lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 9:22pm:


You have never noticed that the attempt is to reduce the level of C02 emissions people put into the atmosphere ?

You are a long way behind the discussion on this topic aren't you.

Your constant stream of pedantry and straw man argument seem doomed to failure.

lee wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 9:25pm:


The two components of emission - direct and indirect come from the substances used (direct) and power used (indirect).

The power consumption can be reduced by around 40% by using cleaner energy sources and the the production process can be improved by about 20 % by using more friendly chemicals in the process, mostly removing lime and replacing it with other options.

Power in general will become cleaner with development - A price on carbon is a huge incentive to produce cleaner power which will drive this development at a much quicker rate.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:



When they don't stack up then that is the only purpose for which they are fit.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:


Oh dear. Another assertion, another strawman.

But let's look at that.

Of course the answer is no. The only thing that currently has the necessary energy density at the moment is nuclear. But you blokes won't touch that. Solar and wind don't have it. So until we either go nuclear or some new exciting energy comes on stream we are stuck.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:


That's true. And it should be for you and everyone. Don't just accept what is written, question, learn. That is the path to enlightenment. Not some "oh, that looks good".

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:



No petal. The judgement comes after.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 27^th, 2019 at 10:59pm:



yes. I can understand that. Formatting is so important. The conclusions don't necessarily have to rely on what is in the references. But if it "sounds good" then it must be "good".

And the fact that you are "hardly" into science shines like a beacon throughout your posts.

Oh, you're not into science either, Lee. We all know that.

We're discussing the major environmental issues of our time, and your scientific conclusion? Do nothing. Wait and see.

Well, develop nuclear power, but "we blokes" won't let you.

Not at all, Lee, we have all your quotes.

If you were into science, you'd be interested in all those climate models and projections (true or false), but the only time you mention them is to ridicule or inanely distract.

Yes, Lee. Your nuclear stance has meaning. It shows that this debate, for you, is all about targeting "you blokes".

You believe global warming is some concoction by the leftards, and that - and only that - is why you oppose it.

I understand those like Barnaby Joyce and the IPA - they get political donations and funding from coal. Even Bill Shorton denied global warming when he led a union that supported coal miners.

But you?

I don't think fixing the Murray Darling requires a carbon tax, dear. Truth be told, I'm on the fence about carbon taxes myself.

I guess they're good to kickstart the transition to renewables and low-polluting technology, but they're not going to see much of a decline in global CO2 levels in themselves.

You need, as Europe and California have, the will.

China is joining in, rapidly turning things around. Things are going leaps and bounds in the biggest CO2 emitter in the world. If they can get a start, we can too.

This is all about science - efficiency, sustainability. The only reason you reject it is you think it's a massive leftard plot.

You know, backed by the Royal Family, the Tories and pretty much every centrist conservative party in the world. Even our own Libs play lip service to the science, even though they refuse to do anything about global warming and our own energy problems.

This is not about the "science", as you well know. It's about your devout opposition to all those leftards.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:


But you brought it up in a thread about a carbon tax being the best. Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:



oh you mean the China that has quietly started up those coal generation plants that they had stopped? That China? perhaps you shuld have said India? Nah. They have said that they will do what is necessary.

"A glaring exception to the global decline in coal plant development was China, where satellite photos show developers have quietly restarted construction on dozens of suspended projects. A new report by the China Electricity Council, which represents the country’s power utilities, proposes setting the country’s coal capacity cap at 1,300 gigawatts, a level that would allow 290 gigawatts of new capacity to be added—more than the entire coal fleet of the U.S. (259 gigawatts)."

https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2019/03/new-report-global-slowdown-coa...

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:


So somehow these renewables, which can't provide the power as and when needed, will be able to maintain a steady state for steel, electronics and other products that need a steady supply?

How does coal-less steel get made?

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:


Just what can we do about global warming petal? It was warmer during the Roman Warm Period. And according to the ice cores CO2 wasn't to blame.

And what about those energy problems? Solar and wind can't do it. Batteries can't do it. That you beaut SA battery has enough power for 3 minutes.

Paki gob on a stick wrote on Apr 28^th, 2019 at 5:24pm:


Do you mean "Climate Seance Science"^TM?