Climate Change - Biggest Money Making Con of the Century or Imminent Extinction of the Human Race

[John U]

How appropriately and conveniently named.
Perhaps another station at Death Valley?
The simple fact remains that there are too many people on this planet.
We are long overdue for a "population purge" albeit via another catastrophic pandemic, world war, natural disaster or apocalypse (if you lean that way).
8 billion (and rising) 'soles require a lot of finite resources to maintain.
Perhaps a cap on breeding is the long term solution?

This won’t happen. I’m backing widespread ecosystem collapse followed by widespread starvation.

That's because Greta is NOT a member.
No one is disputing the fact that the climate is changing - it always has.
The question is: Who is making money or gaining political clout from it?
So far, "renewables" are appearing to be just as dirty as coal, coal fired energy prices doubling with all the profits going to China with the increased tax revenues going to Canberra.
I recently requested an explanation from my NG supplier: How come you're charging me $280 this quarter (up from $180 last quarter) with only half the usage to heat $20 worth of water?
I have supplied them a copy of my water bill. I don't use NG for anything else.
No response so far. None expected.

I don't need tainted statistics or fancy graphs or expensive professional environmentalists from either side.
I have my utility bills showing my nasty carbon tonnage has halved - yet I'm paying more for the privilege.
In effect, it is theft by stealth and the climate change hoax is the lie used to justify it.
Thanks a bunch Kevin07 ! 操你

It’s not renewables, it’s privatisation of monopoly utilities, which is costing you more for your gas and water. The myth that privatisation makes things run more efficiently has been well and truly busted.

 

[Hoyks]

It’s not renewables, it’s privatisation of monopoly utilities, which is costing you more for your gas and water. The myth that privatisation makes things run more efficiently has been well and truly busted.

Yep, any efficiencies found are used to reduce overall costs and pass greater profits to the shareholders. Customers will be charged what the company thinks the market will bear.

As for the gas, they got better coin from pumping it into ships and selling it in bulk. The local market is small and inconvenient by comparison, so you pay a premium for it. You can buy Australian LPG cheaper in Korea than at home.

 

[dno67]

It’s not renewables, it’s privatisation of monopoly utilities, which is costing you more for your gas and water. The myth that privatisation makes things run more efficiently has been well and truly busted.

The profits generated by a privately owned utility, would by far out do any Australian government run asset ever. !
So I'm not sure how you can say that.
This mob couldn't organize a shag in a brothel, even qith someone else's money.
They'd spend the money just getting to the premises.

Id suggest it has more to do with a poorly thought out sale agreement.

Just more crap policy, by poor government.
They can apply a CO2 tax, they can tell us what % of gas and what the gases we are emitting, yet there to dumb to put a saftey measures or a cap on supply costs for the sale of an essential service. ?
Sorry we really are taking it without lube in this country.

 

[silkwood]

That's because Greta is NOT a member.
No one is disputing the fact that the climate is changing - it always has.
The question is: Who is making money or gaining political clout from it?
So far, coal fired energy prices doubling with all the profits going to China with the increased tax revenues going to Canberra.
I recently requested an explanation from my NG supplier: How come you're charging me $280 this quarter (up from $180 last quarter) with only half the usage to heat $20 worth of water?
I have supplied them a copy of my water bill. I don't use NG for anything else.
No response so far. None expected.

I don't need tainted statistics or fancy graphs or expensive professional environmentalists from either side.
I have my utility bills showing my nasty carbon tonnage has halved - yet I'm paying more for the privilege.
In effect, it is theft by stealth and the climate change hoax is the lie used to justify it.
Thanks a bunch Kevin07 ! 操你

We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. They are not two separate issues but they certainly have separate statistical causes. To suggest this is the only reason (or, at least for now, a major reason) we have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence. It certainly will become more and more of an issue for AGW as so-called third world countries demand they are permitted to use equal resources to us to bring their populations' incomes up to speed (considering a great deal of the advantage "first world countries have had is from exploitation of other countries, it is difficult to question this. Difficult, but not impossible).

""renewables" are appearing to be just as dirty as coal," What data are you using to make such a claim? How are you defining "dirty" (though I can think of no defined example which would back up this claim)? Have you looked at the emissions (not just CO2) and damage coal mining and burning for energy produces? Are you familiar with decommissioning/remediation costs? You would need to be to make such a claim with any certainty.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[dno67]

Lithium mining and it disposal is not that eco friendly, the removal, recycling and replacement of inferior solar equipment is not a realy economy or CO2 friendly option either.

 

[silkwood]

The profits generated by a privately owned utility, would by far out do any Australian government run asset ever. !
So I'm not sure how you can say that.

