The Australian Labor Party is in something of a mess, a state exemplified by its defeat in the NSW Upper Hunter by-election. Upper Hunter has been Labor and Country party and National. It all depends on where the boundaries are drawn. Some of it is pastoral, and some of it is mining. Labor picked a miner as its candidate, but its vote plummeted, from 28 per cent to 22 per cent.
Let’s think about this. Labor at 22 per cent, and a fall from 28 per cent? Who got the rest? The National candidate won a bit over 31 per cent, One Nation picked up about 12 per cent, Shooters, Fishers and Farmers 12 per cent, the Greens 3 per cent, five Independents nearly 17 per cent, Liberal Democrats, Animal Justice and Sustainable Australia the rest, 3 per cent. By-elections bring out the minor parties and the independents, and by-election results are not good guides to the standing of the major parties. But Labor did its candidate no good turn by coming out against the proposed $600 million gas electricity generator in the Hunter.
Labor won just a little more than one vote in five in the by-election. Hmm. Joel Fitzgibbon, the Labor MP for Hunter, says that Labor is losing the support of its core, the blue-collar workers, and the reason is that too much of its policy and strategy is determined by young urban elites. Maybe it is so. I’ve just had a few days in the Southern highlands of New South Wales, and my eye was caught by signs proclaiming ‘no coal mining’ in that area. Given that coal provides about 56 per cent and fossil fuels (including gas and oil) provide around 80 per cent of the electricity generated in the eastern grid, one wonders where these opponents expect to get their power from. Not from new coalmines in the Southern Highlands, that’s for sure.
And that is one of the problems, not just for Labor but for the Coalition as well. Quite a lot of people want to have their cake (abundant and cheap energy) and eat it too (save the planet). As I have argued in earlier essays there is no way that renewable energy sources can supply present day needs for energy and electricity, let alone for the much greater demand that will be the case by 2050. If EVs are the go (I have my doubts) the demand for electricity will be greater still. I read a lot about batteries, but some of those who spruik the great virtue of batteries don’t seem to realise that these entities store power, they don’t create it.
When it comes to the crunch people want jobs and a continuation of their current life style. Yes, saving the planet is important, but Earth doesn’t seem to be in much trouble at the moment. There have been too many predictions — everlasting drought, no snow, heavier floods, more fires — that have been falsified. My guess is that the average Australian is bored with the talk. It is, after all, more than thirty years since James Hansen prophesied doom because of increasing atmospheric CO2.
What is Labor to do? I focus on that party because it has always been the leader in putting forward new policies. These have to be sifted by the Coalition and by the electorate, but the essence of our politics is an urge to make Australia a nation where there are no beggars and no homeless people, where everyone has a job if they want one, and where there is little envy. While the Coalition would agree with those goals it is Labor which actively promotes them. As always, Labor, or Labor leaders, tend to overdo the talk. Kevin Rudd was a great exponent of the visionary message, but the notion of how to implement his goals seemed to escape him. After a while it didn’t matter: we were stuck with the goal, even if we weren’t able to implement it in its entirety. The NBN was a case in point.
The problem now is that the goal of looking after the Australian blue-collar worker is clashing with the global and religious goal of saving the planet. You can’t trade off one against the other. You could invent schemes to move miners out of mining, but too much of our electricity generation depends on coal. And saving the planet can’t be reduced to saving the southern hemisphere, but not the northern hemisphere. It’s all or nothing. Mr Morrison has quite skilfully made polite noises about climate change but has done nothing concrete. Mr Albanese and before him Mr Shorten have been much more aggressive, but as we have seen, it doesn’t seem to cut the mustard with the Australian electorate.
I have some sympathy with Mr Albanese (I seem to be saying that a lot), but I wouldn’t have his job for quids. If we are to have an early Federal election then he is in great trouble. The young and the urban have the numbers and the power, and they will want the global mission front and centre in the election policy. That will be a disaster in the ‘rural and regional’ electorates and could hardly compensate the party in the cities. If that doesn’t happen, and the Federal Executive goes all out for jobs, especially in mining seats, then the young and the passionate climateers will refuse to help, at least that is my view. What then?
Australia is not unique in this domain. The clash between the climate religion and the economic game appears to be common through Europe and the UK. We keep being told by some CAGW sceptics that very soon now there will be a terrible outage. Texas recently had an electricity shutdown for a few days because of unseasonably cold weather. In our country the greater risk is a grid failure caused by excess demand for air-conditioning in sustained very hot weather. As I’ve said before I don’t look forward to such a crisis, but I do think that demonising coal has been an extraordinary lapse of judgment on the part of politicians.
To conclude, I can’t think of any similar situation in our political system, unless it was the split in the ALP in the 1950s that produced the Democratic Labor Party. I can’t see the present internal conflict producing a comparable outcome. But it could happen, especially after a resounding defeat in the next Federal election. If Labor goes down the ‘rational’ path, returning to its traditional base and its traditional reliance on social policies of an ameliorative kind, the Greens might nearly double their vote. If such an infection occurred, it might spill over to the other side of politics, producing a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party.
Now there’s a thought for the future — a real multi-party system in the Antipodes!
Join the discussion 117 Comments
Recently I read somewhere that, to date, 48 doomsday predictions had failed I.e those whose deadlines had passed.
If each prediction has a 50% chance of being correct (or otherwise wrong) what are the chances of 48 consecutive failures?
1/2 to power 48. i.e.miniscule !
Just heard Perisher ski field is opening a week early this ski season. Have a look at the ski resorts websites. Snow everywhere, including hills where there is no snow making.
I still remember Flim Flam Flannery prediction of no snow for Ausie kids, Leslie Hughes in climate council in July 2002 saying “- enjoy the snow now because by 2020 there will no suitable snow in Australia”. I also remember the prediction in 1989 – within 20 years there will be no snow in the Snowies, Lake Jindabyne will be dry and the town will be a ghost town. Well I ignored all that gumph, I bought 4 properties and now sold 3 of them – made a motsa. Much of it went into Super and a near new car, a powerful Toyota Crown Hybrid.
Gee I love these doomster prophesies. Just bet on the contrary and make a mint. Thanks to all the climate catastrophists for my comfortable retirement pension. Keep up the good work guys!
