Totally and utterly irrelevant Moxjo. I made that point simply to focus on the most outrageous, treasonous and destructive lie that Trump has perpetuated on the US community.
The lie of the stolen election. The lie that has been used to vilify anyone and everyone who dares point out the clear facts of how many votes each candidate received and how, when added up, they resulted in a clear mandate for Joe Biden.
And yet this creature still insists that black is white and that he was robbed. And because he is what he is, millions of people choose to believe a complete, monstrous lie and hundreds of Republican politicians feel compelled or determined to also believe this lie.
Perhaps not surprisingly you also chose to ignore that overwhelming, self serving corruption of reality.
________________________________
I've said it before, repeatedly. Trumps lies are like confetti at a wedding. But in Feb 2021 I believe that above all he needs to be held absolutely accountable for what he did to the American political system after he lost the 2020 election.
He needs to have his day in court to prove on oath his allegations of fraud. He needs to stand and deliver.
And when he and his co conspiraters can't, they need to face the consequences of systematically destroying the confidence 30% of th US public in the integrity of the system that elects the people responsible for governing the country.
One that immediately comes to mind from a personal perspective is "coal power fails in the heat".
As your first linked article was clearly denoted as "opinion" rather than news, and not from an engineer or person who understood the grid, I am not sure why you instanced it.One that immediately comes to mind from a personal perspective is "coal power fails in the heat".
A pretty widely reported claim that's well known in the energy industry and moderately well known outside it.
Here's one numerous examples over a period of several years but there's many more: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/sola...-off-gas-and-coal-plants-20180112-h0hfkj.html
Quite a few energy company senior managers and even CEO's thought there must be some basis to it given it was being said in the mainstream media and by countless environmental and other political groups. So too did plenty of engineers who assumed it must relate to facilities other than the ones they were responsible for. Even Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, publicly stated it as fact presumably following advice to that effect.
In actual truth the claim is either true or false depending on how you interpret the wording. That being so, it could certainly be termed "misleading".
If you interpret it to mean that it was hot on a particular day and a coal plant just happened to fail on that day but the two events, it being hot and the plant failing, are unrelated then it is true since coal plant failures have indeed been known to occur on hot days.
If you interpret it to mean that a coal plant failed because of the hot weather, and that failures of such facilities are more likely when it is hot, then it's fake news.
Suffice to say I've yet to come across anyone who hasn't interpreted it in the second manner, that hot weather causes failure. A state Premier stated it in that context, quite a few environmental groups have repeated the claim in that context, even people in the industry interpreted it that way. Meanwhile consultants and analysts started cranking out things like this: https://wattclarity.com.au/articles...ture-effects-on-generation-supply-technology/ All of which is prompted by the second interpretation, that the hot weather causes failure.
From a technical perspective there's neither a valid theoretical explanation nor actual operating data to support the second interpretation. From a theoretical perspective if you've got a fire burning at ~2100'C producing steam at 600'C then you wouldn't expect that the air temperature outside is going to make a lot of difference. From a statistical perspective the data shows that yes failures most certainly do occur but no, they aren't triggered by hot weather.
What does occur during hot weather is that electricity consumption greatly increases, in some states it literally doubles, some types of generating plant lose a few % of capacity (gas turbines tend to suffer the worst) and since some states have barely adequate generating capacity anyway the end result is any failure which happens to occur most likely will lead to shortage.
Heat doesn't cause coal or any other technology to fail however, just means it's a problem if it happens to fail for some other reason. In other words, hot days are the energy equivalent of that old investment story about the tide going out and exposing who's swimming naked. It shows up the problems but it's not the actual cause.
It's much like saying "train passengers suffer heart attacks" - factually correct but a similarly misleading statement. Yes some people who regularly use trains will have a heart attack. Their use of trains isn't the cause of having a heart attack however. It's a misleading statement given the very different plausible interpretations of it.
So the claim is not strictly untrue, it can be interpreted in a way that's true, but it's certainly being mischievous to make a statement on a serious subject which can readily be interpreted to have two radically different meanings and with most people, including a state Premier, seemingly having interpreted a false meaning in practice.
Now I'll refer back to the SMH article I linked above. Have a close look at the URL and you'll spot a key word there - "opinion".
Ah ha!
The SMH is a newspaper but this article is not news. Rather, it's opinion.
Opinion of Ebony Bennett, deputy director of The Australia Institute.
Now I've nothing against Ebony but if you were to do a Google search on her then you'd find that she's also a former media advisor to
Wait for it.....
The Greens.
Ah, now it makes sense. A misleading claim about coal from someone associated with a political party that really doesn't like coal. Well I never would have guessed that....
Now to be fair to the SMH, they haven't hidden this. It's opinion from someone who's employed by a think tank which doesn't like the industry being commented on and who was previously employed by someone else who didn't like it either.
