LOL ^^ What a load of crap.
The consumer is choosing! They're putting rooftop solar on in massive quantities and driving the NEM wholesale price down.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Is there any empirical evidence of me lying?
Yes. For example, the research aims of the AE2013/4 Expedition were publicly available before the expedition left, and can still be found through normal searches and through the Wayback Machine. The leaders did NOT say there would be no ice, as you repeatedly claimed. Even press reports just before the ship got stuck in the ice included quotes about the actual and forecast ice depths.
For example, in www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/23/longest-drive-sea-ice-antarctica it notes that "Satellite data suggested the sea ice around B09B was around three metres thick but, during the scouting trips from the Shokalskiy last week, scientists drilled through the ice cover to find that it was actually only around 2m thick in most places".
That is empirical evidence that your claims, for instance, that the computer models and expedition said there would be no ice around the ship were BS. The expedition always knew there would be ice there. They did not claim it had melted.
Of course, I suppose you could just have been abusing the expedition because you swallowed the denialist BS hook line and sinker, but that would take a wilful sort of ignorance and such a level of gullibility that your claims to be an expert in climate science must be lies. So either way, you're being dishonest.
Obviously this is a small thing in many ways, but it proves that you talk BS repeatedly and unashamedly (or ignorantly and arrogantly).
Select to expand quoteMobydisc said..Brent in Qld said..TonyAbbott said..
Co2 is plant food
It can also be toxic to us humans, whose side are you greenies on?
I don't think the atmosphere has levels of Co2 anywhere near what is needed to kill people. I've heard of people dying from being exposed to C02. One example was in Indonesia where Co2 emitted from a volcano pooled in a low lying area and some people went into it and died.
Its pretty warm today in Sydney but it is summer. Yesterday it was quite cool.
Quite right, but the point is that saying "Co2 is plant food" is just stupid meaningless BS. So are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, calcium and even oxygen, but of course that does not mean that they are always harmless and that more is always better..... that's like saying "phosporus is plant food" to implying that it more of it must be a good thing, when in fact it can kill.
www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
Proven to increase yields ,nobody drops dead walking into a greenhouse.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Quite right, but the point is that saying "Co2 is plant food" is just stupid meaningless BS. So are nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, sulfur, calcium and even oxygen, but of course that does not mean that they are always harmless and that more is always better..... that's like saying "phosporus is plant food" to implying that it more of it must be a good thing, when in fact it can kill.
Not sure it's meaningless. Even NASA are reporting measurable greening of the planet due to increased CO2. Increased crop yeilds etc. It's not all bad....
Sunlight is a plant food* too, but too much sun will mess us up. Just saying "X is a plant food" while ignoring the downsides is stupid. If TA was trying to be balanced it would be one thing, but he's denying the existence of AGW and throwing around stupid memes as if he knows the facts.
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
* well, a nutrient.
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..
You can buy intertia and stability, plenty of synchronous condensers on the way now. But dispatchable power....you could spend a bomb on batteries I guess. My money is on pumped hydro. It's clean, and solves all three problems
Pumped hydro is great - but only if you have the geology and water sources to actually do it on the scale needed. If you don't then the costs (economic and enviornmental/resources) will make them unviable by orders of magnitude.
Australia is not blessed with either water or geological elevation or an economy that can support much.
Germany has significantly more of everything, including neighbours happy to sell them nuclear power if needed, plus the will and $ to make it happen so lets see how they go getting past 50%. If they can't do it we don't have a hope.
Right now they are just swapping coal for gas power....
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Sunlight is a plant food too, but too much sun will mess us up. Just saying "X is a plant food" while ignoring the downsides is stupid. If TA was trying to be balanced it would be one thing, but he's denying the existence of AGW and throwing around stupid memes as if he knows the facts.
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
Fair point, but you really don't understand the scientific process, as opposed to political statements. I have no reason to doubt NASA's call on the role of CO2 in accelerated plant growth, so I take that at face value.