Excellent post Don.
The choice facing Labor is irrelevance unless they can break the grip on the party held by those Kim Beazley Snr referred to as “the dregs of the middle class”, the university credentialled, inner urban dwelling, publicly funded “activists”.
BJ thanks for reminding me of that very accurate description of the Labor elites from Kim Beazley snr.
The “dregs of the middle class” was spot on. But Kim snr was always a good bloke and a socially conservative Catholic all his life.
This has been a long time coming.
I was an ALP member, and on the state Minerals and Energy Policy Committee, during an earlier period in Tasmania (1984). I was greener then than I am now, and lord knows the ALP in Tasmania needed a decent energy policy then. We managed to find a compromise policy that was acceptable to the union (ETU and FEDFA) representatives, and took it to the state conference in Launceston. (Paying one’s own expenses). The conference was abandoned when Leo Brown questioned the standing of delegates from the Shoppies and the Clerks, who had just been readmitted after the split. Brown claimed the delegates concerned were ‘Groupers’ and the whole conference collapsed.
That was the beginning of me thinking life was too short.
But Richo’s 1990 genius in harvesting Green preferences ossified the worker/green split, while producing a history in the short term.
Fitzgibbon is the future here, though, as you point out, Albo’s personal electoral vulnerability make it hard to move towards it while he is leader.
Why is Fitzgibbon the future? I think the Catastrophic AGW house of cards is now endangered.
Notice the splash in the media about the book, Unsettled, by Steven Koonin, who was Under-Secretary for Science at the Obama Department of Energy. It contains some damning analysis of climate modelling, which is summarized in this review:
The turning point in terms of becoming sceptical for Koonin was an exchange (detailed therein) he helped moderate at a symposium organised by the American Physical Society, where the climate modellers explained that their models could not replicate the past unless they decreased the strength of the forcing by gases such as carbon dioxide by about 25-30%.
As Darwall puts it:
‘Some forcings in some computer models had to be scaled down to match computer simulations to actual climate observations. But when it came to making centennial projections on which governments rely and drive climate policy, the scaling factors were removed, probably resulting in a 25 to 30 percent over-prediction of the 2100 warming.’
This really is quite scandalous, especially since there is now political pressure to restrict emissions to produce a temperature outcome based on those very models, which are clearly not fit for purpose. (Others have pointed out previously that they have no forecasting ‘skill’ and have all run hot when compared with observations since the models were run.
It is also worth noting that research by former head of CSIRO atmospheric Garth Paltridge (inter alia) using observations of rising water vapour with warming thus far has debunked the key positive feedback mechanism assumed in the models that converts benign warming into something more alarming.
The current claims of ‘climate emergency’ made by Greta and the likes of Joe Biden are driven not just by this little piece of modelling malpractice, but by the adoption of what was meant to be an extreme and unlikely emissions scenario, Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP8.5), as ‘business as usual’ prior to the Paris Conference in order to create a sense of alarm.
This has been covered in Nature:
Hausfather, Zeke, and Glen P. Peters. “Emissions–the ‘business as usual’ story is misleading.” Nature (2020): 618-620.
It has also been covered by Roger Pielke in a couple of articles in Forbes:
And Pielke has also chronicled the role of a couple of hedge fund operators (and unsuccessful 2020 Democratic presidential candidates) in this perversion:
The interesting question is how long this house of cards holds together, especially with China building the equivalent of the total installed capacity of Australian coal-fired power generation in 2020 alone.
Another very thoughtful essay Don and I certainly expect their Labor party to have problems until they wake up to their CAGW fra-d and CON trick. Just check co2 emissions DATA since 1970 or 1990.
There is nothing we can do about climate or weather or temperature by 2100 and beyond. Instead we’ll waste trillions $ for ZERO change and stand by while China, India and developing countries increase the use of fossil fuel generation and become wealthier and healthier decade by decade.
And good luck to them for using their brains and looking after the best interests of their people.
What a pity the OECD countries don’t wake up and build more reliable BASE-LOAD generators and ditch the clueless TOXIC , UNRELIABLE and dangerous S&W idiocy.
Don’s essay includes a few devious statements common to the anti-climate action aficionados. As coal used for power generation is much less than half of Australian production, and most if not all projected new mines are intended for export, it is rubbish to suggest that “ Quite a lot of people want to have their cake (abundant and cheap energy) and eat it too (save the planet).” It is not that clear cut and if you want a real example of cake eating consider the current contradiction in NSW, allowing new mines in the upper Hunter (often on prime agricultural land) whilst paying off the Chinese with $100million to not go ahead with a mine on the Liverpool plains. (None of these are related to power generation in NSW).
Another is the north/south rubbish. We can continue a quiet transition away from coal based electricity over decades while also limiting further expansion of exports. Jobs are often used as the emotional lever. The most recent coal loader in Newcastle employs hardly anyone and is run by a guy in the office in the city. Of course you need a few wharfies to tie the ships up and let them go. The current mines are running below capacity and new mines like Adani in Qld will probably destroy jobs in the Hunter. Realists can see this and are looking at options for future employment.
Also we often hear about the incredible reliability of coal fired electricity and the wonders of new super critical HELE units. Therefore it is interesting to read of the calamity yesterday when a fairly new HELE plant at Callide in Qld caught fire and took down a big chunk of the grid. No good blaming renewables for that event. Which of course raises the rarely considered fact that the very large power units now in use, while generally reliable, are a major dent in production if they fail, unlike smaller more distributed renewable supplies.
As for the politics we appear to be heading to interesting times and quite likely an election some time this year. My tip is November.
At the risk of triggering Stu (Note to Stu: I will not respond to abuse):
‘Therefore it is interesting to read of the calamity yesterday when a fairly new HELE plant at Callide in Qld caught fire and took down a big chunk of the grid. No good blaming renewables for that event.’
The explosion affected Callide C, which was commissioned in 2001. The economic life assumed in evaluating PC thermal staton i commonly 25-30 years, after which maintenance is required to extend the life. Called C was supercritical, not ultra supercritical, so not the latest HELE technology.
Note that the explosion was of hydrogen in the generators – a cautionary tale for the ‘hydrogen economy’.
