The 'renewable' energy thread -

 
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
Why would Al Gore repeat something that he didn't believe in?
don_dunstan
Heaven preserve us; it is absurdly simple - to highlight the fact that the bloke who said it is a drongo and to hold him up to ridicule. Politicians rubbish the words of others on a daily basis. Most of us understand this elementary fact.

Sponsored advertisement

  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
Why would Al Gore repeat something that he didn't believe in?
Heaven preserve us; it is absurdly simple - to highlight the fact that the bloke who said it is a drongo and to hold him up to ridicule. Politicians rubbish the words of others on a daily basis. Most of us understand this elementary fact.
Valvegear
It's called emphasizing the point as well, a fairly common practice,
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
What you actually said was this:
Meanwhile, you continue to hang your hat on one particular youtube video of Gore quoting someone else saying something about melting polar icecaps - whcich you have NEVER linked.
Which implies that Gore was repeating a study at an important conference that he didn't believe in. Which is patently stupid - but then this is you we're talking about.

Why would Al Gore repeat something that he didn't believe in? That's the fundamental point you don't seem to be able to answer. That and your vile insult against the intellectually disabled - yet another thing that you were too cowardly to own up to.

Love the use of all caps by the way - it shows that I'm so far up your nose I'm kicking your top lip.
don_dunstan
That is so patently untrue that it only acts as a reminder how poor your interpretation skills are. Let this be a lesson to others - say someting to don_dunstan and he will remain hellbent that it means something else, even if it is only in reference.

I don't care one little bit about your asre burgers. You're like the little kid hanging around a circle of adults at a gathering - wanting to join the discussion, but unable to do so because you're so far out of their league, until immature desparation drives you to interrupt them by saying something stupid. They look at you, screw up their faces, try to ignore you, but you just won't let them. In other words, if you want to be treated as an adult, you had better bloody well start acting like one.

CapsLock, meh. You have to be yelled at for anything to get through. You're new nickname should be Computer - you have to punch information into it.

You not only need another sandbox, but support. You won't get it here. Good luck to you.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Why would Al Gore repeat something that he didn't believe in?
Heaven preserve us; it is absurdly simple - to highlight the fact that the bloke who said it is a drongo and to hold him up to ridicule. Politicians rubbish the words of others on a daily basis. Most of us understand this elementary fact.
Valvegear
What Al Gore actually said was:

"The entire North polar ice cap may well be completely gone in 5 years. How can we comprehend the world in 3 billion years the period of time during which it has existed to 5 years the period of time during which it is expected to now disappear?"

He said this at the opening of a German museum in 2008 and it was repeated around the globe. He also said this the following year in Copenhagen:

"Some of the models suggest to Dr. (Wieslav) Maslowski that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

On both occasions he didn't present any opposing evidence - nor did he question the conclusions of the scientists whose evidence he was presenting. So you'd have to deduce that:
  • He agreed with the alarmist stuff he was presenting in those speeches and that -
  • He was repeating that stuff because he wanted people to believe that the Arctic ice would indeed be completely gone within that time-frame. He wanted people to be frightened by that prospect which is why he was speaking about it.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
That is so patently untrue that it only acts as a reminder how poor your interpretation skills are. Let this be a lesson to others - say someting to don_dunstan and he will remain hellbent that it means something else, even if it is only in reference.

I don't care one little bit about your asre burgers. You're like the little kid hanging around a circle of adults at a gathering - wanting to join the discussion, but unable to do so because you're so far out of their league, until immature desparation drives you to interrupt them by saying something stupid. They look at you, screw up their faces, try to ignore you, but you just won't let them. In other words, if you want to be treated as an adult, you had better bloody well start acting like one.

CapsLock, meh. You have to be yelled at for anything to get through. You're new nickname should be Computer - you have to punch information into it.

You not only need another sandbox, but support. You won't get it here. Good luck to you.
DirtyBallast
Unfortunately in your case you're utterly incapable walking away from something that you've been proven wrong on repeatedly. But by all means keep going...