However, if you or anyone else has a differing opinon on that claim I would be very open to any arguments you put forward to discredit it and will assess your arguments on thier factual and scientific merits (not on who you are or who you are paid by). If you are convincing with your scientific facts, I will be inclined to believe you, as will many others.
On the other hand, NASA's stance on "scientific consensus on the role of AGW" has a well documented and well understandable criticism on it's validity for anyone who wishes to look at those arguments on thier merits. Such is the strength of the arguments against the papers NASA references, it just cannot stand up as any sort of scientific truth. Therefore it can be dissmissed as a poorly supported statement. Bad science if you will. NASA still referencing it should be concerning for any scientific body.
This is called the scientific method, as opposed to presenting political belief.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
Can I also comment on your apparent belief that those that are pushing "scientific concensus" and making claims by many that the "science is clear" are on the side of science, or the scientific method.
Unfortunatley you are wrong. The people who use that language are actually the ones that are against the scientific method and are trying to force popular (but unproven) theory's as scientific certainties.
Those that challenge data with logical critisism and ordered scientific debate are the ones on the side of science, not the ones with blind faith. Try reading this for it's content, not its source. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/
The scientific debate on the role and magnitude of mankinds influence on our planets temperature is still very much alive and very much uncertain despite what you might read.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..
Australia is not blessed with either water or geological elevation or an economy that can support much.
This statement may not be entirely true after all/. The last part about unwillingness of economy involving into geoengineering may be 100 % true- simple because our politics. That average horizon for any politician at helm will be next few years the max, but any such project need a bit longer. As to topography not supporting pumping hydro , that is different story,.
Take into account the 24 mln people occupy massive land, continent size and opportunities to build hydro is plentiful ,.But maybe not exactly in the places you want like a central metro Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane where people do live and use most of the electricity. So we back the main Australian weakness - lack of infrastructure to transmit electric power. We simply don't have transmission lines and those in existence already fail. The main problem halting Solar Farm in Queensland is inability to transfer this electric power from one place to another. Solar farm closing down or facing bankruptcy due to lack of recipient for their power. One day somebody will come and call Lets build High Voltage Direct Current lines in Australia - and problem will be solved.
Till then coal and gas is winning.
China 9,600,000 km2 population 1428 mln
Australia 7,920,000km2 - population 25 mlnSimilar size countries but one have 1400 mln more people to build
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..TonyAbbott said..
Is there any empirical evidence of me lying?
Yes. For example, the research aims of the AE2013/4 Expedition were publicly available before the expedition left, and can still be found through normal searches and through the Wayback Machine. The leaders did NOT say there would be no ice, as you repeatedly claimed. Even press reports just before the ship got stuck in the ice included quotes about the actual and forecast ice depths.
For example, in www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/23/longest-drive-sea-ice-antarctica it notes that "Satellite data suggested the sea ice around B09B was around three metres thick but, during the scouting trips from the Shokalskiy last week, scientists drilled through the ice cover to find that it was actually only around 2m thick in most places".
That is empirical evidence that your claims, for instance, that the computer models and expedition said there would be no ice around the ship were BS. The expedition always knew there would be ice there. They did not claim it had melted.
Of course, I suppose you could just have been abusing the expedition because you swallowed the denialist BS hook line and sinker, but that would take a wilful sort of ignorance and such a level of gullibility that your claims to be an expert in climate science must be lies. So either way, you're being dishonest.
Obviously this is a small thing in many ways, but it proves that you talk BS repeatedly and unashamedly (or ignorantly and arrogantly).
They got stuck in ice because they are fools
It was pure comedy gold
This is why they are and will forever be known the ship of fools
It's a consensus
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..Paradox said..
Australia is not blessed with either water or geological elevation or an economy that can support much.
This statement may not be entirely true after all/. The last part about unwillingness of economy involving into geoengineering may be 100 % true- simple because our politics. That average horizon for any politician at helm will be next few years the max, but any such project need a bit longer. As to topography not supporting pumping hydro , that is different story,.
