Don't take it to heart Bas.
Keep in mind the people you're arguing with are in lock step with 'intellects of the like of Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, James Dellingpole, Miranda Devine, Pauline Hanson, Ray Hadley. Take a moment and Just imagine that these people were in charge of maintenance of an aircraft you were about to board(saves the concerns as what to do at a supposed destination though). All have a proven record to be impervious to reason and logic are incapable of formal thinking applied to the consequence of cause and effect. And all in the pockets of vested interest.
Oh and Via the 'Green Left World Government Social Alliance Trotskyite Spartacus anti Capitalist' Chapter of the Deeper Deep state Universal conspiracy...
Absolutely not.Is Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer considered "tainted" in climate change circles?
What was his quote "deniers" use?Absolutely not.
But the climate deniers who construct stories from "quotes" by climate policy writers which when examined show how duplicitous teh deniers are (no surprise here) stink to high heaven.
How Climate Science Deniers Manufacture Quotes to Convince You the United Nations Is One Big Socialist Plot
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/...nce-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot
Carbon trading is redistribution of money. Dr. Ottmar Edenhoefer has stated recently that low incomes should be subsidized. I thought the whole premise of Carbon trading was to enable developing countries to get greener faster?Absolutely not.
But the climate deniers who construct stories from "quotes" by climate policy writers which when examined show how duplicitous teh deniers are (no surprise here) stink to high heaven.
How Climate Science Deniers Manufacture Quotes to Convince You the United Nations Is One Big Socialist Plot
https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/11/...nce-you-united-nations-one-big-socialist-plot
"This was a take from the denial that tobacco caused cancer and had nothing to do do with what you claimed, especially because a good number of the "denialists" from the tobacco camp moved into denying that CO2 could be responsible for warming the planet.The whole "denier" label was a construct to smear those who questioned anything about the science or made the wrong noise. Originally stolen from "holocaust denier". You were originally a nazi from memory but that didn't market as well.
Look up dictionary terms and its pretty much guaranteed to have CC mentioned.
"Cigarette denier" was never a thing."This was a take from the denial that tobacco caused cancer and had nothing to do do with what you claimed, especially because a good number of the "denialists" from the tobacco camp moved into denying that CO2 could be responsible for warming the planet.
A. McCormick, (BAT 1962), Smoking and Health: Policy on Research, Minutes of Southampton Meeting, : “When the health question was first raised we had to start by denying it at the PR level. But by continuing that policy we had got ourselves into a corner and left no room to manoeuvre. In other words if we did get a breakthrough and were able to improve our product we should have to about-face, and this was practically impossible at the PR level.”
Helmut Wakeham, (Philip Morris, 1970), Head of Research and Development of Philip Morris, writes: “Let's face it. We are interested in evidence which we believe denies the allegations that cigarette smoking causes disease.” 32
So why are you saying that when it was clear that it was about the"Cigarette denier" was never a thing.
denial that tobacco caused cancer
Another false claim - keep it up!The phrase "cigarette denier" was never used against smokers.
Climate change "denier" has been spewed out as a buzzword to anyone that looks cockeyed at anything to do with CC.
Umm no.... The only other times it was used in such a way consistently was:Another false claim - keep it up!
That says "denial" by the way. Not denier.denial that tobacco caused cancer
Everyone can take a breather, we are doing o.k
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...is-commitment-anu-report-20191023-p533dr.html
Which obviously leaves the opening, for the chanters to scream, "we have to do better".
From the article:
ANU researchers Andrew Blakers and Matt Stocks said Australia's emissions would fall by 4 per cent between next year and 2022 with up to 17 gigawatts of wind and solar power "locked-in" and set to be deployed by the end of next year.
Emission reductions in the power sector are falling at 10 megatonnes a year due to the fast rate of wind and solar photovoltaics being brought into the system.
Overall emissions out to 2022 would fall as increases in other parts of the economy would be more than offset by the reductions from electricity production.
If current renewable energy deployment rates were continued out to 2030, the researchers found this would cut emissions by 125 megatonnes. Australia currently produces 540 megatonnes.
I note:
They said solar PV and wind are now cheaper than new-build fossil or nuclear power stations and will soon compete directly with existing black coal power stations.
So as long as they let the market decide (not the politics) ...should be OK.
I think when the new hydro scheme is finished it will make a big difference.
There is no incentive for "storage" so why build it?The public whipping themselves into a lather over it wont change it, it will take time, but it is happening as quickly as practicable IMO.
Nice day for fishing.There is no incentive for "storage" so why build it?
Renewables have no priority in the delivery mix, so it makes no sense to add a battery to wind or solar which presently have zero fuel costs.
Then there are the Tassie and Snowy battery projects in the literal pipeline which stymie private sector interest in batteries.
Lithium ion or flow batteries (plus small-scale localised pumped hydro) could very quickly address the intermittency concerns of the network with sensible policies in place, but we don't appear to have an Energy Minister with his light on, upstairs.
Renewables have no priority in the delivery mix, so it makes no sense to add a battery to wind or solar which presently have zero fuel costs.
Then there are the Tassie and Snowy battery projects in the literal pipeline which stymie private sector interest in batteries.
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?