The really weird thing from my perspective is that I'm actually here to talk about what a load of cobblers all this climate change rubbish is and yet somehow the stock standard response from people here is almost always to attack me personally rather than address what it is that I'm actually talking about. It's as if you defenders of sacred climate change texts have nothing at all except your fervent belief in something patently wrong and your anger at being exposed makes you want to burn all the heretics who call your faith out for what it is.

But yeah, keep stewing away about me if you want, I really don't care either way.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
The really weird thing from my perspective is that I'm actually here to talk about what a load of cobblers all this climate change rubbish is and yet somehow the stock standard response from people here is almost always to attack me personally rather than address what it is that I'm actually talking about.
don_dunstan
It's the only way to get through to you.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
I generally do not contribute to nonsense threads like this one but will pose a few comments and questions for those that are not brainwashed self-indulgent fools and can think for themselves without resorting to name calling and ridiculous untrue rhetoric, outright lies and hypocrisy.

1.  The thread title is incorrect, it should be -  The 'Unreliables' Energy Thread.
2.  Unreliables are massively subsidised, Example 1, Snowy 2.0 at $5Billion, almost entirely to counteract the effect of Unreliables on the National Energy Grid.  There are many, many more examples.
3.  So-called subsidies of fossil fuels are manufactured numbers (as are many climate 'Facts') in order to support the hypothesis that dirty fossil fuels cost more than Unreliables.
4.  Zero carbon is fictional nonsense that will make almost no difference to CO2 levels.  The temperature effect of Australia removing 100% of CO2 production is -0 Degrees Celsius (for those that cannot understand this means no effective change)
5.  The cost for Australia to go Zero Carbon is $1Trillion (according to CSIRO), that is $1,000,000,000,000.00.  Over (for simplicity) thirty years for a population of 25,000,000 this equates to $1,333.33 per person per year, or $111 per month.  Are you prepared to pay this amount?
6.  Zero Carbon means massive increases in energy costs (well over the 100% increase for the last 10 years as we massively subsidise Unreliables).  This means making energy intensive industries (such as steel, cement, aluminium) uncompetitive.  These industries will be offshored (with more pollution and energy consumption than would occur in Australia).  The reality for Australia will be zero manufacturing industries, zero onshore businesses, zero jobs, zero PAYE taxes, zero regional communities, zero career paths, zero social improvement, zero future and zero hope.  A lot of zeros for no real effect.
7.  Western societies and nations are going to blackmail and cannibalise each other and themselves until the wealth is redistributed to the very rich wokesters and current third world countries (such as China, India, Brazil and Indonesia) which are largely immoral, corrupt, and taking us to the cleaners.

No, I am not a dinosaur or a right wing loony, I do my own research of documentation, weigh up the pros and cons and make my own mind up on the reality of any proposition or so-called scientific fact.  I know when I am being conned, blackmailed and extorted by braindead indoctrinated idiots.  I abhor hypocrisy, pollution and waste.  I am into recycling, repurposing and reuse.  The biggest problem the world faces is overpopulation and overuse and waste of resources unnecessarily.  Some already see that this Ponsy Scheme cannot continue.  We need to take a stand on unlimited population increases, and use our resources sensibly, reduce pollution and recycle/reuse wherever possible.

A happy future all,

John P
c3526blue

Posting in a larger font to emphasise outdated and inaccurate assumptions doesn't wash.

M.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
Nah, that would involve having to think for yourself and clearly you've already delegated your thinking to others.
don_dunstan

For once...absolutely correct Exclamation

I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I am engineer. Therefore like yourself, I rely on the facts and not try and pull together the scant loony conspiracy theories to form a debate that suits my narrative. Perhaps this is your problem, you have been overwhelmed by the loony 'evidence' to support your argument and whoa...aren't there some wacky RWNJ's out there that you have lost sight of the overwhelming evidence and are being led like a lamb to the slaughter.