Take into account the 24 mln people occupy massive land, continent size and opportunities to build hydro is plentiful ,.But maybe not exactly in the places you want like a central metro Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane where people do live and use most of the electricity. So we back the main Australian weakness - lack of infrastructure to transmit electric power. We simply don't have transmission lines and those in existence already fail. The main problem halting Solar Farm in Queensland is inability to transfer this electric power from one place to another. Solar farm closing down or facing bankruptcy due to lack of recipient for their power. One day somebody will come and call Lets build High Voltage Direct Current lines in Australia - and problem will be solved.
Till then coal and gas is winning.
China 9,600,000 km2 population 1428 mln
Australia 7,920,000km2 - population 25 mlnSimilar size countries but one have 1400 mln more people to build
OK, so lets assume 450GW/h is whats needed....I have not checked that for reality but lets run with it.
Lets take a look at one of the largest and most complex hydro schemes in the world, our own Snowy Hydro. This scheme is constructed in our most favourable hydro site and involves 16 dams and 225km of tunnels.
Snowy produces an average of 12GW/h per day. So we are talking 40 snowy hydro level schemes (Maybe 1000 to 2000 dams?) for one day of storage. Is one day enough? How did wind and sun fare in the recent monsoon rains on the eastern seaboard? Do we need two days and 80 snowy schemes? 3 days and 120??
Just based on thier own figures and extrapolation from Snowy we have 1000 dam sites (probable double or triple that needed). That is 5% of the identified sites not 0.1%, so I am inclined to be very suspicius of thier other figures.
I doubt the study considered geological, environmental, social and other aspects of each site.
People just dont get the scale and cost of what they are proposing, and this is just storage to make inconsistant power sources more consistant.
I am all for renewable energy, but not at any cost.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
Can I also comment on your apparent belief that those that are pushing "scientific concensus" and making claims by many that the "science is clear" are on the side of science, or the scientific method.
Unfortunatley you are wrong. The people who use that language are actually the ones that are against the scientific method and are trying to force popular (but unproven) theory's as scientific certainties.
Those that challenge data with logical critisism and ordered scientific debate are the ones on the side of science, not the ones with blind faith. Try reading this for it's content, not its source. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/
The scientific debate on the role and magnitude of mankinds influence on our planets temperature is still very much alive and very much uncertain despite what you might read.
Sorry, but your claims are simply untrue. The fact is that there are many people who are passionately for the scientific method, who also believe that the science is clear. For one example, take Dr James Heathers of GRIM test fame. He's well known for his passionate belief that experiments should be carried out according to the best practise, and he's well known for taking on shonky scientists. So too is Emeritus Professor Jim Coyne, who has attacked shonky science in his field to the point that it's harmed his own career. Both of them believe in AGW.
Okay, so maybe you will say "oh well, those two disprove my claim but I will ignore them because they don't work in the field". However, I've got friends and relos who include, for example, a research geologist from ANU (ex MIT) and a professor at ANU with qualifications in geology who are more closely qualified, who ARE passionate about doing science well, and who believe in AGW. Sure, the exact magnitude of the effects may be unclear, but that there are effects is not something they doubt.
These people DO believe in science; they ARE good scientists; and they DO believe in AGW. You are just BSing when you claim they are not.
I've read the WAWT piece some time ago for its content, and its content appears to be pretty dodgy. For example, it refers to problems in publishing papers that go against the consensus, but it merely states that there is a problem - it does not prove it, it does not even try to show any evidence, it goes against much of what goes on in scientific publishing, and therefore to class it as "logical criticism" is (to say the lead) unproven. The piece pretty much just makes broad claims without showing any evidence for them.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Chris 249 said..TonyAbbott said..
Is there any empirical evidence of me lying?