The blackout in SE QLD and NE NSW was certainly not helped by the amount of renewables on the grid, though with three units affected (highly unusual) it would have strained any grid. The issue is one of reserve margins. Any grid needs to have spinning reserve equal to the largest unit on the system, plus a stationary reserve (that can be brought on line quickly) equal to the next biggest unit.
Wind and solar cannot contribute anything to reserve margins as they are not dispatchable. The greater proportion of renewables on the grid, the greater the unreliability of the system in future.
This is why evaluations must include System Levellised Cost of Energy calculations, rather than Levellised Cost of Energy for renewables that are essentially parasitic on the dispatchable generators. They thermal plant has to provide the reliability of the system, although it can also be met by load shedding (eg smelters), but that cost (and that of the single pass gas turbine back-up) should properly be charged to the renewable generators.
I did not realise Callide C was so new. You write “PC thermal stations” what does the PC mean? I am particularly interested in your comment that a coal station lasts 25 to 30 years. What happens at that point? Does it mean a complete rebuild? I see many times the comment that coal stations last 50 years is that still valid? I supposed to clarify the issue I am asking how to compare the longevity of wind and coal stations.
Despite my contesting the views of the believers I think there is no possible way of reasoning with those of the cult. A recent article on WUWT is quite enlightening https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/climate-change-alarmism-as-a-class-war/
‘PC’ means pulverised coal.
25-30 years was the assumed economic life for PC thermal stations for planning purposes, presumably because substantial maintenance costs would be concurred thereafter. You are correct – they usually end up running for much longer if they are managed well, because the marginal cost of refurbishment is economic at that point.
A caveat: these were the assumptions made by the HEC in comparing the Gordon-Below-Franklin (economic life 60 years) with any coal-fired alternative (2×30 years), and my research then was focused on the fiddles they used in their project evaluations. One was to assume the real price of coal would increase at 2% annually for 60 years, so that the low discount rate they used (4% as I recall) meant that future fuel costs were effectively discounted at only 2%. (Others argued that 8% was appropriate for public projects to not draw resources away from private investment. A colleague suggested that if coal increased at 2% real, we’d be wearing it as jewellery in 60 years!
Another was to assume only 3MWav benefit from an integrated hydro-thermal system. Lake Gordon would not have to be kept as full to cover drought, and therefore spills could be minimised in times of heavy rain. (The Gordon station has no spillway; flood releases go through the Francis turbines, but at peak load they are less efficient than at slightly underloaded – good spinning reserve by operating below peak). Of course, once Basslink was built, they have operated it in just this manner.
Wind longevity is claimed to be about 25 years, but some have been decommissioned at much less than that. And solar PV are maybe 15 years – assuming there are not major storm events (winds and hail). Neither are amenable to recycling due to composite construction.
I know someone who has written a report on Gencost. He and his co-author make the point that Gencost assumes coal stations will only last 25 years. It is clear that is not correct but what is the refurbishment cost. Do you have anything on that? I have a website, a page I will be developing models the required energy storage and then gives a cost run down to implement. The amount of energy storage that will be in fact it needed if we get anywhere near replacing fossil energy is almost beyond comprehension.
“ Any grid needs to have spinning reserve equal to the largest unit on the system, plus a stationary reserve (that can be brought on line quickly) equal to the next biggest unit.”
Really? That sounds pretty inefficient to me, but you claim to be the expert, so I take you at your word.
Have you considered other ways that reserve may be covered, e.g. hydro, batteries, flywheels, gas turbines etc? To me such alternatives sound more cost effective than coal units spinning, just in case.
Have your social science skills given you any insight into the science and engineering, even economics, of alternatives and fast changing world of power generation/storage options?
“Really? That sounds pretty inefficient to me, but you claim to be the expert, so I take you at your word”
What are the annual capacity for solar and wind? Solar might hit 40% in a sunny year, wind is much less. Sounds pretty inefficient to me, particularly when transmission lines have to be built to distributed sites, that produce nothing for more than half the year.
“ Solar might hit 40% in a sunny year, wind is much less. Sounds pretty inefficient to me”.
Mmm, but of course wind and solar units have much lower lifetime fuel costs which should be included in that calculation. And in a very large country it is quite unlikely that the sun is not shining somewhere or the wind blowing. But stick to Scomo’s “when the sun doesn’t shine” argument if it makes you feel good to get to your 40%.
But actually I have the impression coal to electricity in typical generators is maybe 40% and of course they are belching CO2 when doing that. All the pollution removal technology employed to make them cleaner all use up energy also. And don’t forget the energy to mine and transport the coal to the power station and the rehabilitation of the mine site (if it ever happens).
Read any textbook on power system engineering. They are just the prudential rules to ensure system, in case the largest generator on the system fails. The spinning reserve is usually achieved by under-loading generators by that amount. With some generators, especially hydro, that increases efficiency, because running the turbine at full discharge is slightly less efficient (kWh/cumsec) than optimal loading.
Stationary reserve can be a turbine that can be synchronised with system frequency in a minute or so – so any hydro generator or a thermal boiler at temperature but not spinning a turbine. Or a single pass gas turbine. Gas turbines are less efficient than CCGT – the reason why France has increased its GHG emissions as it has introduced more wind, because its predominantly nuclear system cannot ramp up and down quickly with wind fluctuations.
A spinning reserve provide inertia to the system – something lacking with renewables, when sudden clouds or drops in wind cause voltage or frequency fluctuations.
So if we reduce the size of the largest units, by having lots of smaller whatever type of generators, we reduce the need for those large spinning reserves. Good. I accept there are some efficiency and cost issues in that situation.
“ A spinning reserve provide inertia to the system – something lacking with renewables, when sudden clouds or drops in wind cause voltage or frequency fluctuations.”
Is that not what the battery in SA and the one going into the ACT are all about? In fact the SA one has been racking up big profits from the stabilisation work.
“very large power units now in use, while generally reliable, are a major dent in production if they fail, unlike smaller more distributed renewable supplies.”
Not too many days ago you were gloating about the reduced number of coal fired stations in Australia. Now you are claiming that as a weakness.