How many can honestly say they didn't think it was actual news though or at least something based on proven fact? It fooled plenty of senior managers, it fooled engineers, it fooled a state Premier. A consultant even ran a competition with a prize on offer for anyone who could get to the bottom of it.
To be clear though, I'm not taking a one sided argument here. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the other side wouldn't be just as misleading and employ very similar tactics. That's my point really.
No matter what the subject, unless you were there personally, or you're an expert on the subject, or you've got time to do some very serious research into it then without any of those you're at risk of being mislead in practice.
Reminds me of that chain with the great big sign saying "AUSTRALIA'S CHEAPEST CHEMIST" - look really closely at the sign and in small print to the left are the words "Is this?". They're not saying it's the cheapest, it's a question not a statement, but they know exactly how most will read it.
If a subject's even slightly contentious, if someone has something to gain either financially or politically from influencing opinion, then truth tends to be a casualty of that. Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, your side will at the very least seriously stretch the truth and so will the other side.
Your bias is showing.As your first linked article was clearly denoted as "opinion" rather than news, and not from an engineer or person who understood the grid, I am not sure why you instanced it.
It was Trump's opinion that he won the 2020 election, yet no facts support him.
As I see it you have demonstrated the power of poor journalism to influence the views of others. It's what Fox and a few other media platforms perpetuate to this day and is unsound as we all know.
One of the best examples of media manipulation of the facts at the moment is the thrashing of "Dictator Dan". The Victorian Premier is being guided by health advice, as is every other Premier. Murdoch media has waged a relentless war on Daniel Andrews, yet in Western Australia the labor Premier who has actually adopted the toughest border controls of any State or Territory is treated with comparative reverence by the media which is significantly influenced by the views of Kerry Stokes.
Dan has overseen monumental stuff ups that ended in deaths. Not only that but we had ministers thrown under the bus and cover up of facts. He deserves scrutiny at this point.
Hasn't their been inquires into Trump, that you didn't entirely believe as well?As I recall there was an independent inquiry that found no one was to blame.
I don't entirely believe that, but at least there was an inquiry.
One that immediately comes to mind from a personal perspective is "coal power fails in the heat".
A pretty widely reported claim that's well known in the energy industry and moderately well known outside it.
Here's one numerous examples over a period of several years but there's many more: https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/sola...-off-gas-and-coal-plants-20180112-h0hfkj.html
Quite a few energy company senior managers and even CEO's thought there must be some basis to it given it was being said in the mainstream media and by countless environmental and other political groups. So too did plenty of engineers who assumed it must relate to facilities other than the ones they were responsible for. Even Dan Andrews, Premier of Victoria, publicly stated it as fact presumably following advice to that effect.
In actual truth the claim is either true or false depending on how you interpret the wording. That being so, it could certainly be termed "misleading".
If you interpret it to mean that it was hot on a particular day and a coal plant just happened to fail on that day but the two events, it being hot and the plant failing, are unrelated then it is true since coal plant failures have indeed been known to occur on hot days.
If you interpret it to mean that a coal plant failed because of the hot weather, and that failures of such facilities are more likely when it is hot, then it's fake news.
Suffice to say I've yet to come across anyone who hasn't interpreted it in the second manner, that hot weather causes failure. A state Premier stated it in that context, quite a few environmental groups have repeated the claim in that context, even people in the industry interpreted it that way. Meanwhile consultants and analysts started cranking out things like this: https://wattclarity.com.au/articles...ture-effects-on-generation-supply-technology/ All of which is prompted by the second interpretation, that the hot weather causes failure.
From a technical perspective there's neither a valid theoretical explanation nor actual operating data to support the second interpretation. From a theoretical perspective if you've got a fire burning at ~2100'C producing steam at 600'C then you wouldn't expect that the air temperature outside is going to make a lot of difference. From a statistical perspective the data shows that yes failures most certainly do occur but no, they aren't triggered by hot weather.
What does occur during hot weather is that electricity consumption greatly increases, in some states it literally doubles, some types of generating plant lose a few % of capacity (gas turbines tend to suffer the worst) and since some states have barely adequate generating capacity anyway the end result is any failure which happens to occur most likely will lead to shortage.
Heat doesn't cause coal or any other technology to fail however, just means it's a problem if it happens to fail for some other reason. In other words, hot days are the energy equivalent of that old investment story about the tide going out and exposing who's swimming naked. It shows up the problems but it's not the actual cause.
It's much like saying "train passengers suffer heart attacks" - factually correct but a similarly misleading statement. Yes some people who regularly use trains will have a heart attack. Their use of trains isn't the cause of having a heart attack however. It's a misleading statement given the very different plausible interpretations of it.
So the claim is not strictly untrue, it can be interpreted in a way that's true, but it's certainly being mischievous to make a statement on a serious subject which can readily be interpreted to have two radically different meanings and with most people, including a state Premier, seemingly having interpreted a false meaning in practice.
Now I'll refer back to the SMH article I linked above. Have a close look at the URL and you'll spot a key word there - "opinion".
