!!! - never ceases to amaze.

There's a reason that the only people still debating this are shock jocks and politicians with an interest in coal. It's because the science of it is settled.
Click to expand...

I suggested I had some idea of dealing with that profession, no more ... yes I can go back to the hole in the ozone layer, doom & gloom, or the Tim Flannery doctrine that the dams would never fill again as examples of the failure of science to prosecute its position.
Still I do accept the climate change argument, difficult as it may be for those in the ivory tower of knowledge, more specifically the seat in which you sit, cool nob!!
Not suggesting you are arrogant, blinkered yes.
 
Kwality said:
I suggested I had some idea of dealing with that profession, no more ... yes I can go back to the hole in the ozone layer, doom & gloom, or the Tim Flannery doctrine that the dams would never fill again as examples of the failure of science to prosecute its position.
Still I do accept the climate change argument, difficult as it may be for those in the ivory tower of knowledge, more specifically the seat in which you sit, cool nob!!
Not suggesting you are arrogant, blinkered yes.
Click to expand...

Complains about being misrepresented -> goes onto misrepresent.

Suggesting I sit in "an ivory tower of knowledge" is the exact opposite of what I did. I never claimed to have any scientific knowledge. But we used believe the most qualified experts in any field when they told us something important, be they scientists or doctors or whatever - we didn't try and howl them down with anti-intellectualist bullshit motivated by vested interests.
 
flannery-ultimate-prediction-600.gif
 
Bradesmaen said:
I think you need to understand the difference between coking coal and coal for power. Your lack of knowledge combined with attempts to pass this off as some sort of coal revolution is disturbingly bad. Not surprising, you go in half cocked everywhere because you feel like leftists must be yelled at, even if you have no evidence or knowledge of the topic.

Also, where is your source on Europe building coal power stations at record levels?
Click to expand...
check the coal export levels!
then look at the prices
then look up private investment like ive pointed out a few!
yes there are several different types of coal, coking, seaborn etc, every mine exports something different and larger mines has several different qualities!
look at the links ive showed you for the Galilee basin! its low quality coal deposits with mega mines being developed, gina rein hart, triggy forest etc are all pumping money in to the area

now look at the past 100 years of coal and the cycles it runs in every 8 to 10 years it booms, then apparently is going to go out of industry then comes around again
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Theseventhhamster said:
There is no argument outside of Minerals Council sponsored crap. Stop reading Rupert's s**t.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting the mining industry doesn’t like renewables?

Cough cough rate earths, cobalt, copper, vanadium, lithium, zinc, industrial minerals

The mining industry is loving this transition!
 
https://reneweconomy.com.au/alan-jones-made-josh-frydenberg-look-like-moderate-21752/

How Alan Jones made Josh Frydenberg look like a moderate


Jones was fulminating, and absolutely convinced of himself as he ranted against renewables, Snowy 2.0, and women who dare to point out the obvious

But what does he read? One suspects, based on his ill-informed comments, mostly right-wing blogs and climate denier websites. Or the Murdoch media, which often amounts to much the same thing.
Click to expand...
 
nobbyiscool said:
Complains about being misrepresented -> goes onto misrepresent.

Suggesting I sit in "an ivory tower of knowledge" is the exact opposite of what I did. I never claimed to have any scientific knowledge. But we used believe the most qualified experts in any field when they told us something important, be they scientists or doctors or whatever - we didn't try and howl them down with anti-intellectualist bullshit motivated by vested interests.
Click to expand...

Guess its my experience with professionals of all types to not simply believe, even a doctor regularly suggests getting a second opinion.

Anti Intellectual only in that I have long stopped paying annual fees. When both sides of an argument chuck out spin as fact, climate change gets to be a political football & proponents of both sides can hide behind 'vested interests'.

You'd battle to find any example of vested interest in any comment I make on renewable interest, certainly vested interest in the GST issue (place of birth) or on footy matters (thru the googles we Eagles supporters to view all matters).
I am guilty of reading the Murdoch Press & the ABC, idiot I may be, I can & do make up my own mind.
 
Last edited:
It makes me smile that Germany has done so much in renewables over 20 years to reduce CO2. yet by closing down their nuclear, they are right back to where they started.

It's interesting given co2 is such an issue only to concede it isn't
 
Kwality said:
So how do you deal with those building plants that will operate for 40+ years.

My interest in dispatchable power on the east coast of Aus - remember the SA experience, it can happen.
Click to expand...
They won't be running in 20 years. Stranded assets. SA was wind pushing over power lines. When we have issues on the East coast it's when old thermal generators s**t themselves in the heat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
The war against employment
Replies
4
Views
572
Freomaniac
Freomaniac
K
The utensil up that is the east coast energy market
28 29 30 31 32
Replies
785
Views
23K
QuietB
QuietB
ferball
Charges against Bernard Collaery dropped by A.G. Dreyfus
Replies
9
Views
611
Not Important
N
M
How the coalition can win the next Victorian election
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
peetoo
peetoo
anchor man
The Nightly
Replies
8
Views
561
anchor man
anchor man
nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
62
Views
2K
DangerousD
D
Aristotle Pickett
Vic The joke that is the Victorian Liberal Party.
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
135
Views
6K
Saint
Saint

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top