News & Discussion: Electricity Infrastructure

[Waewick]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer -
Eureka Prize 1995 & 2002
The Eureka Prizes are awarded annually by the Australian Museum, Sydney, to recognise individuals and organizations who have contributed to science and the understanding of science in Australia.

Centenary Medal 2003
The Centenary Medal is an award which was created by the Australian Government in 2001. It was established to commemorate the centenary of the Federation of Australia and to recognise "people who made a contribution to Australian society or government".

Clarke Medal 2004
The Clarke Medal is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.


And now waewick, I'm sure you'll share with us all what distinguished awards you've received for your contributions to society and the sciences?
We'll probably be waiting a while just like we're still waiting for rubberman to present his credentials and qualifications that make him the foremost expert, ahead of the actual experts that he disagrees with.

I'm not suggesting they are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
I'm merely asking that you guys, since you guys think you're right and everyone else is wrong, present us with your qualifications, credentials, and anything of the sort relevant that deems you experts above and beyond the actual experts we know, so that the rest of us can make a more informed decision on the things you are posting and trying to pass off as factual.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

I don't need credentials. I just need the ability to distinguish between credible and not credible.

None of those awards are related to the study of climate change, a simple google search would have you realise he's been debunked and called out by his peers. Hes a joke.

I know I am not an expert, so I rely on experts in their fields.

I don't ignore the experts on ideological reasons and then backfill that with any old thing I can find that backs my opinion or create conspiracies like the global elite or the IMF controlling the world.

So to me, its not about right and wrong. This stuff is just getting in the way of doing something about the problems we face because we still need to convince people.


Edit - took out the needlessly personal stuff.

[rev]

I don't need credentials. I just need the ability to distinguish between credible and not credible.

None of those awards are related to the study of climate change, a simple google search would have you realise he's been debunked and called out by his peers. Hes a joke.

This is the difference between you and I. I know I am not an expert, so I rely on experts in their fields.

I don't ignore the experts on ideological reasons and then backfill that with any old thing I can find that backs my opinion or create conspiracies like the global a elite or the IMF controlling the world.

But can you please stop posting, you ruined a thread that was a great read with all ideological BS

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

[Waewick]

I don't need credentials. I just need the ability to distinguish between credible and not credible.

None of those awards are related to the study of climate change, a simple google search would have you realise he's been debunked and called out by his peers. Hes a joke.

This is the difference between you and I. I know I am not an expert, so I rely on experts in their fields.

I don't ignore the experts on ideological reasons and then backfill that with any old thing I can find that backs my opinion or create conspiracies like the global a elite or the IMF controlling the world.

But can you please stop posting, you ruined a thread that was a great read with all ideological BS

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

I haven't caused any locked threads, you'll find posters with 3 letter names seem to cause the problems.

It's not about 1 expert over another expert .
Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

The IMF isn't forecasting severe inflation, its 3.6%.

[abc]

I don't need credentials. I just need the ability to distinguish between credible and not credible.

None of those awards are related to the study of climate change, a simple google search would have you realise he's been debunked and called out by his peers. Hes a joke.

This is the difference between you and I. I know I am not an expert, so I rely on experts in their fields.

I don't ignore the experts on ideological reasons and then backfill that with any old thing I can find that backs my opinion or create conspiracies like the global a elite or the IMF controlling the world.

But can you please stop posting, you ruined a thread that was a great read with all ideological BS

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

I haven't caused any locked threads, you'll find posters with 3 letter names seem to cause the problems.

It's not about 1 expert over another expert .
Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

The IMF isn't forecasting severe inflation, its 3.6%.

majority rules is politics not science

you have zero background in it

furthermore that 'majority' are paid to take those positions

[rubberman]

Subsidies subsidies...oops I meant market driven.

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer -
Eureka Prize 1995 & 2002
The Eureka Prizes are awarded annually by the Australian Museum, Sydney, to recognise individuals and organizations who have contributed to science and the understanding of science in Australia.

Centenary Medal 2003
The Centenary Medal is an award which was created by the Australian Government in 2001. It was established to commemorate the centenary of the Federation of Australia and to recognise "people who made a contribution to Australian society or government".

Clarke Medal 2004
The Clarke Medal is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.


And now waewick, I'm sure you'll share with us all what distinguished awards you've received for your contributions to society and the sciences?
We'll probably be waiting a while just like we're still waiting for rubberman to present his credentials and qualifications that make him the foremost expert, ahead of the actual experts that he disagrees with.

