This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

Jump to new
India pushing ahead with renewables, also restricting solar panel imports from China.
https://eurasiantimes.com/india-chi...ches-solar-power-plant-to-stop-china-imports/
The 750-megawatt power plant in the central state of Madhya Pradesh is being dubbed as the largest in Asia by local media. The project is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.5 million tons each year.

“Several steps are being taken to increase domestic manufacturing and it has been decided that government’s departments and institutions will only buy domestically manufactured solar cells and modules,” said Modi, in the wake of recent border tensions with China.
“Hopefully very soon India will be a major exporter of power. The International Solar Alliance was launched with the motive to unite the entire world in terms of solar energy.” The project is a step toward India’s ambitious target of installing 175 gigawatts of renewable energy by the year 2022.
 
Young Greta Thunberg is still around and making waves.
(Does Greta look like a younger version of Yevgeniya Rudneva ?)

Greta Thunberg gives €1m award money to climate groups
Influential climate campaigner says Gulbenkian rights award gave her ‘more money than I can begin to imagine’

Agence France-Presse

Tue 21 Jul 2020 01.39 BST




 Climate campaigner Greta Thunberg won the Gulbenkian prize for humanity on Monday. Photograph: Mattias Osterlund/A
  • Greta Thunberg has been awarded a Portuguese rights award and promptly pledged the €1m ($1.15m) prize to groups working to protect the environment and halt climate change.

    “That is more money than I can begin to imagine, but all the prize money will be donated, through my foundation, to different organisations and projects who are working to help people on the front line, affected by the climate crisis and ecological crisis,” the Swedish teenager said in a video posted online on Monday.

    She was awarded the Gulbenkian prize for humanity for the way she “has been able to mobilise younger generations for the cause of climate change and her tenacious struggle to alter a status quo that persists”, Jorge Sampaio, chair of the prize jury, said earlier.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...unberg-gives-1m-award-money-to-climate-groups
 
Anyone actually read the article in full ?

If one is of the view that CC is just a scientific lie, a complete xank and will have minimal effect on Oz then clearly this case is a nonsense.

On the other hand if in fact we are cooking at a great rate, have been warned about it for 30 years and the government has turned a blind eye to the ongoing consequences and has completely ignored these predictable outcomes in promoting government bonds perhaps there is a case of deceit and negligence.

And lets be absolutely clear about what the case wants to achieve.
There are no demands for reparation or any financial recompense. The precious taxpayer does not stand to lose a cent if this case is successful.

So what do the plaintiffs want ?

Check it out
 
Marxism!
 

Tying up a court to listen to this drivel denies a genuine case the opportunity to be heard.

In the event that she loses then she should be bankrupted unless the cheer squad stump up costs.
 
macca said:
Tying up a court to listen to this drivel denies a genuine case the opportunity to be heard.

In the event that she loses then she should be bankrupted unless the cheer squad stump up costs.
Click to expand...

Or in the case that the Government Bonds being contested are found to have associated risk not disclosed to the purchasers a financial crime will have been exposed.

A light has been turned on and I'm watching the cockroaches scatter... back into your crevices.
 

Thanks for actually reading the story.
Yep the issue is just one of financial risk acknowledgment which all financial institutions are obliged to do when inviting investment in their products.

At this stage the Australian government does not formally identify climate change as a material risk to our future capacity to pay back bonds.

Why not ?
 
basilio said:
Why not ?
Click to expand...

Because climate change is cr@p. (T. Abbott).

I wouldn't be expecting a Labor government to be disclosing those risks either. They want people to buy bonds and would be expecting investors to do their own research.

Governments issuing bonds are not like companies issuing shares. Governments don't go broke and they can't just walk away like corporations can. It's a different dynamic.
 
Last edited:
dutchie said:
Spot on cynic.
The spread of Marxism (Communism) in the West is a far greater threat to humanity than so called Global Warming will ever be. The damage it will do is imminent.
Click to expand...
If so, where is your evidence of either?
It seems to be part of your ongoing posting regime of making totally baseless claims.
 
I think a greater undisclosed risk is that of to basement of the currency. That is provable. The effect of *anthropogenic* climate change is not.

As the bushfires have been cited in this case, they are on a hiding to nothing as most expert opinion shows that anthropogenic genetic factors we're not affected in the bushfires.... Unless of course you cite the humans actually having started them, in which case they are suing the wrong party.

I would possibly be going after climate change activists, that is probably more provable; if indeed there is some remarkable way where this is even winnable

Either way the law of unintended consequences seems to be exerting itself
 
wayneL said:
I think a greater undisclosed risk is that of to basement of the currency. That is provable. The effect of *anthropogenic* climate change is not.
Click to expand...
If you accept science as what can be known, and maths as proof, then climate change is beyond doubt.
???
First, the worst fires had no human hand.
Secondly, the science on AGW warned of the probability of these fires occurring at the levels they did.
wayneL said:
I would possibly be going after climate change activists, that is probably more provable; if indeed there is some remarkable way where this is even winnable
Click to expand...
That says a lot about your understanding of AGW and law.
 
Okay Rob, as you seen to be both a practicing barrister and a climate scientist, not to mention an omnipotent and omnipresent seer, I am going to suggest to the young lady concerned to sack her activist legal team, who are clearly trying to float a turd, and seek the services of almighty, all seeing and all knowing rederob </sarc>
 

Ahh it would help if you could form an argument on the issue backed by some evidence / logic / lack of political BS even a graph or two......some thing like this, remember.



Now the source is WA Water Corp note same information has been available under Liberal / Labor Govs and no WA state government has gotten into the BS politics on falling rain fall you see in federal or even other states.
As the water Corp CEO said some time ago there is no one in the Water Corp that doesn't accept climate change for good reason.

https://www.watercorporation.com.au/Our-water


You would think less rain fall greater risk of wild fires ........perhaps?
 
Address the topic and stop playing the man.
WRT to bushfires, your claims are not backed by science. There is an ongoing Royal Commission into Bushfires and no doubt a lot of science will be included in its coverage.
Here's an early snapshot:
" The fire season in parts of eastern Australia has lengthened by almost four months since the 1950s, with climate change a prominent driver in the trend, the Bureau of Meteorology says."​

As posted by @IFocus, the data confirming the science is strong, yet there remain many who think it's maybe something else - maybe the tooth fairy! If it's not the tooth fairy, then who or what?
 
Dutchie I notice on this thread that you never, ever, ever offer the smallest shred of evidence for anything you say.

"Climate change is rubbish" " Marxism is the Greatest Threat to the world" so on and so forth. These are simply your grand opinions cast as... whatever.

Asking for any evidence to back up your normal sweeping comments is of course futile. You can't, you won't and you never will.

Nonetheless Redrob actually asked you to provide some/any evidence to back up your sweeping claims. That is not playing the Dutchie. That is just giving you the opportunity to justify your statements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Electricity investments
Replies
8
Views
605
Smurf1976
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
Fake News - Global Warming Consensus
40 41 42
Replies
831
Views
46K
SirRumpole
What does Lloyds think is happening?
2
Replies
22
Views
6K
springhill
M
Rothschild Australia, leaders in carbon trading market
Replies
2
Views
5K
So_Cynical
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...