Yes. For example, the research aims of the AE2013/4 Expedition were publicly available before the expedition left, and can still be found through normal searches and through the Wayback Machine. The leaders did NOT say there would be no ice, as you repeatedly claimed. Even press reports just before the ship got stuck in the ice included quotes about the actual and forecast ice depths.
For example, in www.theguardian.com/science/antarctica-live/2013/dec/23/longest-drive-sea-ice-antarctica it notes that "Satellite data suggested the sea ice around B09B was around three metres thick but, during the scouting trips from the Shokalskiy last week, scientists drilled through the ice cover to find that it was actually only around 2m thick in most places".
That is empirical evidence that your claims, for instance, that the computer models and expedition said there would be no ice around the ship were BS. The expedition always knew there would be ice there. They did not claim it had melted.
Of course, I suppose you could just have been abusing the expedition because you swallowed the denialist BS hook line and sinker, but that would take a wilful sort of ignorance and such a level of gullibility that your claims to be an expert in climate science must be lies. So either way, you're being dishonest.
Obviously this is a small thing in many ways, but it proves that you talk BS repeatedly and unashamedly (or ignorantly and arrogantly).
They got stuck in ice because they are fools
It was pure comedy gold
This is why they are and will forever be known the ship of fools
It's a consensus
Wow. Is that the best you can do to cover up the fact that you lie, repeatedly, in order to "win" on the internet, or rather to try to conceal the fact that you lied and still "lost"?
How old are you? You behave like a 9 year old with Aspbergers.
The facts are clear - you lied and you are a liar and too dishonest to even admit it.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Sorry, but your claims are simply untrue. The fact is that there are many people who are passionately for the scientific method, who also believe that the science is clear.Paradox said..Chris 249 said..
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
Can I also comment on your apparent belief that those that are pushing "scientific concensus" and making claims by many that the "science is clear" are on the side of science, or the scientific method.
Unfortunatley you are wrong. The people who use that language are actually the ones that are against the scientific method and are trying to force popular (but unproven) theory's as scientific certainties.
Those that challenge data with logical critisism and ordered scientific debate are the ones on the side of science, not the ones with blind faith. Try reading this for it's content, not its source. wattsupwiththat.com/2019/11/18/climate-science-has-died-the-effects-will-be-big/
The scientific debate on the role and magnitude of mankinds influence on our planets temperature is still very much alive and very much uncertain despite what you might read.
For one example, take Dr James Heathers of GRIM test fame. He's well known for his passionate belief that experiments should be carried out according to the best practise, and he's well known for taking on shonky scientists. So too is Emeritus Professor Jim Coyne, who has attacked shonky science in his field to the point that it's harmed his own career. Both of them believe in AGW.
Okay, so maybe you will say "oh well, those two disprove my claim but I will ignore them because they don't work in the field". However, I've got friends and relos who include, for example, a research geologist from ANU (ex MIT) and a professor at ANU with qualifications in geology who are more closely qualified, who ARE passionate about doing science well, and who believe in AGW. Sure, the exact magnitude of the effects may be unclear, but that there are effects is not something they doubt.
These people DO believe in science; they ARE good scientists; and they DO believe in AGW. You are just BSing when you claim they are not.
I've read the WAWT piece some time ago for its content, and its content appears to be pretty dodgy. For example, it refers to problems in publishing papers that go against the consensus, but it merely states that there is a problem - it does not prove it, it does not even try to show any evidence, it goes against much of what goes on in scientific publishing, and therefore to class it as "logical criticism" is (to say the lead) unproven. The piece pretty much just makes broad claims without showing any evidence for them.
The only people who deny that modern new renewable energy projects deliver the cheapest power are those with vested interests coal and nuclear.
Snowy Hydro 2.0 is based on a business case far cheaper than existing black coal for example...at 2.0GW and 175 hours storage at max $35/MWh it's cheap clean energy, powered by wind and sun and gravity.
www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2018/Annual-update-finds-renewables-are-cheapest-new-build-power
Renewables are cheap and reliable with pumped hydro, behind the meter batteries and a bit of gas firming up intermittencies.