I'm not suggesting they are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
I'm merely asking that you guys, since you guys think you're right and everyone else is wrong, present us with your qualifications, credentials, and anything of the sort relevant that deems you experts above and beyond the actual experts we know, so that the rest of us can make a more informed decision on the things you are posting and trying to pass off as factual.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Those awards are for geology and mining.

If he were offering an opinion in his field, fine.

However, his thoughts on climate and weather are no more valid than any other person's.

We can take as much notice of him about climate as we should take of a climate scientist talking about rocks.

Plimer, is of course, entitled to an opinion. However, his qualifications as a geologist do not make him a climatologist. That's absurd.

Neither Plimer, nor Dutton have the slightest qualifications for what they are saying. So, when they contradict people who are qualified, a sensible person would disregard them.

So. What have we got so far? A grossly flawed analysis from a 'think' tank, opinions from a politician whose party has bungled every single infrastructure project they've touched, and a geologist talking about something he has little qualification in.

Colour me totally unconvinced by illogical arguments, proven incompetence and unqualified opinion.

[abc]

Ian Plimer

Ian Plimer -
Eureka Prize 1995 & 2002
The Eureka Prizes are awarded annually by the Australian Museum, Sydney, to recognise individuals and organizations who have contributed to science and the understanding of science in Australia.

Centenary Medal 2003
The Centenary Medal is an award which was created by the Australian Government in 2001. It was established to commemorate the centenary of the Federation of Australia and to recognise "people who made a contribution to Australian society or government".

Clarke Medal 2004
The Clarke Medal is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.


And now waewick, I'm sure you'll share with us all what distinguished awards you've received for your contributions to society and the sciences?
We'll probably be waiting a while just like we're still waiting for rubberman to present his credentials and qualifications that make him the foremost expert, ahead of the actual experts that he disagrees with.

I'm not suggesting they are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
I'm merely asking that you guys, since you guys think you're right and everyone else is wrong, present us with your qualifications, credentials, and anything of the sort relevant that deems you experts above and beyond the actual experts we know, so that the rest of us can make a more informed decision on the things you are posting and trying to pass off as factual.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Those awards are for geology and mining.

If he were offering an opinion in his field, fine.

However, his thoughts on climate and weather are no more valid than any other person's.

We can take as much notice of him about climate as we should take of a climate scientist talking about rocks.

Plimer, is of course, entitled to an opinion. However, his qualifications as a geologist do not make him a climatologist. That's absurd.

Neither Plimer, nor Dutton have the slightest qualifications for what they are saying. So, when they contradict people who are qualified, a sensible person would disregard them.

So. What have we got so far? A grossly flawed analysis from a 'think' tank, opinions from a politician whose party has bungled every single infrastructure project they've touched, and a geologist talking about something he has little qualification in.

Colour me totally unconvinced by illogical arguments, proven incompetence and unqualified opinion.

climate scientist is a made up field to create credibility for something that lacks it

a climatologist is nothing more than a data analyst

a capable data analyst in any field is qualified to be a climatologist

a data analyst relies on accurate data however there is so much corruption in the creation of data sets there is no such thing in 2024

furthermore a data analyst is not qualified to conclude what is causing climate variances

there are physicists and astro-physicists, they are real scientists

[rubberman]

Ian Plimer -
Eureka Prize 1995 & 2002
The Eureka Prizes are awarded annually by the Australian Museum, Sydney, to recognise individuals and organizations who have contributed to science and the understanding of science in Australia.

Centenary Medal 2003
The Centenary Medal is an award which was created by the Australian Government in 2001. It was established to commemorate the centenary of the Federation of Australia and to recognise "people who made a contribution to Australian society or government".

Clarke Medal 2004
The Clarke Medal is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.


And now waewick, I'm sure you'll share with us all what distinguished awards you've received for your contributions to society and the sciences?
We'll probably be waiting a while just like we're still waiting for rubberman to present his credentials and qualifications that make him the foremost expert, ahead of the actual experts that he disagrees with.

I'm not suggesting they are right and you guys are wrong, or vice versa.
I'm merely asking that you guys, since you guys think you're right and everyone else is wrong, present us with your qualifications, credentials, and anything of the sort relevant that deems you experts above and beyond the actual experts we know, so that the rest of us can make a more informed decision on the things you are posting and trying to pass off as factual.

I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Those awards are for geology and mining.

If he were offering an opinion in his field, fine.

However, his thoughts on climate and weather are no more valid than any other person's.

We can take as much notice of him about climate as we should take of a climate scientist talking about rocks.

Plimer, is of course, entitled to an opinion. However, his qualifications as a geologist do not make him a climatologist. That's absurd.