Ah ha!
The SMH is a newspaper but this article is not news. Rather, it's opinion.
Opinion of Ebony Bennett, deputy director of The Australia Institute.
Now I've nothing against Ebony but if you were to do a Google search on her then you'd find that she's also a former media advisor to
Wait for it.....
The Greens.
Ah, now it makes sense. A misleading claim about coal from someone associated with a political party that really doesn't like coal. Well I never would have guessed that....
Now to be fair to the SMH, they haven't hidden this. It's opinion from someone who's employed by a think tank which doesn't like the industry being commented on and who was previously employed by someone else who didn't like it either.
How many can honestly say they didn't think it was actual news though or at least something based on proven fact? It fooled plenty of senior managers, it fooled engineers, it fooled a state Premier. A consultant even ran a competition with a prize on offer for anyone who could get to the bottom of it.
To be clear though, I'm not taking a one sided argument here. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that the other side wouldn't be just as misleading and employ very similar tactics. That's my point really.
No matter what the subject, unless you were there personally, or you're an expert on the subject, or you've got time to do some very serious research into it then without any of those you're at risk of being mislead in practice.
Reminds me of that chain with the great big sign saying "AUSTRALIA'S CHEAPEST CHEMIST" - look really closely at the sign and in small print to the left are the words "Is this?". They're not saying it's the cheapest, it's a question not a statement, but they know exactly how most will read it.
If a subject's even slightly contentious, if someone has something to gain either financially or politically from influencing opinion, then truth tends to be a casualty of that. Regardless of which side of the argument you're on, your side will at the very least seriously stretch the truth and so will the other side.
Again, you fail to notice that this thread is about "fake news".Your bias is showing.
Dan has overseen monumental stuff ups that ended in deaths. Not only that but we had ministers thrown under the bus and cover up of facts. He deserves scrutiny at this point.
But you defend the rubbish media came out with that confirms your bias?
Such as ?Hasn't their been inquires into Trump, that you didn't entirely believe as well?
Often your posts only shows half the picture. Which is disinformation in itself. Presenting the facts from one side of the argument does not paint a true picture of the overall story.Again, you fail to notice that this thread is about "fake news".
And again, the issue you raised has been covered elsewhere at ASF.
That said, your claim that I "defend the rubbish media came out with" is completely at odds with my view about the Murdoch media.
Most of my comments in these threads relate to weak or false claims and poor logic.
For example I regularly disagree with @Smurf1976 despite him being a highly respected poster, with some of the best and most detailed comments you will find in any forum.
As I recall there was an independent inquiry that found no one was to blame.
I don't entirely believe that, but at least there was an inquiry.
No one owned up to the security guard thing. That was a huge question mark.
The question of why security was so poor around the Capitol was widely discussed.I agree.
The question of why security was so poor around the Capitol was widely discussed.
Or course if the then President hadn't been firing up his followers with a bunch of total lies about a stolen election for two months and then sent then off to the Capitol on a mission to intimidate Congress into not counting unfavourable electoral votes there wouldn't have been a riot would there ?
There is useful fact check which pulls together all the information around the riot.
FactCheck Posts › Featured Posts
Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol
Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol - FactCheck.org
On the day of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the first National Guard members arrived to assist at about 5:40 p.m. Here, we present a timeline about the efforts to deploy those troops.www.factcheck.org
Oops. My bad. I was wondering why Moxjo seemed to be responding to my post by ignoring the riot and causes behind it and asking questions about the security ! Seemed strange but then pretty normal ...Bas, I think moXjo and I were talking about the security guard issue in Victorian hotel quarantine.
However, you are welcome to sidetrack if you like.
Yeah sounds like a legit fact checkThe question of why security was so poor around the Capitol was widely discussed.
Or course if the then President hadn't been firing up his followers with a bunch of total lies about a stolen election for two months and then sent then off to the Capitol on a mission to intimidate Congress into not counting unfavourable electoral votes there wouldn't have been a riot would there ?
There is useful fact check which pulls together all the information around the riot.
FactCheck Posts › Featured Posts
Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol
Timeline of National Guard Deployment to Capitol - FactCheck.org
On the day of the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, the first National Guard members arrived to assist at about 5:40 p.m. Here, we present a timeline about the efforts to deploy those troops.www.factcheck.org
I can respond to bothOops. My bad. I was wondering why Moxjo seemed to be responding to my post by ignoring the riot and causes behind it and asking questions about the security ! Seemed strange but then pretty normal ...
But clearly there are other posts I have overlooked .
Actually it is quite clear what the topic was. I just wasn't paying close enough attention.
I can respond to both
I know how much you lot missed arguing with me.
I continually show your comments to be off topic, weak or baseless. So yes, I present the other half of the picture - the part that links to credible sources and evidence.Often your posts only shows half the picture. Which is disinformation in itself. Presenting the facts from one side of the argument does not paint a true picture of the overall story.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?