You mention China. You have recently been claiming that it is reasonable for China to use fossil fuel to catch up with the west. Now you want to deny them the ability to do so. Make up your mind.
You don’t see any weakness in relying on “distributed” ruinable supplies, when they are critically time and weather dependent? Get real, just once.
“ Not too many days ago you were gloating about the reduced number of coal fired stations in Australia. Now you are claiming that as a weakness.”. Not at all matey, just showing one of the many holes in your argument.
So you had no idea of the implications of your statements? Stick to coding.
And the holes in your argument?
These problems have been discussed many times before. You are too obsessed with ruinables to even wish to understand them.
All of your rhetorical hand waving does nothing more than expose your gross ignorance of the engineering problems of providing reliable continuous power even in an established system, much less your wished for congeries of solar, wind, batteries, flywheels and so much more.
Your full knowledge of those issues could be inscribed on a postage stamp with space left over, using the acronym “SFA”.
According to the Australian energy marketing operator Black and Brown coal together generated 67.44% of the electricity used on the eastern grid in 2020. As to the reliability all man-made construction breaks down. Renewable energy which you seem to think is the great saviour I don’t know from what but there you go also suffers from entropy and breakdowns. For instance at 11 AM on 5 June 2020 the maximum capacity of wind was nearly 8 GW. That amount of wind turbines as a capital cost of $16 billion. At the time mentioned the average output dropped to 0.461 GW yet no one noticed. Making a big thing out of drops in power output of any particular form of energy really shows ignorance of what happens. Wind managed to recover passing the 10% capacity factor line on 6 June 8 PM that is 33 year hours later. To think fiddling around with Australian emissions of CO2 can actually change anything is infantile nonsense. I pick wind because it’s capacity factor is higher than other forms of renewable energy so what would we need to replace just coal on average? In 2020 wind was 10% coal 67% so we need 6.7 times more wind. Wind in 2020 was about 8 GW. So we need another 54 GW of wind. The cost of that is $107 billion. That is for highly unstable power, I know we just need a bit of energy storage. To stabilise what we have and the expansion about eight Snowy Mountains 2.0 PHES might suffice. So add another $80 billion. All for what? China is building year on year far more coal power stations than Australia currently has. To pretend Australia can affect anything by changing our missions is an insane nonsense driven by religious fervour and will achieve nothing. By the way is your name Lysenko?
You are the ” infantile nonsense.”
If you do not understand what others are saying – you have no cause for comment.
It looks more as if you do not understand (or wish to deny the reality of) what others are saying.
Perhaps you could enlighten us on your qualifications as a climate scientist, so your dismissal of a long comment without addressing the detail can be judged?
Boxer, Not really. After having studied our ‘stable’ two-party system I might have enjoyed studying the transition. I guess it was a rhetorical flourish.
To Stu: ‘devious’ usually means deceptive, dishonest. You are not in a position to see into my mind, so you have done me a disservice. You could have said that I had made some statements with which you disagreed. That would have been OK.
Don, I apologise, that was a poor choice of word, and one that was aimed at the situation, not the writer. I should have used another word like misleading or errant. And yes I disagree with some of your words but most definitely not all of them. You are the wordsmith not I.
You say that I have made some ‘devious’ statements. ‘Devious’ means deceptive or dishonest. You are not in a position to see into my mind, so what you have written is simply wrong. You would have done better to say that ‘Don had made some statements with which you disagree’. I would not have quarrelled with that, but gone to see what you thought they were. And respond if I thought that would help the discussion.
Don, I apologise, that was a poor choice of word, and one that was aimed at the situation, not the writer. I should have used another word like misleading or errant. And yes I disagree with some of your words but most definitely not all of them. You are the wordsmith not I.
Excellent Don but when you talk about how much fossil energy we are using you are considerably deceived. In 2020 black coal was 50.2%, brown coal 17.24% and natural gas 6.96%. That is 73.8%. These figures come from the Australian energy marketing operator’s data. Renewables do increase but slowly year by year. Individually each form of the variable renewable energy is about equivalent to 1 large coal-fired generator. That that is an average figure the actual delivery is spasmodic. It is for this reason that I’d named my website “spasmodic energy”. We are sleepwalking into a bleak future in terms of electrical energy the problem being each individual fossil generator is quite large so the impact is large when they go. While we continue this insane idea that we can change the climate nothing will be built by private enterprise. We will be in a lot of trouble by the end of the decade. Liddell goes in 2023 and our largest station Eraring 2030 I think all by 2035 except maybe Kogan Creek. The cost is having an effect because people are using less, 10 years ago in 2011 206 TW hours was used on the eastern grid. Despite the increase in population it was in 2020 200 TW hours. The only practical emission free form of baseload energy is nuclear and what I see in the world may be it will be the saviour from our madness but not here unless our society changes. Rolls-Royce right now is looking for buyers of their small modular reactors. These provide enough energy to service a million homes. Such a unit would be built in England and shipped to Australia. Cost is $1.8 billion in UK currency and will last 60 years.
Labor has grasped the poisoned chalice of trying to save the planet brought on by the ridiculous stupid claims of the environmentalist. Let us look at the recent claim that the snowy Mountains is in a whole lot of trouble because of climate change. The claim is the vegetation is suffering from increased temperature and carbon dioxide saturation. Done I think by a Sydney University. No wonder a certain uneducated mentally deficient swedish girl is admired and looked up to by these people. She is a whole lot brighter than they are. I grew up in the country all plant life grows one hell of a lot better when things get warmer you know in the spring! At most the planet has risen in temperature by about a degree and I am sure the same would apply on average to the snowy Mountains. Lots of the foodstuffs we we eat every day is grown in intensive farming. One of the huge factors of intensive farming is to increase the CO2 content of the air. Yet these fools say otherwise. To understand this article on WUWT is instructive https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/05/23/climate-change-alarmism-as-a-class-war/.
I used to be a labor voter and prolonged to a Communist union. What changed me was the acceptance of this madness. Labor has moved away from its base rather than the welfare and life of the normal majority of people. They do anything but that. It seems to have started with the green and now every bizarre stupid idea that diminishes the Australian way of life is for them. Electricity must be dear so that the planet can be saved. Give overwhelming support to gender fluidity to the exclusion of what most of us are. Oppose Australia Day, Anzac Day tell how young that they are racist because they are white and on it goes.