Whilst not entirely agreeing with John U's statement on efficiencies (though agreeing with his overall point), surely your comment that profits generated by private businesses running ex-public services answers its own question. In order to make profits you have to provide a service or product at a lesser cost or greater profit margin. There is evidence that many public utilities' efficiencies can be raised (though defining that can be an interesting topic amongst economists) but no evidence to suggest the level of improvement can cover extraneous business costs and then provide shareholder profits. Usually this has resulted in lower service levels (sometimes a good thing when over-servicing is present, sometimes not), lesser product supply or minimised ongoing maintenance and improvements. this is blatantly evidenced in power and water supply (two areas I personally believe should have significantly more government oversight and involvement).

Improved efficiencies are not "debunked", but evidence that the idea that private enterprise can provide equivalent services and produce profits and scarce.

 

[silkwood]

Lithium mining and it disposal is not that eco friendly, the removal, recycling and replacement of inferior solar equipment is not a realy economy or CO2 friendly option either.

This is true. In some ways, some parts of production and decomissioning of some renewables' infrastructure is almost as damaging as coal and fossil fuel extraction and use. But not all, not in all ways and many areas associated with production and renewables are improving dramatically in extraction, production and output (to a far greater degree, for example, than so-called "clean coal" - which does not exist- and carbon capture). Not a feeling, not an ideology, not a conspiracy, simply evidence based data.

This idea that renewables should be perfect otherwise it is hypocritical to criticise fossil fuel use (particularly in its present form) is simply unsupportable. Asking if the end-to-end CO2 output is high in renewables is disingenuous if you have not already investigated the issue in consideration with oil, gas, coal and nuclear.

No-one (that I personally know) is suggesting renewables are the ideal solution to all AGW associated issues. To suggest this is the case is simply creating a strawman fallacy. To suggest (as do many more radical "greens" do) that we can stop our existing use of fossil fuels immediately with no economic or social consequences is to speak without evidence (being kind). To suggest it is in our best interest to transition as quickly as possible, with the majority of any available funding going to improvements in less emission-intensive industries is simply following the evidence and making clear choices supported by reasoned argument.

Cheers,
Mark

 

[dno67]

Whilst not entirely agreeing with John U's statement on efficiencies (though agreeing with his overall point), surely your comment that profits generated by private businesses running ex-public services answers its own question. In order to make profits you have to provide a service or product at a lesser cost or greater profit margin. There is evidence that many public utilities' efficiencies can be raised (though defining that can be an interesting topic amongst economists) but no evidence to suggest the level of improvement can cover extraneous business costs and then provide shareholder profits. Usually this has resulted in lower service levels (sometimes a good thing when over-servicing is present, sometimes not), lesser product supply or minimised ongoing maintenance and improvements. this is blatantly evidenced in power and water supply (two areas I personally believe should have significantly more government oversight and involvement).

Improved efficiencies are not "debunked", but evidence that the idea that private enterprise can provide equivalent services and produce profits and scarce.

I didn't mention service supply, l only mention profit. As yes they will cut service quality, maintenance, upkeep or increase supply costs to maintain profit. Something our governments could never do.

 

[mikehzz]

We can sack governments that can't do the job. The problem is we hire governments that don't want the job. As stake holders in Australia, we should be insisting on hiring governments who want the job of running our essential services, and who are capable of doing it. It's not impossible but everyone needs to get with the program. Private enterprise has its place, but not in essential services.

 

[Jason Watt]

We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions. They are not two separate issues but they certainly have separate statistical causes. To suggest this is the only reason (or, at least for now, a major reason) we have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence. It certainly will become more and more of an issue for AGW as so-called third world countries demand they are permitted to use equal resources to us to bring their populations' incomes up to speed (considering a great deal of the advantage "first world countries have had is from exploitation of other countries, it is difficult to question this. Difficult, but not impossible).

""renewables" are appearing to be just as dirty as coal," What data are you using to make such a claim? How are you defining "dirty" (though I can think of no defined example which would back up this claim)? Have you looked at the emissions (not just CO2) and damage coal mining and burning for energy produces? Are you familiar with decommissioning/remediation costs? You would need to be to make such a claim with any certainty.

Cheers,
Mark

• "We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions."

Less population means less consumption. Less consumption equals less emissions. It's not rocket "science".

• "We have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence."

Any evidence is stifled because it goes against the climate change mantra and agendas of those who propagate the hoax for profit.

• Renewables such as solar are "dirty" and burn fossil fuels to produce - namely in dirty China.

Aluminium, glass, silicon, plastics, electronics and copper does not grow on trees.
Ironically, coal comes from trees.
Evidence/data on how much carbon does it take to make a solar panel?
I'm still waiting on a response from Xi Jinping on that.
Whilst I'm waiting perhaps I can get a nice fat gubbermint grant to employ a plethora of dedicated quasi-scientists, Uni drop-outs, hippies and the odd Greta clone to collect and fiddle the figures to suit my employment tenure as required.
Actual data collected is either ridiculed, muted or the messenger is shot as evidenced already.

Coal is certainly not the answer to future world energy needs.
Neither is solar or wind.
Imagine if the same funding and hyperbola was made available to other energy technologies.

• Nuclear.
• Geothermal.
• Tidal.