Check out the graph. Here, nuclear is exceptionally expensive. Nuclear would be good for business, but a price disaster for consumers.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Lets take a look at one of the largest and most complex hydro schemes in the world, our own Snowy Hydro.
Complete nonsense. Snowy Hydro 1.0 is not even in the world top ten for installed capacity. In fact it's sitting in around 35th place - behind Mozambique. 
France, your darling child of nuclear has triple the installed hydro of Australia.
If we invest in pumped hydro as Snowy Hydro 2.0 is, we don't need to find more water - just build interconnections between water storages. That's kind of how the technology works......in fact if we retrofit pumped hydro then we save even more water in the existing Snowy 1.0 system.
So:
1. Saves water.
2. Introduces very cheap reliable base load power when needed to firm up intermittency.
3. Zero emissions.
4. Not a high tech proprietary system or risky or ultra expensive like nuclear.
5. Developed by Aussies for Aussies, not some foreign nuke corporation.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Sunlight is a plant food too, but too much sun will mess us up. Just saying "X is a plant food" while ignoring the downsides is stupid. If TA was trying to be balanced it would be one thing, but he's denying the existence of AGW and throwing around stupid memes as if he knows the facts.
One can also point out that it's strange that the side of the argument that disses the scientific consensus with regard to AGW is very happy to refer to the scientific consensus (as in the greenhouse article and NASA's findings) when it suits them. If the scientific community is as corrupt and wrong as many deniers claim, then it is hypocritical to link to a scientific paper. If NASA is a reliable authority on whether the earth is greening, how can one then ignore people who say they are an authority on whether the earth is warming due to AGW?
Fair point, but you really don't understand the scientific process, as opposed to political statements. I have no reason to doubt NASA's call on the role of CO2 in accelerated plant growth, so I take that at face value.
However, if you or anyone else has a differing opinon on that claim I would be very open to any arguments you put forward to discredit it and will assess your arguments on thier factual and scientific merits (not on who you are or who you are paid by). If you are convincing with your scientific facts, I will be inclined to believe you, as will many others.
On the other hand, NASA's stance on "scientific consensus on the role of AGW" has a well documented and well understandable criticism on it's validity for anyone who wishes to look at those arguments on thier merits. Such is the strength of the arguments against the papers NASA references, it just cannot stand up as any sort of scientific truth. Therefore it can be dissmissed as a poorly supported statement. Bad science if you will. NASA still referencing it should be concerning for any scientific body.
This is called the scientific method, as opposed to presenting political belief.
Yep, I do understand the scientific process pretty well, which is why (for example) there's Kuhn on the bookshelf along with plenty of other science books. For me to just accept your claim of essentially saying "NASA's science on AGW is bad science" is illogical when there is more evidence, and more expertise, on the other side.
Criticisms of the "warmist" side must be balanced against equal criticism of the "denier" side, and there's any number of inconsistencies coming from the latter. To give just one example, some "deniers" speak with approval of the person (not a meteorologist) who took it upon themselves to go to work and record the 'record temperature' in Bourke a century ago, but WAWT notes that a more recent record temp (Signa Station) was taken by volunteers rather than meterologists and therefore asks "how much confidence can we have?" in the reading. So when a temp taken by an unqualified person suits the "denier" agenda, that temp is accepted and the person is praised. When a temp taken by an unqualified person does not suit the "denier" agenda, its implied that the recorder's lack of qualifications mean that we can have little confidence in their figure. Given such inconsistency on the "denier" side, they cannot take the high ground.
Similarly, "deniers" in Australia often claim that the BoM has decided to ignore pre-1908 temps because that suits the BoM's supposed agenda, but this "denier" claim ignores the fact that the policy that pre-1908 temps were problematic was created in 1908! We can safely say that the people who go on about this BoM policy lack research skills or logic.