I think any party who abandons the insanity being pressed on us by following the dictum that all is subservient to what the majority of Australians want and cease listening to minority pressure groups would sweep to victory. The America’s Cup effort in New Zealand had a motto “does it make the boat go faster”. Does increasing the cost of energy, destabilising family life, critical race theory, identity groups, costly efforts to change the climate, or any other madness in vogue at the moment make the boat go faster?
Thanks Don. Very good and relevant post. There’s an article on similar lines in this mornings Aus from Paul Kelly:
“Labor’s problem is known. The generational-long realignment in voting patterns in Australia has worked, so far, against federal Labor. This was apparent in the Weatherill-Emerson report into Labor’s 2019 election loss — the ALP sits on a deepening fracture between two ideological camps often hostile towards each other.
“The report says at the 2019 election the average swing towards Labor in the 20 seats with the highest portion of university graduates was 3.78 per cent while the average swing against Labor in the 20 seats with the lowest portion of university graduates and poor incomes was 4.22 per cent. Labor failed to win sufficient votes in the former to offset its losses in the latter.
“His [Morrison’s] bet is that Australian conservatism still runs deep while Labor is a progressive party betting that Australia, sometime, is heading towards a progressive majority.”
Don, on your final point, what do you think of multi-party government? Do we really want this?
My impression is that countries which rely upon loose coalitions of disparate parties are governed by the lowest common denominator. All cans just get kicked down the road. At the best of times, politics is terribly compromised by the level of horse trading and back scratching that goes on, where governing is to a large extent a self-serving game. But I get the impression that where short term alliances are formed between unrelated parties after every election, simply as a way to break an electoral deadlock, the result is incredibly mushy decision making. The process of government seems to be almost completely corrupted. Ridiculous single issue parties with very low levels of support in the community end up holding power they are not entitled to, or equipped to handle. Is this better than a balance between two dominant parties, both near to the centre, but one centre-right and the other centre-left?
Which is not to say that Labor trying to appeal to innately conservative people on one hand, and all-care-and-compassion progressives with no responsibility or loyalty on the other, is going to work. Labor’s foundation is falling apart.
Boxer, Not really. After having studied our ‘stable’ two-party system I might have enjoyed studying the transition. I guess it was a rhetorical flourish.
Oh, I think rhetorical flourish is a bit hard. The point about the fundamental conflict within the Labor party’s purpose is real, and it seems the party will split into a centre left faction or party, and the more progressive faction will fuse with the Greens.
If the Greens achieve some actual political clout, then they in turn will get the wobbles. The fundamental Greens are people of protest, not actual responsibility, so if they actually wield some clout, they will suffer the same fate as the old Australian Democrats. It may be interesting, but I hope not too damaging.
I have lengthy post from 1.56pm that seems to be stuck in moderation.
Put aside that none of your comments so far have even mentioned the subject of this thread – the choice facing Labor. What we have left is your personal obsession with solar, wind and batteries. To mis-quote some words from a bloke in the 1930s, you seem to believe that you “have seen the future and it works”. Don’s thesis is more along the lines that Labor has seen that same future, and it is not working for them.
Their (and your) problem is that too many people have looked at what you want in the future, and not been impressed. Short of Labor going full-on fascist, how do you see your future being implemented (preferably without violence)?
“ Short of Labor going full-on fascist, how do you see your future being implemented (preferably without violence)?”
Mate, everything is going in the right direction now, much to your consternation I take it, and that is with a Coalition government in Canberra and the biggest moves toward renewables and winding back coal happening in NSW which in case you have not been watching is NOT governed by Labour. What part of that picture do you not get?
What part of the weekend by-election result do YOU not get? Labor and the Coalition both went backwards, the Greens went nowhere and ON and SFF together outpolled both major parties on primary votes.
One more such victory and the major parties are ruined. Not only do you know SFA about power engineering, you are not very good at politics. Until one of the major parties (probably Labor, given their dependence on the Greens) goes full fascist, the voters still get a say.
Ps, you even spelled the party name wrongly. Labor has no room for “U”.
Yes but I got COALition right, yes. Lighten up
Run out of arguments?
PS, SD used “COALition” last Sunday.
PPS, still nothing on Labor (without room for U)?
And regarding the political element of Don’s essay and the reactions to the election result last Saturday it is worth noting the ALP has not won this seat since 1910 when they held it briefly for six months. So in short it was not really a loss. On the other hand although the Nationals “won” they did so on a quite small primary vote. It would have been interesting if it was compulsory preferential voting rather than optional. I don’t think Barilaro can take too much from the result.
In our quasi “presidential politics” world here now there are many interesting features going forward. Perhaps some of the leaders at both state and federal levels should consider standing aside for the sake of their parties. Either way my tip is that Morrison will call an election this year when he thinks he can maximise his advantage. Should Albanese be replaced it will gee up the Libs because unlike in the time of Fraser there does not seem to be a Bob Hawke on the horizon.
Nice political spin. Now spin Joel Fitzgibbon’s near death experience in the last Federal election.
Poor maintenance at Callide collide for the obvious outcome. Dividend stripping has its own reward system
Apparently a hydrogen explosion (hydrogen is used to cool the turbines). Dangerous stuff, and very difficult to handle, but the usual suspects are hot for the “Hydrogen Economy”.
Yes an example of your much vaunted HELE technology. Apparently that site has failed frequently in the last year but not as spectacularly as this year. I guess it at least proves that it is “super critical’.
With winter coming on, it might indeed prove to be “super critical” to the east coast power grid. You need to pray to Gaia for a warm winter with few clouds and lots of wind at a good steady speed.
And hope that none of those massive generators at Bayswater and Lidell don’t pack it in like Callide. But of course they are less risky as they are both sub-crtiical, in other words not “clean coal” so by definition they are “dirty coal”.
You are quite correct. For Gaia’s sake, we must close them down now, and rely on ruinables.
PS, did you intend to use the double negative?
Kim Beazley Snr was not Catholic. He was Moral Re-Armanent. But he was a good bloke.