We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going. Smile

Mike.
  Valvegear Oliver Bullied, CME

Location: Richmond Vic
We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going.
"The Vinelander"
I finally tired of it; the responses were so predictable.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going.
I finally tired of it; the responses were so predictable.
Valvegear

It tends to go around and around in circles. The deniers and the believers. But the deniers are closely linked or are actually RWNJ's so that makes their case, if there was one, all the more difficult to communicate.

M.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
As opposed to the left wing loonies who believe anything they are told no matter how untrue it is.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
As opposed to the left wing loonies who believe anything they are told no matter how untrue it is.
Donald

Please refer to above comment,

M.
  Donald Chief Commissioner

Location: Donald. Duck country.
So, because a left wing loonie says they are correct, any disenting comment is you are wrong no matter what.  Got it.  


NOT.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It's the only way to get through to you.
DirtyBallast
Like most religious people I know who get rabid when you point out that their belief system is a load of rubbish you play the man instead of defending your faith.

That's because you've got nothing.
Posting in a larger font to emphasise outdated and inaccurate assumptions doesn't wash. M.
The Vinelander
He was talking simply about the costs of going to 'net zero' for Australia and I couldn't find any error in what he was saying. In fact only a few weeks ago the Bank of America released a report on the topic - ZeroHedge:

The bottom line: no less than a stunning $150 trillion in new capital investment would be required to reach a "net zero" world over 30 years - equating to some $5 trillion in annual investments - and amounting to twice current global GDP.

Bank of America says that new money will need to be printed in order to finance such an ambitious project - since there's literally not enough money in the world to make the transition. I know huge numbers aren't your thing but you've got to understand the sheer cost of making this transition will be a huge burden that might very well upend global trade.

Yes, it's really that dire.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Nah, that would involve having to think for yourself and clearly you've already delegated your thinking to others.

For once...absolutely correct Exclamation

I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I am engineer. Therefore like yourself, I rely on the facts and not try and pull together the scant loony conspiracy theories to form a debate that suits my narrative. Perhaps this is your problem, you have been overwhelmed by the loony 'evidence' to support your argument and whoa...aren't there some wacky RWNJ's out there that you have lost sight of the overwhelming evidence and are being led like a lamb to the slaughter.

We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going. Smile

Mike.
The Vinelander
You constantly accuse me of being a right-winger and yet I'm the only one on this thread who consistently defends the poor and the working class whereas you're quite happy to see them suffer in the name of your religion.

That sounds pretty 'right wing nut-job' to me don't you think.

And for the umpteenth time, it's not a science. If it was a science it would have verifiable facts and predictive capacity - 'climate science' has neither of those things. The fact that you readily acknowledge that you don't understand and are happy to be lied to shows just what a useful idiot you really are. You're not the least bit curious and you refuse to think for yourself.

And you're actually proud of that?
  Mr. Lane Chief Commissioner

Nah, that would involve having to think for yourself and clearly you've already delegated your thinking to others.
For once...absolutely correct Exclamation

We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going. Smile

Mike.
You constantly accuse me of being a right-winger and yet I'm the only one on this thread who consistently defends the poor and the working class whereas you're quite happy to see them suffer in the name of your religion.

That sounds pretty 'right wing nut-job' to me don't you think.
don_dunstan

FWIW, I don't actually see you as a right winger, but more a traditional labour/industry left winger. Since the 60s the traditional stances of the left and right have reversed.

In the US this started with the Johnson administration and Civil Rights. The Democrat's shift from being a workers party to a social justice party can be traced back to this time.

In the UK this change started during the Thatcher years where it was Labor that opposed joining the EEC in the 60s and 70s, but then became the pro-Europe party by the 90s.

In Australia we can see how the Liberals, who were once pro-opportunity, have followed the Republicans to the big-business right and the ALP have followed the Democrats on social justice.