Tidal would be my first option.
3/4 of this planet's surface is covered in free, clean, regularly moving fluid.
I'll let the real scientists ponder on that. I might share my grant with them for R&D.

 

[Drewswb]

Spending a fortune on renewables and flat out convincing people to do the same with virtual batteries etc its all well and good. But as were finding out now the grid was designed to work one way and what they want it to do now it cant cope with.How much carbon to replace an entire grid ? power in SA isn't going out because of lack of supply it never really did its going out because it cant get to where it needs to be

 

[Albynsw]

The myth that privatisation makes things run more efficiently has been well and truly busted.

I can’t think of one service that the public sector can run better than private enterprise. Private business is much more efficient and cost effective than the public sector
Just the same essential services should be the domain of the public sector although I see merit in having some things put out to tender to run but NOT own
The situation we have now with energy prices increasing is the result of poor govt policy allowing the current situation to arise

The public sector are fantastic at wasting our money

 

[silkwood]

"We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions."

Less population means less consumption. Less consumption equals less emissions. It's not rocket "science".

That is correct, but that is not what you first claimed and it is not the reference I gave a reply to. Your point?

• "We have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence."

Any evidence is stifled because it goes against the climate change mantra and agendas of those who propagate the hoax for profit.

You selectively quote only part of my statement. If you make a claim and the evidence does not support your claim- the evidence is biased?! Then provide alternative evidence. This is the sort of thing you hear from the Flat Earthers; I know the Earth is flat and the fact that you can provide evidence to the contrary only shows the evidence is biased...

• Renewables such as solar are "dirty" and burn fossil fuels to produce - namely in dirty China."

... And your statement was "renewables are appearing to be just as dirty as coal", so how about backing up your actual statement with evidence, rather than attempting to change your statement mid-stream?

Cheers,
Mark

 

[Albynsw]

Does anyone know why tidal and harnessing energy from waves didn’t get off the ground?
They had a fascility at Wollongong that got damaged in a storm and nothing more came of it
Tidal movement is 100% reliable, wind and sun are not

 

[dno67]

Opinions are fine. Everyone's got one and an opinion doesn't need to backed by 100% scientific proof as most scientific proof seems largely based on the past and a calculated guess on the future. Now we're essentialy trying to prodict the future based on ?
lve gained a lot from this thread.

 

[dno67]

Does anyone know why tidal and harnessing energy from waves didn’t get off the ground?
They had a fascility at Wollongong that got damaged in a storm and nothing more came of it
Tidal movement is 100% reliable, wind and sun are not

There's one at New haven, phillip island.
Fear of voter reprisal, due to unsightly beaches ? Iol

 

[Jason Watt]

"We have already covered the population level issue, it certainly is a problem and will continue to increase its relevance to AGW, but there is not a direct correlation between population growth and carbon emissions."

Less population means less consumption. Less consumption equals less emissions. It's not rocket "science".

That is correct, but that is not what you first claimed and it is not the reference I gave a reply to. Your point?

• "We have a problem with carbon emissions is simply not backed up by evidence."

Any evidence is stifled because it goes against the climate change mantra and agendas of those who propagate the hoax for profit.

You selectively quote only part of my statement. If you make a claim and the evidence does not support your claim- the evidence is biased?! Then provide alternative evidence. This is the sort of thing you hear from the Flat Earthers; I know the Earth is flat and the fact that you can provide evidence to the contrary only shows the evidence is biased...

• Renewables such as solar are "dirty" and burn fossil fuels to produce - namely in dirty China."

... And your statement was "renewables are appearing to be just as dirty as coal", so how about backing up your actual statement with evidence, rather than attempting to change your statement mid-stream?

Cheers,
Mark

I have not changed my statements or stance - period.
I included your entire post and responded accordingly to the flesh of it. Don't be pedantic. Would a spreadsheet and a graph be more suitable?

You missed my valid points as raised:

• Too many people.
• Renewables are dirty and inefficient.
• Coal is dirty too yet used to make inefficient renewables.
• China is making a motsa whilst being a major unrestrained global polluter.
• There is no will or investment in viable clean reliable alternative energy in Australia.
• Evidence to the contrary is stifled by professional doomers riding the C02 gravy train.

I don't subscribe to "terms of reference". Doctored questions aren't worth answering.
This is NOT Q&A.

 

[Jason Watt]

There's one at New haven, phillip island.
Fear of voter reprisal, due to unsightly beaches ? Iol

Probably shut down to protect the rare duck-billed striped salt 'n' pepper calamari.

 

[dno67]

Probably shut down to protect the rare duck-billed striped salt 'n' pepper calamari.

Haha, this one is as far as l now still powering the abalone farm.

 

[silkwood]

most scientific proof seems largely based on the past and a calculated guess on the future.

Sorry, that is just inaccurate. It is known as a "thought-terminating cliché" fallacy. It is similar to "let's agree to disagree", when in fact, one position may not be logically held. I'm not having a go, simply pointing out that is an unreasonable way to determine the accuracy of a statement or held belief.