Still no spin to offer on Joel Fitzgibbon’s near death experience in the last Federal election? Don’t worry, the entire Labor Partt hasn’t been able to either. But it is relevant to the subject of this thread, so give it a go.
I remain amazed that Fitzgibbon is still there at all after his questionable relationship with a Chinese national, while he was Minister for Defence, came to light. If you recall he was shifted from the very security sensitive portfolio. No member of the forces or public servant would have kept their security clearance (or obtained one) with that kind of close association.
Purely to cover myself legally here is one quote from The Age at the relevant time about the case.
“PRIVATE records of a Chinese-Australian businesswoman close to former defence minister Joel Fitzgibbon indicate he received substantial payments as part of a
campaign to cultivate him as an agent of political and business influence.
The confidential papers of businesswoman Helen Liu contradict claims last year by Mr Fitzgibbon and his father, former Labor MP Eric Fitzgibbon that they had no financial or business relationship with Ms Liu.
Mr Fitzgibbon resigned from Cabinet last June after it was revealed his brother, NIB Health Funds chief Mark Fitzgibbon, had used his office to lobby for defence health contracts.
T he minister’s political standing had already been weakened by his failure to disclose that he had accepted two first-class flights to China bankrolled by Ms Liu, a wealthy entrepreneur with high-level political and military contacts in Beijing. He was also renting his Canberra residence from the Liu family.
The documents obtained by The Age show Ms Liu recorded her 1997-98 payment of 850,000 Chinese yuan approximately $150,000 at the then current values to Joel Fitzgibbon under the heading “money paid including expenses and gifts”.
The same document shows Ms Liu recorded the establishment of a joint venture with the Fitzgibbon family, including reference to “Eric (Fitzgibbon) as agent.
Regular visits to China. $3 million for start up”.
Way to divert attention away from the issue. Fitzgibbon is not the only member of either Labor (no room for U) or the Coalition who seems to have been compromised by the Chinese. Nevertheless, he remains the nominated Labor member, and will probably be the candidate at the next election.
His Chinese links did not get him deselected or unelected in successive previous elections. However, much as you seem to deny it, Labor’s attitude to the coal industry gave him a close call at the most recent election.
Perhaps you can convince yourself that the electorate was suddenly horrified by his Chinese links, but you will need much more evidence to convince others.
Now, about “The Choice Facing Labor”, have you anything except red herrings to offer?
“same document shows Ms Liu recorded the establishment of a joint venture with the Fitzgibbon family, including reference to “Eric (Fitzgibbon) as agent.
Regular visits to China. $3 million for start up”
Why does this sound like the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden example. I strongly suspect that Fitzg is compromised, but it was the coal issue that got him into electoral trouble. Just as Creepy Joe was not damaged electorally (well, who really knows) by his Chinese links.
Don’t overlook his position in climate change as a factor also. There actually are voters there who are happy to continue hauling coal (from existing mines) while being concerned for the future, both jobs and climate. Remember the Nationals only pulled 31.4% of the primary vote. It is not clear cut and you can expect Scotty from marketing to figure a way to distract from the issue if possible. Maybe he will announce a giant wind farm to go with his gas generator or perhaps a huge quarantine facility at the Singleton army base. Anything is possible.
“Remember the Nationals only pulled 31.4% of the primary vote.”
And what percentages did ON and SFF get? You are dodging the issue, try to avoid your overuse of alarmist techniques.
“you can expect Scotty from marketing to figure a way to distract from the issue if possible”
As is usual, what so-called “progressives” accuse their enemy of doing is exactly what the “progressives” are actually doing.
“ Labor’s attitude to the coal industry gave him a close call at the most recent election.”
Yes, but it is a coal seat. Do we really want government based on the whims of a small number of folk in a couple of electorates? If so how do you then balance the need to keep sweet with the electors in other seats where there is a reverse view of the issue. In short it is a difficult balancing act, like most issues. This was the case in Upper Hunter where in the one electorate the state government is promoting new mines in one part while stopping them in another part at huge cost to the tax payer ($100m). This is the dilemma for both parties in the next election. So expect lots of fluff and not much action on anything, certainly from Scomo running around blessing people as he lays his sweaty hands upon them (another issue altogether – perhaps Don can write a piece on the over representation in Cabinet of god bothering Pentecostals).
“how do you then balance the need to keep sweet with the electors in other seats where there is a reverse view of the issue”
At the top of this thread is an essay on The Choice Facing Labor (no room for U). Perhaps you should read it?
“perhaps Don can write a piece on the over representation in Cabinet of god bothering Pentecostals”
Perhaps you should try to avoid religious bigotry?
And, strangely, you still have nothing of substance on The Choice Facing Labor.
“ Perhaps you should try to avoid religious bigotry?”
It is not bigotry to be concerned about a small group actively working to be over represented in the direction and decisions of government. I hope you don’t need the services of an assisted dying law anytime soon. People can believe what ever they want regarding supernatural beliefs but should not seek to impose their view on everyone else, which the major religions are very good at doing. That is not religious bigotry it is simply saying “don’t impose your rules on me”. Each to his own. Another whole debate.
“It is not bigotry to be concerned about a small group actively working to be over represented in the direction and decisions of government.”
But enough about the Greens.
BJ, come now, one mob base their views on mythology, the other (the Greens in case you can’t follow) is based on science, ie factual stuff, even if you dispute the interpretation of the scientific observations. Equating one with the other puts you in the same group as the alchemists and god botherers.
“other (the Greens in case you can’t follow) is based on science, ie factual stuff”
Sure Stu, whatever you say. If you believe that the Greens are “science based”, you will believe anything! And the reference to “factual stuff” is amusing, when their climate hysteria is essentially based on computer models full of unjustifiable assumptions.
And you are still avoiding The Choice Facing Labor.
It is relevant to the thread, so let’s look at the Greens.
Earth goddess Gaia. Check.
Holy books. The Limits to Growth. The Population Bomb. Check.
Prophets. Ehrlich, Mann, Gore, Flannery, Garnaut, et al. Check.
Acolytes. Lots. Check.
High priests. The IPCC. Check.
(Metaphorical) burnings for climate heresy. Too many to count. Check.
Need I go on?