There is no one representing workers in the US, UK or Australia anymore.
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
It's the only way to get through to you.
Like most religious people I know who get rabid when you point out that their belief system is a load of rubbish you play the man instead of defending your faith.

That's because you've got nothing.
don_dunstan
I believe that your belief system is a load of rubbish. There is plenty of science to back this up but you won't have a bar of it. Who's the religious zealot now?
  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
Nah, that would involve having to think for yourself and clearly you've already delegated your thinking to others.
For once...absolutely correct Exclamation

We all realise it's pointless engaging with you, but it's a good sport as I wrote some pages back...keep going. Smile

Mike.
You constantly accuse me of being a right-winger and yet I'm the only one on this thread who consistently defends the poor and the working class whereas you're quite happy to see them suffer in the name of your religion.

That sounds pretty 'right wing nut-job' to me don't you think.

FWIW, I don't actually see you as a right winger, but more a traditional labour/industry left winger. Since the 60s the traditional stances of the left and right have reversed.

In the US this started with the Johnson administration and Civil Rights. The Democrat's shift from being a workers party to a social justice party can be traced back to this time.

In the UK this change started during the Thatcher years where it was Labor that opposed joining the EEC in the 60s and 70s, but then became the pro-Europe party by the 90s.

In Australia we can see how the Liberals, who were once pro-opportunity, have followed the Republicans to the big-business right and the ALP have followed the Democrats on social justice.

There is no one representing workers in the US, UK or Australia anymore.
Mr. Lane
I trend to agree.

Using my workplace as an example, with several hundred blue collar workers on site, it is obviously not one sided regarding political leanings amongst the troops. In fact I reckon the split would be fairly even. This is why I always find it so hard to understand when coalition governments periodically launch union-bashing campaigns, whether in the guise of anti unionised-worker policy, royal commissions into unions or curtailment of industry superannuation funds, they can't see due to their own ideology that they are hurting many of their own voters.

But I digress.
  lsrailfan Minister for Railways

Location: Somewhere you're not
To be quite fair to Don, I commend him for taking a stand with the poor and the less off, and fighting for them to have a better go in life, I find that quite honourable, really, but sometimes it is a little misdirected at times, but I mean good on you mate for having a go for the battler. (does not mean we will always agree though) Smile
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It's the only way to get through to you.
Like most religious people I know who get rabid when you point out that their belief system is a load of rubbish you play the man instead of defending your faith.

That's because you've got nothing.
I believe that your belief system is a load of rubbish. There is plenty of science to back this up but you won't have a bar of it. Who's the religious zealot now?
DirtyBallast
That's not how it works - you're firmly in the crowd that wants to spent around $1 trillion to make us 'net zero' whatever that means. I'm saying there's no evidence for any of the catastrophes that the net zero bishops have told us are going to happen and I'm using previous failed predictions and evidence of the fact that planetary life has coped with much higher carbon dioxide levels in the past.

You're the one pushing the religious zealotry, not me - I'm a sceptic and my side doesn't have to prove anything apart from the fact that your gospels are wrong. And they are.

Speaks volumes that you won't even try and defend your religion, you just want to burn heretics because you have nothing.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
FWIW, I don't actually see you as a right winger, but more a traditional labour/industry left winger. Since the 60s the traditional stances of the left and right have reversed.

In the US this started with the Johnson administration and Civil Rights. The Democrat's shift from being a workers party to a social justice party can be traced back to this time.

In the UK this change started during the Thatcher years where it was Labor that opposed joining the EEC in the 60s and 70s, but then became the pro-Europe party by the 90s.

In Australia we can see how the Liberals, who were once pro-opportunity, have followed the Republicans to the big-business right and the ALP have followed the Democrats on social justice.