Neither Plimer, nor Dutton have the slightest qualifications for what they are saying. So, when they contradict people who are qualified, a sensible person would disregard them.

So. What have we got so far? A grossly flawed analysis from a 'think' tank, opinions from a politician whose party has bungled every single infrastructure project they've touched, and a geologist talking about something he has little qualification in.

Colour me totally unconvinced by illogical arguments, proven incompetence and unqualified opinion.

climate scientist is a made up field to create credibility for something that lacks it

a climatologist is nothing more than a data analyst

a capable data analyst in any field is qualified to be a climatologist

a data analyst relies on accurate data however there is so much corruption in the creation of data sets there is no such thing in 2024

furthermore a data analyst is not qualified to conclude what is causing climate variances

there are physicists and astro-physicists, they are real scientists

By those criteria, geologists would be lumped in with climatologists. Plimer still doesn't crack it, even were anyone to agree with your conclusion about what is, or is not, science.

[rev]

I don't need credentials. I just need the ability to distinguish between credible and not credible.

None of those awards are related to the study of climate change, a simple google search would have you realise he's been debunked and called out by his peers. Hes a joke.

This is the difference between you and I. I know I am not an expert, so I rely on experts in their fields.

I don't ignore the experts on ideological reasons and then backfill that with any old thing I can find that backs my opinion or create conspiracies like the global a elite or the IMF controlling the world.

But can you please stop posting, you ruined a thread that was a great read with all ideological BS

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

I haven't caused any locked threads, you'll find posters with 3 letter names seem to cause the problems.

It's not about 1 expert over another expert .
Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

The IMF isn't forecasting severe inflation, its 3.6%.

The IMF is warning of severe inflation challenges. Try doing that thing you suggest others do, Googling.
https://www.accountingtimes.com.au/econ ... nto%202025.

Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

This says it all really about your attitude.
You think that everyone you agree with is an expert, and anyone you disagree with you consider them to merely be sharing opinions. Here in lies the problem. With all of you.

You really should stop trying to be so argumentative and combative.

[rubberman]

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

I haven't caused any locked threads, you'll find posters with 3 letter names seem to cause the problems.

It's not about 1 expert over another expert .
Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

The IMF isn't forecasting severe inflation, its 3.6%.

The IMF is warning of severe inflation challenges. Try doing that thing you suggest others do, Googling.
https://www.accountingtimes.com.au/econ ... nto%202025.

Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

This says it all really about your attitude.
You think that everyone you agree with is an expert, and anyone you disagree with you consider them to merely be sharing opinions. Here in lies the problem. With all of you.

You really should stop trying to be so argumentative and combative.

I literally pointed out a major omission in the report you posted. Your response? Abuse.

To summarise the pro-nuclear lobby:

A politician - Dutton. From a party that couldn't build the NBN, Inland Rail, Snowy Mk2, Murray Darling Basin Plan, submarines. Those are historical facts.

A report that completely ignores the fact that nuclear cannot address the major coal plant closures in the next few years. That's a fact. Read it.

Abuse if anyone dares to question that.

[Algernon]

You can't build nuclear in three years. So, at the very least we are going renewables till 2030.

Why read further?

Not to mention, you can't build nuclear in any significant capacity within the lifetime of the majority of the people voting for it. I mean, sorry. But they'll be moving on.

And all generations after them will be counting the externalities they can't see past their AGL bill.

[Waewick]

I merely posted that he's an educated and awarded individual. Which is clearly a cut above you, regardless of what his politics might be.
What you're basically saying is you believe one expert over the other, and that's based on what they're saying aligning with your politics. That's perfectly fine, no need to deny it or pretend otherwise champ.

I'm not sure why you're having a rant about conspiracy theories or the global elite or the IMF. Are you wanting to discuss how the IMF is predicting severe inflation challenges for Australia, contrary to what the treasurer is saying? Honestly at a loss on what relevance any of what you mentioned there has to do with Australian energy prices and nuclear vs renewables...


Try growing up like most of us on here have. Might give the moderators a break from having to delete dozens of your posts weekly and lock threads.

I haven't caused any locked threads, you'll find posters with 3 letter names seem to cause the problems.

It's not about 1 expert over another expert .
Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

The IMF isn't forecasting severe inflation, its 3.6%.

The IMF is warning of severe inflation challenges. Try doing that thing you suggest others do, Googling.
https://www.accountingtimes.com.au/econ ... nto%202025.

Its about the majority of experts against people with opinions. Which is what we are seeing with the Nuclear v Renewable debate.