These are only side issues, but they show fairly well that any claim that one side is "doing science" and the other is "doing politics" are BS. There is political belief on both sides, and IMHO there is more evidence of politics coming from the "denier" side.
I've read but I'm not sure if its true, in Earth's climate history a few times the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere dropped to a level very close to where plants start dying from a lack of the gas. The last time this happened what saved plants from extinction, and basically life on Earth, was the Indian subcontinent tectonic plate hitting Asia. The collision pushed up limestone that became the Himalayan mountains. As the limestone weathered, a huge amount of carbon dioxide was released into the atmosphere.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Chris 249 said..
Sorry, but your claims are simply untrue.
..... Sure, the exact magnitude of the effects may be unclear, but that there are effects is not something they doubt.......
1) Then I think you misunderstand or have just assumed what my claims are. At no time have I ever said that there is no such thing as AGW.
2) you clearly state that the magnitude of AGW is unclear. I agreewhole heartedly. Why are you assuming I or anyone else for that matter does not think that we are contributing to global warming to some extent??? I have come across very few people who don't think that there is some level of Antropological contribution.
That is what the scientific debate is all about - the level of contribution of all our influences and then the subset of CO2 in that contribution.
The science on that is far from settled, and there are very good arguments for anywhere from 10% to 80% or more. We simply dont know. The problem is that the consensus or science facts are being presented as not just the belief that we are contributing 50% or more (often 100%), but that the science clearly shows that is the case. And that is very untrue, its a bald faced lie.
Our friend Mr Cook found that problem in his 97% paper. One of the categories he used to rate papers was "Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming" unfortunately he only managed to get 64 papers out of his 12,000 odd that claimed that. So they decided to adjust their summary to not mention that category at all and only listed those that endorsed AGW at any level of contribution (1% or more), of which he found 1000 odd. Plus they then included 3000 that implied AGW existed without mentioning it on the assumption if it was implied then it must be a thing. (many authors came back and rejected the assumptions made)
Then they discounted 8000 of the papers because they had no position on AGW, and cleverly worded the summary to be able to be read that all global warming was anthropological, even though it didn't really say that .... and thats how you get 97% from 64 out of 12,000 papers.
Oh by the way, if you don't believe that 100% of global warming is anthropologic, then that will get you branded a denier in lots of places. Welcome to the club 
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Is this true?
www.express.co.uk/news/science/1244172/Global-warming-slowing-down-study-NASA-CO2-greening-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
only in fairy land
You think that the earth will have more vegetation in 20years or 50 years? Your right wing colleagues are looking to clear more land for agriculture. The right wing are encouraging population growth from their corporate board rooms to keep the economic growth bubble growing.
Great to see you have finally come around to see that GREEN is good.
Now we just need to work on a balanced World GDP and population growth (Zero growth for both). Then work on incorporating the renewables and phasing out fossils.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Yep, I do understand the scientific process pretty well, which is why (for example) there's Kuhn on the bookshelf along with plenty of other science books. For me to just accept your claim of essentially saying "NASA's science on AGW is bad science" is illogical when there is more evidence, and more expertise, on the other side.
Criticisms of the "warmist" side must be balanced against equal criticism of the "denier" side, and there's any number of inconsistencies coming from the latter. To give just one example, some "deniers" speak with approval of the person (not a meteorologist) who took it upon themselves to go to work and record the 'record temperature' in Bourke a century ago, but WAWT notes that a more recent record temp (Signa Station) was taken by volunteers rather than meterologists and therefore asks "how much confidence can we have?" in the reading. So when a temp taken by an unqualified person suits the "denier" agenda, that temp is accepted and the person is praised. When a temp taken by an unqualified person does not suit the "denier" agenda, its implied that the recorder's lack of qualifications mean that we can have little confidence in their figure. Given such inconsistency on the "denier" side, they cannot take the high ground.