There is no one representing workers in the US, UK or Australia anymore.
Mr. Lane
The Labor Party in Australia have been firmly pro-big business since the Hawke/Keating era - started with the massive free kick Keating gave to the banks by completely deregulating the system in the early to mid eighties and that was the genesis of the current extremely high residential property prices. Banks were able to put more and more money into people's hands to bid up the prices, prior to that the system was heavily regulated to prevent speculation. This one act turned Australia's Big Four banks into the most profitable institutions per capita on the face of the planet - there's actually no other commercial enterprise as profitable as Australian banks. Pretty amazing when you think about it.

And you are right, there's nobody to represent the workers of Australia any more - if anything the Labor Party looks down on the hand-to-mouth poor as racist and undeserving of their patronage. Witness the Rudd support of Howard's turbocharged mass migration scheme. Hell, Gillard was in on it too even though she's ostensibly a lefty - she gave visas to KFC and Hungry Jacks so they could bring in 'skilled' workers from Nepal and India to take jobs that would normally have been taken by Aussie school-leavers.

Disgusting really, they just don't give a damn how their patronage of their various 'causes' affects the working poor - those people are invisible to them.
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat Line
To be quite fair to Don, I commend him for taking a stand with the poor and the less off, and fighting for them to have a better go in life, I find that quite honourable, really, but sometimes it is a little misdirected at times, but I mean good on you mate for having a go for the battler. (does not mean we will always agree though) Smile
lsrailfan

It's only to suit his narrative. To the Representative from SA, if energy prices keep climbing, in his view old age pensioners will freeze to death and this will add to his argument that renewable energy is ridiculous and coal of course is always better because he doesn't believe in climate change, and the final words, 'I told you so' will be shrill across these pages.

But that won't happen over the northern winter and that contributor will be left further isolated with the RWNJ's.

Mike.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
It's only to suit his narrative. To the Representative from SA, if energy prices keep climbing, in his view old age pensioners will freeze to death and this will add to his argument that renewable energy is ridiculous and coal of course is always better because he doesn't believe in climate change, and the final words, 'I told you so' will be shrill across these pages.

But that won't happen over the northern winter and that contributor will be left further isolated with the RWNJ's.

Mike.
The Vinelander
I actually care about those people, Mike, whereas you've made it repeatedly clear that their sacrifice is completely necessary to appease your imaginary gods.
  don_dunstan Dr Beeching

Location: Adelaide proud
Russia and China aren't attending the Glasgow gab-fest on the climate, so that's 40% of global carbon emissions that aren't even going to be discussed at that feeble conference.

Good news though - someone is going who will definitely make a huge difference to the final outcome - jetting to the other side of the planet to give them a piece of her mind:

  DirtyBallast Chief Commissioner

Location: Standing at the limit of an endless ocean
It's the only way to get through to you.
Like most religious people I know who get rabid when you point out that their belief system is a load of rubbish you play the man instead of defending your faith.

That's because you've got nothing.
I believe that your belief system is a load of rubbish. There is plenty of science to back this up but you won't have a bar of it. Who's the religious zealot now?
That's not how it works - you're firmly in the crowd that wants to spent around $1 trillion to make us 'net zero' whatever that means. I'm saying there's no evidence for any of the catastrophes that the net zero bishops have told us are going to happen and I'm using previous failed predictions and evidence of the fact that planetary life has coped with much higher carbon dioxide levels in the past.

You're the one pushing the religious zealotry, not me - I'm a sceptic and my side doesn't have to prove anything apart from the fact that your gospels are wrong. And they are.

Speaks volumes that you won't even try and defend your religion, you just want to burn heretics because you have nothing.
don_dunstan
Laughing

I don't have a 'religion'. The science that supports the theory of the effects of climate change or the cause of it is not my faith. I just happen to accept the findings of scientists whereas you do not. On the other hand, YOUR faith precludes you from accepting science!

YOU, had you been alive 500 years ago, would have been part of the mob that burnt Bruno at the stake and wailed against anything Copernicus related before and after. YOU shall be judged accordingly- not that I'm religious.

Sponsored advertisement

Subscribers: bevans, qredge, RTT_Rules

Display from: