lee wrote on Jun 18^th, 2024 at 4:58pm:


So, disagreement among the scientists re AGW? But there is no disagreement  the filthy polluting fossil industry (not counting  CO2) has to go. And the majority of scientists are definitely on board with the AGW-CO2 proposition. 

Quote:

See above; the majority disagrees with you. 

Quote:


What part of this don't you understand:

"Negotiations occur over wording to ensure accuracy, balance, clarity of message, and relevance to understanding and policy

Obviously, given disagreement over urgency, negotiations to accurately reflect the science are necessary. 


Quote:


No, people who have passed necessary exams.

Quote:


Because microsoft news keeps me up to date with Sky News nonsense,  daily.

lee wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 12:31pm:


Poor lee: the Paris agreement followed the science which says 1.5C  is the limit we cannot exceed. 

The most remarkable thing about the Coalition's nuclear policy is its funding via taxpayer money.

After 4 decades of conservative post-Thatcher privatization policy (admittedly followed by both sides of politics) which has failed dismally to provide cheap electricicty and has sold-off the nation's public housing stock,  resulting in the current housing crisis,  the Libs have now decided to revert to using  taxpayer money to pay for it.

...the height of hypocrisy. 

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 2:35pm:

Mais non.

They will just print the money.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 19^th, 2024 at 1:48pm:



Actually not true.

"Beginning in 2013 and ending at the COP21 in Paris in 2015, the first review period of the long-term global goal largely consisted of the Structured Expert Dialogue (SED). This was a fact-finding, face-to-face exchange of views between invited experts and UNFCCC delegates. The final report of the SED3 concluded that ‘in some regions and vulnerable ecosystems, high risks are projected even for warming above 1.5°C’. "

https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/faq/faq-chapter-1/

No mention there about AGW scientists or any scientists.

Nor is there any mention of scientists in the SED3 report being part of the panel.

https://unfccc.int/files/science/workstreams/the_2013-2015_review/application/pd...

So you still haven't established that there were scientists AGW or otherwise.

I found the invited experts. One Professor Patre Petra Tshakert - a professor in media, social justice.

The Libs plan also raises more questions,

Cost Details: What are the estimated costs associated with implementing the nuclear energy plan, including construction, operation, and maintenance of nuclear reactors?

Energy Output: How many gigawatts or megawatts of energy will the nuclear reactors add to the Australian energy system?

Timelines and Feasibility: Given the ambitious timeline, what is the detailed schedule for the development and commissioning of nuclear reactors by 2035-2037?

Site Selection: How will the Liberal Party address the lack of interest from six out of the seven proposed site owners in hosting nuclear power plants?

State Bans on Nuclear Power: How does the Liberal Party plan to overcome the existing state bans on nuclear power in New South Wales, Victoria, and Queensland?

Community Opposition: What is the plan if local communities oppose the establishment of nuclear reactors, and how will the party secure alternative sites?

Reliance on Coal: How does the plan ensure that Australia will not have to rely on aging and increasingly unreliable coal-fired power stations for longer periods?

Economic Viability: Considering the high costs and long construction times, how does the Liberal Party justify nuclear power as a viable economic option compared to renewable energy sources?

Safety and Risk Management: What measures will be in place to address the risks associated with nuclear energy, including safety protocols and emergency response plans?

Regulatory Approvals: What is the strategy for obtaining the necessary regulatory approvals at both federal and state levels?

Long-term Sustainability: How does the plan fit into Australia’s long-term energy strategy, particularly in relation to sustainability and carbon emission targets?

Reliance on Coal, that's the biggest standout, it's the whole motivation behind this...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 20^th, 2024 at 11:53am:


Invited experts has no known AGW affiliates. So we had an "expert" on social justice.

BTW - There was also one with Special Education studies. Another not an AGW or any scientist.

Lars-Otto Rierson an expert on phytoplankton. Another not an AGW scientist.