Similarly, "deniers" in Australia often claim that the BoM has decided to ignore pre-1908 temps because that suits the BoM's supposed agenda, but this "denier" claim ignores the fact that the policy that pre-1908 temps were problematic was created in 1908! We can safely say that the people who go on about this BoM policy lack research skills or logic.
These are only side issues, but they show fairly well that any claim that one side is "doing science" and the other is "doing politics" are BS. There is political belief on both sides, and IMHO there is more evidence of politics coming from the "denier" side.
Yeah, you need to work on reading comprehension. I said NASA's claim on consensus is bad science as they link Cooks dodgy paper that doesn't even say what they claim. I said nothing on the rest of thier science, although that one link doesn't inspire confidence.
I'm not interested in labels or sides, they are political not scientific. Stick with the facts and steer away from non factual views from anyone, no matter whose "side" they are on. Conversely don't discount facts even if they don't fit with your view.
Facts make science, not labels, beliefs or opinions.
^^ So if you do believe in facts, when are you going to drop this nonsense that the only way to secure base load and dispatchable power is nuclear or coal or gas?
The reality is in the next two to three decades Eastern Australia will have a large amount of renewables underpinned by pumped hydro and a little bit of gas and the almost total phasing out of coal (if you accept the CSIRO and AEMO as the relevant scientific and industry authorities on the matter of course).
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
Is this true?
www.express.co.uk/news/science/1244172/Global-warming-slowing-down-study-NASA-CO2-greening-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
Careful Tony, you'll be labelled a denier. I've already been labelled one so have nothing to lose. Is it just coincidence that civilisation got going in the wake of the current interglacial? Maybe prior to that we were too concerned about maintaining warmth, huddled in the rear of a smoky cave, to get ourselves organised? Who's to say we haven't hit the optimum temperature for us even now? We didn't explode during the Eemian 125,00o years ago though and that was about 2 degrees warmer than now. Why not I wonder?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian
The Eemian climate is believed to have been a little warmer than the current Holocene.
[9] Changes in the Earth's orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as Milankovitch cycles, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere.[citation needed] Although global annual mean temperatures were probably several degrees warmer than today, during summer months, temperatures in the Arctic region were about 2-4 ?C higher than today.[10] The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape, Norway (which is now tundra) well above the Arctic Circle at 71?10'21"N 25?47'40"E. Hardwood trees such as hazel and oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland.
At the peak of the Eemian, the Northern Hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames.[11] Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago: currently, the northern limit is further south at Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec. Coastal Alaska was warm enough during the summer due to reduced sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to allow Saint Lawrence Island (now tundra) to have boreal forest, although inadequate precipitation caused a reduction in the forest cover in interior Alaska and Yukon Territory despite warmer conditions.[12] The prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west near Lubbock, Texas, whereas the current boundary is near Dallas. The period closed as temperatures steadily fell to conditions cooler and drier than the present, with a 468-year-long aridity pulse in central Europe at about 116,000 BC,[13] and by 112,000 BC, a glacial period had returned.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Paradox said..Lets take a look at one of the largest and most complex hydro schemes in the world, our own Snowy Hydro.
Complete nonsense. Snowy Hydro 1.0 is not even in the world top ten for installed capacity. In fact it's sitting in around 35th place - behind Mozambique.
France, your darling child of nuclear has triple the installed hydro of Australia.
If we invest in pumped hydro as Snowy Hydro 2.0 is, we don't need to find more water - just build interconnections between water storages. That's kind of how the technology works......in fact if we retrofit pumped hydro then we save even more water in the existing Snowy 1.0 system.
So:
1. Saves water.
2. Introduces very cheap reliable base load power when needed to firm up intermittency.
3. Zero emissions.
4. Not a high tech proprietary system or risky or ultra expensive like nuclear.
5. Developed by Aussies for Aussies, not some foreign nuke corporation.
um, OK. I'll accept that "not in the top 10" excludes me from claiming "one of the largest". Lets just say Australia's largest? Is that ok? Because Australia is where all this has to be built. I beleive its also the largest infrastructure project we have ever undertaken. But would have to check that.
