Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Useless Labor Party

Jump to new
noco said:
It would appear Fact check has caught Tanya Plibersek with her pants down around her ankles.

Telling more porkies again.


http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...w/news-story/6b7694533e340bedd5943c2004028575
Click to expand...

You can't expect anything Bolt writes to be factual. He's a fishwife and prone to the invective when it comes to the ALP. The Courier Mail mentioned is pulp fiction at best when it comes to the ALP .... most thinking men, like me, are insulted at the lack of fact versus mostly fiction.
 
Tisme said:
You can't expect anything Bolt writes to be factual. He's a fishwife and prone to the invective when it comes to the ALP. The Courier Mail mentioned is pulp fiction at best when it comes to the ALP .... most thinking men, like me, are insulted at the lack of fact versus mostly fiction.
Click to expand...

Tisme you have got yourself in a muddle again....I don't think you are thinking too well this morning.

Andrew Bolt did not write the fact check......He was only the messenger for Peter Rees.

I notice every time you see Andrew Bolts name mentioned your brain appears to snap as though you have seen a ghost coming hurtling out of the sky.

https://bravenewclimate.com/2015/11/08/the-capacity-factor-of-wind/
 
noco said:
Tisme you have got yourself in a muddle again....I don't think you are thinking too well this morning.

Andrew Bolt did not write the fact check......He was only the messenger for Peter Rees.

I notice every time you see Andrew Bolts name mentioned your brain appears to snap as though you have seen a ghost coming hurtling out of the sky.

https://bravenewclimate.com/2015/11/08/the-capacity-factor-of-wind/
Click to expand...


I'm merely trying to move you from shorts to trowsers when it come to credible sources of information. Andrew chooses what he wants to print and none of what he favours is up for scrutiny and debate; this would be another ipso facto rant he is prone to and should be treated as the sideshow entertainment of wierd and wonderful that it is. Journalism passed Bolt quietly like a sprite in the night decades ago.

Trolling is not your strong suit Noco, it patently misses the target on most occasions. I suggested before you should join a flame forum to hone your skills if that is the kind of behaviour your aspire to.
 
Tisme said:
I'm merely trying to move you from shorts to trowsers when it come to credible sources of information. Andrew chooses what he wants to print and none of what he favours is up for scrutiny and debate; this would be another ipso facto rant he is prone to and should be treated as the sideshow entertainment of wierd and wonderful that it is. Journalism passed Bolt quietly like a sprite in the night decades ago.

Trolling is not your strong suit Noco, it patently misses the target on most occasions. I suggested before you should join a flame forum to hone your skills if that is the kind of behaviour your aspire to.
Click to expand...

Tisme, I do not see any point in lowering myself to your standard of useless rhetoric without any substance......We all know your ego is as high as Mount Everest and when you keep reminding us all about it, it indicates a loss of self esteem.....You certainly did not think too well when you accused Andrew Bolt of writing the fact check which was written by a guy named Peter Ress....It was me that had to change your thinking........So it it is your good self who missed the target and you hated me drawing your attention to yet another mistake.

Now then Tanya Plibersek stated it would cost $28 billion to build a coal fired power station the size of Hazelwood....Do you agree with her?...Or would say the cost is more to the mark of $6 to 7billion.

Bill Shorten was asked on several occasions at various press interviews how much his 50% RET would cost and he as well as Chris Bowen, would answer the question....However, one of Shorten's back bench MPs spilled the beans and stated it would tax payers $48 billion.......Tisme do you agree with her on this cost?
 
noco said:
Tisme, I do not see any point in lowering myself to your standard of useless rhetoric without any substance......We all know your ego is as high as Mount Everest and when you keep reminding us all about it, it indicates a loss of self esteem.....You certainly did not think too well when you accused Andrew Bolt of writing the fact check which was written by a guy named Peter Ress....It was me that had to change your thinking........So it it is your good self who missed the target and you hated me drawing your attention to yet another mistake.

Now then Tanya Plibersek stated it would cost $28 billion to build a coal fired power station the size of Hazelwood....Do you agree with her?...Or would say the cost is more to the mark of $6 to 7billion.

Bill Shorten was asked on several occasions at various press interviews how much his 50% RET would cost and he as well as Chris Bowen, would answer the question....However, one of Shorten's back bench MPs spilled the beans and stated it would tax payers $48 billion.......Tisme do you agree with her on this cost?
Click to expand...

Stupid nonsense argument for the sake of argument and you know it. Your blind faith lacks any credibility.
 
Not disputing any figures here but there is an article that says it would cost beyond $27b in government-guaranteed subsidies to build a new coal plant and I suspect this includes the building, operation, adherence to Co2 targets, decommissioning and finally pricing to the end consumer. It looks like there's more than one correct answer :)
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/...ase-for-new-coal-doesnt-stack-up-04022017.pdf
 
PZ99 said:
Not disputing any figures here but there is an article that says it would cost beyond $27b in government-guaranteed subsidies to build a new coal plant and I suspect this includes the building, operation, adherence to Co2 targets, decommissioning and finally pricing to the end consumer. It looks like there's more than one correct answer :)
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/...ase-for-new-coal-doesnt-stack-up-04022017.pdf
Click to expand...