Labor needs to choose between this pseudo-scientific claptrap and its (former) base in the rural and industrial working class. Which way do you think they should go?
More on the Greens and the clueless Adam Bandt donkey, yapping even more of his irrational, delusional nonsense.
Like their stu-pid disciples these fools will believe in anything no matter how barking mad it sounds to rational, scientific observers.
They also told us that the Morrison govt made Aussie fires worse because of their failure to reduce co2 emissions. Unbelievable + barking mad and yet they still truly believe their idiotic nonsense..
“Do we really want government based on the whims of a small number of folk in a couple of electorates? ”
Like the Greens?
So you are allergic to democracy?
You should stay at Catallaxy.
Good to see that you reject Stu’s narrow minded and bigoted views about Christians in politics. (Scan back to Stu’s comment about “perhaps Don can write a piece on the over representation in Cabinet of god bothering Pentecostals).
BJ, I see you occasionally on Catallaxy. Keep the faith.
Always do. Sparring with Stu (pid) is both fun and an intellectual exercise.
BJ being charming as always.
Stu, sanctimonious as always. Exactly how much money are you leaving to each of your grandchildren, and why?
Ooooh, struck a nerve did I? You people never cease to surprise. Now tell me how this post is offensive.
I learned it from you, with your sleazy allegations about financial interests and not caring about my grandchildren.
No response about the Green religion of Gaia? Too close to the bone?
Stu still unable to offer any comment on whether Labor (no room for U) should choose to follow the inner urban Green Slime to the fantasy left, or rejoin its former base of the rural and industrial working class.
Sad, low energy.
Here’s the choice facing Labor in a nutshell.
It’s also facing the stus of this world more than ever, too.
The denial of reality.
If only they would poke their heads outside and really observe what’s going on.
They really need to read this perfect summary of their shortcomings:
Didn’t get around to responding to this earlier, so here you go.
May 27, 2021 at 5:16 pm
Yes an example of your much vaunted HELE technology. Apparently that site has failed frequently in the last year but not as spectacularly as this year. I guess it at least proves that it is “super critical”
First, the fire/ explosion was in the turbine hall, not the boilers. Nothing to do with HELE.
Second, for your own edification, Google “wind turbine fires” and “solar panel fires”. Pot (don’t) meet kettle. The solar and wind fires were in the actual items.
BJ, a bit more on that explosion and blackout:
While our beloved wind turbines and solar panels cut their energy output after the Callide C power station incident at 2pm; the reality was that gas, liquid fuel and hydroelectricity brought Queensland’s lights back on.
Power produced by coal in Queensland was down from 4789MW at 2pm to 2822MW at 4pm, before climbing back up to 3543MW by 6pm.
Gas power was up from 241MW at 2pm to 1644MW by 6pm.
Liquid fuel jumped from 0MW at 2pm to 320MW by 6pm.
And hydroelectricity was up from 95MW at 2pm to 624MW by 6pm.
However, Palaszczuk’s renewables were nowhere to be seen. The AEMO found:
Solar power collapsed from 774MW at 2pm to just 9MW at 6pm.
Wind lurched from 79MW at 2pm, to 17MW at 3pm, then 0MW from 4-5pm, to only 33MW at 6pm.
Biomass produced about 30MW from 2-6pm.
Coal-fired power stations were meant to run constantly, not switched on and off as unreliable renewable energy waxes and wanes.
Thanks for that S&W data SD and what a disaster we have and what a dopey way of flushing billions of $ down the dunny for a guaranteed ZERO return.
But I’m sure our stu-pid blog donkeys will find a way to sleep at night. And wrecking our electricity grid and ruining our environment forever doesn’t seem to worry them at all.
So in short you are saying that the higher steam temperatures and pressures in a HELE unit have no effect on the turbine. Then why do you think they need hydrogen to cool the turbine? Just asking!
The hydrogen caused the explosion. It doesn’t matter if the steam comes from older coal fired furnaces, HELE, open or closed cycle gas, nuclear or one of those bird burning solar furnaces that alarmists see as the way of the future.
But you keep burying your head in the sand. And join the push for a (green) hydrogen economy.
The turbine is only part of the story. HELE generators apparently breakdown more often than sub-critical generators. That is the case with many technologies when you push them to extreme limits, the propensity for failure is greater. And presumably with higher temperatures and pressure the turbines themselves are also operating at extreme levels. It is true that power turbines have used hydrogen for decades (before HELE) because of its low density, high specific heat and thermal conductivity making it a superior coolant.
Here is a quote “ Neither does a major new report from The Australia Institute’s Climate & energy Program, which finds that Australia’s newest coal plants, including ‘supercritical’ or HELE generators, break down more often per gigawatt than the older ones.”
Regarding “… And join the push for a (green) hydrogen economy.” you should turn that on yourself as you are a proponent of coal power therefore a supporter of hydrogen (for cooling at the least).
Anyhow the reason we are not seeing any of the super critical HELE plants here is apparently economics.
“ Perhaps the main reason we haven’t seen ultra-supercritical technology applied more widely, and not at all in Australia, is that the technology costs 20–30% more than subcritical technology. Except in regions with very high coal costs — or very high carbon pricing — the economics simply don’t stack up.
Advanced ultra-supercritical is still in the early stages of research and development. Exotic and expensive materials are required to withstand the significant increase in temperature and pressure.”
And finally HELE is a misnomer. The second E refers to emissions and the L to LOW. None of them produce LOW emissions, lower perhaps, by a small margin but not low. The often quoted “clean coal” is a complete misnomer. If CCS is employed (none in Australia, very few in the world) they still fall short and are so far totally uneconomic.
“HELE generators apparently breakdown more often than sub-critical generators. That is the case with many technologies when you push them to extreme limits, the propensity for failure is greater.”
And your evidence is? Alarmist speculation? No! It’s the Australia Institute, aka the Ponds Institute. Reliably alarmist at all times. And aren’t you pushing for more extreme limits from solar, wind and batteries?
“turn that on yourself as you are a proponent of coal power therefore a supporter of hydrogen (for cooling at the least).”
Dumb even by your standards. The scale is completely different.