Makes no difference to the point I was making, so unsure of what your post is on about?
Sounds like a sales pitch for a danos direct ad.... do we get a free set of steak knives? 
As the roughly 35th largest installed capacity hydro system and less than Mozambique yes I think you should be more careful with your loose statements.
The point you're making is the same tired old point made by people who don't accept we are moving towards a largely renewable energy system underpinned by pumped hydro, behind the meter batteries and a little bit of remnant gas and coal.
This is what the CSIRO and the AEMO are working towards.
Nukes in Oz are for dreamers and lovers of fairy tales.
No sane politician will go near nukes.
No sane banker will back new coal plants.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
^^ So if you do believe in facts, when are you going to drop this nonsense that the only way to secure base load and dispatchable power is nuclear or coal or gas?
The reality is in the next two to three decades Eastern Australia will have a large amount of renewables underpinned by pumped hydro and a little bit of gas and the almost total phasing out of coal (if you accept the CSIRO and AEMO as the relevant scientific and industry authorities on the matter of course).
To clarify what I have said is that the only viable/realistic way Australia currently has to secure dispatchable power is to use Nuclear, Coal or Gas. Nothing else stacks up. Grim reality and simple fact. Because of that I dont see renewables getting past 50% contribution.
Despite your attachment to the concept of thousands of new pumped hydro dams being feasible in the near future, I just can't see it being feasible on many levels.
I'd be happy to see it happen if the challenges I've raised can be overcome, but they are significant, and ive seen nothing that addresses them.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
^^ So if you do believe in facts, when are you going to drop this nonsense that the only way to secure base load and dispatchable power is nuclear or coal or gas?
The reality is in the next two to three decades Eastern Australia will have a large amount of renewables underpinned by pumped hydro and a little bit of gas and the almost total phasing out of coal (if you accept the CSIRO and AEMO as the relevant scientific and industry authorities on the matter of course).
To clarify what I have said is that the only viable/realistic way Australia currently has to secure dispatchable power is to use Nuclear, Coal or Gas. Nothing else stacks up. Grim reality and simple fact. Because of that I dont see renewables getting past 50% contribution.
Despite your attachment to the concept of thousands of new pumped hydro dams being feasible in the near future, I just can't see it being feasible on many levels.
I'd be happy to see it happen if the challenges I've raised can be overcome, but they are significant, and ive seen nothing that addresses them.
Currently yes. The problem with you paradox, is that you can't seem to accept that we are talking about the future.....you think all this has to happen tomorrow.
As for "nothing else stacks up" well Snowy Hydro 2.0, the AEMO, the CSIRO and just about every energy investor in Australia disagrees with you.
Your assertion of thousands of a required pumped hydro dams is garbage. Never claimed such garbage. That's your miscalculation. The first stage Snowy Hydro 2.0 is 2.0GW. That's basically a Hazelwood power plant alone.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
This is what the CSIRO and the AEMO are working towards.
This is what CSIRO and AEMO are modelling. They are not looking at costs, feasibility or any of the other challenges actual implemtation might entail. It's a concept.
Concepts are great, but only a very small % actually get implented because real world challenges like economics, physics, political will and just plain reality and common sense make them unviable.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..holy guacamole said..
This is what the CSIRO and the AEMO are working towards.
This is what CSIRO and AEMO are modelling. They are not looking at costs, feasibility or any of the other challenges actual implemtation might entail. It's a concept.
Concepts are great, but only a very small % actually get implented because real world challenges like economics, physics, political will and just plain reality and common sense make them unviable.
They are looking at costs. Pretty certain Snowy Hydro's business case is rock solid. That's probably why as a nuclear pimp you're so worked up mate..Have you got a better scientific authority in mind than the CSIRO, or a better energy authority in mind than the AEMO? You perhaps?
Don't see any banks lining up to invest in coal or nukes either because they're too expensive and/or dirty and/or risky.