I think the COALition is flogging a dead horse when it comes to coal. No one in the energy industry except the coal miners think its viable.

As Smurph mentioned, the geothermal reserves should be validated first to determine if they are viable. If they are then it can deliver virtually emission free baseload power for decades.

Too good to ignore.
 
Tisme said:
Stupid nonsense argument for the sake of argument and you know it. Your blind faith lacks any credibility.
Click to expand...

Says you sonny....You might consider yourself a "KNOW ALL" but you have a lot of learning and growing up to do.

You still cannot give me a straight answer about Phibersek and her outrages cost of a coal fired power station. $28 billion.

You cannot be open and say whether you agree with the cost 0f $48 billion to fund Labor's RET.

So you revert to your usual mountainous rhetoric about being a "STUPID NONSENSE ARGUMENT" .

And you say I lack credibility....I think you should look at yourself in the mirror first.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think the COALition is flogging a dead horse when it comes to coal. No one in the energy industry except the coal miners think its viable.

As Smurph mentioned, the geothermal reserves should be validated first to determine if they are viable. If they are then it can deliver virtually emission free baseload power for decades.

Too good to ignore.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I wrong, but didn't Kevin Rudd put up $80 million in support of some geothermal scheme run by Tim Flannery.......The scheme ran into problems with terrific corrosion problems...Sorry I don't know the full details.
Geothermal sounds good in theory but I believe they have to overcome the problems associated with it.
 
noco said:
Geothermal sounds good in theory but I believe they have to overcome the problems associated with it.
Click to expand...

Problems have been overcome in other countries eg New Zealand although that is a different type of geothermal, the rocks being nearer the surface.

But if research has to be done to overcome problems, then we should do the research.
 
SirRumpole said:
Problems have been overcome in other countries eg New Zealand although that is a different type of geothermal, the rocks being nearer the surface.

But if research has to be done to overcome problems, then we should do the research.
Click to expand...

Sir R this is off topic......this thread is about the USELESS LABOR PARTY.....Perhaps we should continue any conversation on the appropriate thread.

I have been to Rotarua twice....Once in 1978 and again in 2007.....In 1978 steam would shoot up through the bitumen roads in many places...Then they tapped into the source for steam to generate power...When I went back in 2007 there were no more steam spouts out of the roads due to over use of the underground steam....Even the old geysers had to be stimulated with packets of washing powder to to make them shoot into the air for the tourist
 
PZ99 said:
Not disputing any figures here but there is an article that says it would cost beyond $27b in government-guaranteed subsidies to build a new coal plant and I suspect this includes the building, operation, adherence to Co2 targets, decommissioning and finally pricing to the end consumer. It looks like there's more than one correct answer :)
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/...ase-for-new-coal-doesnt-stack-up-04022017.pdf
Click to expand...

I did some research on www.climateinstitute.org.au and although they state they are an independent organization, privately funded ( by whom they do not reveal) and not associated with any political party, something they seem to have made a strong point of, they are nevertheless are very pro Global Warming and Climate change alarmists...When I read through some of their reports and they talk about increase in temperatures of 4c , the alarm bells started to ring....They debunk coal fired power stations as they were some poisonous monster and push their barrow on renewables......

I would put more credence in the figures I presented in my post #1342 with regards to the cost of a 1600 MW coal fired power station the size of Hazelwood.

This Climate Change institute does breath a word of the huge $48 billion required to subsidize Bill Shortens RET.

So I will have to have reservations on the authenticity of the Climate Change Institute.
 
noco said:
I did some research on www.climateinstitute.org.au and although they state they are an independent organization, privately funded ( by whom they do not reveal) and not associated with any political party, something they seem to have made a strong point of, they are nevertheless are very pro Global Warming and Climate change alarmists...When I read through some of their reports and they talk about increase in temperatures of 4c , the alarm bells started to ring....They debunk coal fired power stations as they were some poisonous monster and push their barrow on renewables......

I would put more credence in the figures I presented in my post #1342 with regards to the cost of a 1600 MW coal fired power station the size of Hazelwood.

This Climate Change institute does breath a word of the huge $48 billion required to subsidize Bill Shortens RET.

So I will have to have reservations on the authenticity of the Climate Change Institute.
Click to expand...
I agree.

However given the vast disparity of the figures I also have reservations about a claim from someone who couldn't find any reference on the internet about Tanya Plibersek's $28b claim. I found that article on page 1 of a google search. But my original point is how these figures are collected. Whatever department that $28b claim came from might be quoting the entire life of the station starting with the obligatory PM shovel shot for the media and ending with the site rehab. The other claim of $5b appears to be just the start up and running costs based on subcritical brown coal (cheapest). I just take the view they are 2 different claims.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think the COALition is flogging a dead horse when it comes to coal. No one in the energy industry except the coal miners think its viable.

.
Click to expand...

If energy providers aren't interested the coal miners thoughts are a moot point
 
Tisme said:
If energy providers aren't interested the coal miners thoughts are a moot point
Click to expand...

Not necessarily if the coal miners pay off enough politicians who then raid the clean energy fund and give the cash back to the coal miners to make the dirty stuff a bit cleaner .
 
Top