This says it all really about your attitude.
You think that everyone you agree with is an expert, and anyone you disagree with you consider them to merely be sharing opinions. Here in lies the problem. With all of you.

You really should stop trying to be so argumentative and combative.

1.I have noticed the LNP frothing at the mouth about inflation, i did get a chuckle at this from your article

Code: Select all

 Speaking to InvestorDaily, GSFM investment specialist Stephen Miller expressed scepticism about the forecast, saying he takes it "with a grain of salt”.

“I’d much prefer to believe the RBA forecasts,” Miller said, pointing out that the IMF’s predictions reflect headline inflation, which includes the impact of subsidies.

That article is just talking about being above RBA range, RBA isn't forecasting that and even then Growth +2% unemployment under 5%, are great signs.

Not sure if you are aware, inflation isn't inherently a bad thing. We actually need it in our economy.

2. No you've posted a youtube video from a LNP propaganda site, a well known climate denier and Sky News, at least the Sky News guy was an economist. Very thin on experts in their field.

3. Its not my or anyone elses hear fault your beliefs are supported by experts in their field.

[Waewick]

Sorry if this has been posted

https://reneweconomy.com.au/from-zero-t ... ransition/

Code: Select all

And Emms points out that the dominance of rooftop solar, and the lack of transmission capacity – renewables on that line are already constrained – means that the Coalition’s plans for a small modular reactor at Port Augusta, at the site of the old coal fired power station, do not make sense for the state.

If, some time in the future – in a couple of decades – SMR technology can demonstrate low costs and flexibility, it could have a role in replacing existing wind and solar farms that is nearing the end of life. But not before.

[abc]

Those awards are for geology and mining.

If he were offering an opinion in his field, fine.

However, his thoughts on climate and weather are no more valid than any other person's.

We can take as much notice of him about climate as we should take of a climate scientist talking about rocks.

Plimer, is of course, entitled to an opinion. However, his qualifications as a geologist do not make him a climatologist. That's absurd.

Neither Plimer, nor Dutton have the slightest qualifications for what they are saying. So, when they contradict people who are qualified, a sensible person would disregard them.

So. What have we got so far? A grossly flawed analysis from a 'think' tank, opinions from a politician whose party has bungled every single infrastructure project they've touched, and a geologist talking about something he has little qualification in.

Colour me totally unconvinced by illogical arguments, proven incompetence and unqualified opinion.

climate scientist is a made up field to create credibility for something that lacks it

a climatologist is nothing more than a data analyst

a capable data analyst in any field is qualified to be a climatologist

a data analyst relies on accurate data however there is so much corruption in the creation of data sets there is no such thing in 2024

furthermore a data analyst is not qualified to conclude what is causing climate variances

there are physicists and astro-physicists, they are real scientists

By those criteria, geologists would be lumped in with climatologists. Plimer still doesn't crack it, even were anyone to agree with your conclusion about what is, or is not, science.

a geologist is a scientist and more qualified than a climatologist

I think I have more standing than you on this.

[Algernon]

climate scientist is a made up field to create credibility for something that lacks it

a climatologist is nothing more than a data analyst

a capable data analyst in any field is qualified to be a climatologist

a data analyst relies on accurate data however there is so much corruption in the creation of data sets there is no such thing in 2024

furthermore a data analyst is not qualified to conclude what is causing climate variances

there are physicists and astro-physicists, they are real scientists

By those criteria, geologists would be lumped in with climatologists. Plimer still doesn't crack it, even were anyone to agree with your conclusion about what is, or is not, science.

a geologist is a scientist and more qualified than a climatologist

I think I have more standing than you on this.

'Cause I'm Geology, yes, I'm the real Geology

All you other Climatology are just imitatin'

So won't the real Geology please stand up

Please stand up, please stand up?

[rubberman]

climate scientist is a made up field to create credibility for something that lacks it

a climatologist is nothing more than a data analyst

a capable data analyst in any field is qualified to be a climatologist

a data analyst relies on accurate data however there is so much corruption in the creation of data sets there is no such thing in 2024

furthermore a data analyst is not qualified to conclude what is causing climate variances

there are physicists and astro-physicists, they are real scientists

By those criteria, geologists would be lumped in with climatologists. Plimer still doesn't crack it, even were anyone to agree with your conclusion about what is, or is not, science.

a geologist is a scientist and more qualified than a climatologist

I think I have more standing than you on this.

Another unsupported opinion. I'll just add it to the list. By the way, Stanford University disagrees with you. Who to believe? Who has more standing?

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clim ... ver%20time.

https://www.britannica.com/science/climatology