As for your rejection of HELE, fine by me. I am happy with the old technology. In case you have forgotten, I don’t share your paranoia about CO2.
Now, about The Choice Facing Labor. Do you think the party should chase the inner city Green vote, or its former base in the rural and industrial working class? Or should it follow the Shorten technique at the last election, and talk out of both sides of its mouth?
The latter seems to be based cynically on the belief that the inner city types will know the words spoken to the working class are just fluff, but then the workers have woken up to that one. Ask Bill.
Focus on the subject Stu, if you can.
“ Now, about The Choice Facing Labor. Do you think the party should chase the inner city Green vote, or its former base in the rural and industrial working class? Or should it follow the Shorten technique at the last election, and talk out of both sides of its mouth?”
As Rhett Butler said to Scarlett “frankly …. I don’t give a damn”. What I think, like all players here, matters not in the out turn of political events going forward, except perhaps collectively. Meantime don’t forget that elections are won and lost on the appeal to the 15-20% (if that) that actually change their votes. I suspect you are not in that group and if so just get over it and patiently await the result. The campaigns will be focussed on a small number of people in a small group of electorates. Your opinions here, like mine, will not matter at all.
Why are you bothering to comment on a thread about the Choice Facing Labor if you are not willing to discuss the subject? Do you find it too depressing? Or just not interested?
Somehow, I doubt that you will be changing your vote, but in the Senate I certainly will.
“ Somehow, I doubt that you will be changing your vote, but in the Senate I certainly will.”
Now you have me interested. So what is your vote changing from and to. I am sure everyone here is hanging on to hear.
We have secret voting in Australia, so as far as my vote goes, NOYFB.
You raised the subject Diddums.
Peter O’Brien at Quadrant describes Labor’s problem well:
“I had been told that Peter [Ridd] has always thought of himself as a traditional leftist academic but, if so, he must be a master of disguise, because he sounds pretty sound to me. Of course, the reality is that, just as with Warren Mundine and Mark Latham, the traditional Left has left him behind. The things that the Left used to worry about – free speech, equality of opportunity, Australian jobs, academic freedom, and so on – are so passe, and the current fashionable tropes are as much a mystery to Peter Ridd as they are to me. The word ‘crazy’ pops up frequently in his conversation.”
Here Bjorn Lomborg explains to Alan Jones the incredible ongoing waste of trillions $ for a GUARANTEED ZERO return.
And our donkeys should think about the data referenced by Jones and Lomborg and hopefully START to wake up. But I wouldn’t hold my breath.
It really is time you gave up on the “zero return” thing. At the very least the atmosphere will be cleaner by replacing coal etc with renewables and the cost of power will be much lower, not to mention the economic activity and jobs created by the transition to 21st century power sources. Try a more moderate and convincing, to your set, argument that the economic return is lower than claimed and you might have more success. Meantime as you say don’t hold your breath, you are on a losing trajectory.
“atmosphere will be cleaner by replacing coal etc with renewables and the cost of power will be much lower,”
These things might happen somewhere, but the pollution levels in western nations are already quite low.
All the things that worry you will still happen, but mostly in China and sub-saharan Africa. Out of sight, out of mind?
So when will our silly donkey start to wake up to his dirty TOXIC S&W disaster? Here Shellenberger tries to explain the disaster that DEMs + Biden are heading for as they push for more weather dependent and TOXIC S&W + 300 times the HAZARDOUS WASTE.
This is how he ends his article and I also provide the link and he just adds more common sense to the Jones and Lomborg video. It is delusional nonsense to be promoting the WEATHER DEPENDENT, TOXIC S&W disaster. And the donkey’s so called pollution has been GREENING the Earth for over 30 years, see CSIRO, NASA etc. Just read the highlighted transcript below and start to WAKE UP.
“In November, the European Union’s watchdog ruled that the European Commission had failed to fully consider why BlackRock’s investments in Chinese solar, wind, and electric cars created a financial conflict of interest in its ability to create supposedly objective environmental, social, and governance criteria for so-called “ESG” investing.
It turns out that BlackRock manipulated ESG criteria to favor solar over nuclear, even though solar requires 300 – 400 times more land than nuclear, demands 18 times more steel, and produces 300 times more hazardous waste.
The dark truth about China’s solar panel production should have been enough to force Democrats to seriously reconsider their 100% renewables agenda, but it may require another highly visible defeat in Congress to make them appreciate why increasing America’s reliance on inefficient, weather-dependent, and made-in-China energy sources is bad physics, in addition to being bad politics.”
“ solar requires 300 – 400 times more land than nuclear, demands 18 times more steel, and produces 300 times more hazardous waste.”
Oh come now. There is hazardous waste and there is hazardous waste. Show me for example where it is acceptable to store nuclear power station waste here. Apparently all around the world storage of spent fuel is being managed well enough but represents a multi generational problem to keep it safe for thousands of years.
Meantime you continue to ignore the toxic waste from conventional coal fired power stations here. Vast stores of toxic ash continue to be deposited in vast ponds around Lake Macquarie and the Hunter valley. One at Myuna has caused the local Scout camp to be permanently closed and it remains a threat to the largest Salt Water lake.
The toxic ash from Australia’s power stations comprises nearly one fifth of all waste in Australia.
But at least the inactivists here like overseas have moved on from global warming is not a problem to yes it is but no point trying to fix the problem. That is actually progress.
So Stu declines to offer an opinion on the subject of this thread, but continues to babble on about matters that have been discussed ad nauseam on other threads.
Seems to have a very limited world view.
PS, his last para is, like him, wishful thinking detached from reality.
From Alan Moran:
Hawaii Is Replacing Its Last Coal Plant With a ‘Giant Battery’—Powered by Oil.
How clever is that:
Yes SD another disaster in the making, but I’m sure our delusional blog donkey will approve and would happily recommend the same clueless weather dependent disaster for Aussies.
So BJ wrote “ So Stu declines to offer an opinion on the subject of this thread, but continues to babble on about matters that have been discussed ad nauseam on other threads.”
And then you guys go off on a tangent about power generation in Hawaii, but it seems he feels that is different. Not surprising at all really given his inconsistency on everything else. Quite funny really.
You decline to comment on The Choice Facing
Labor because what you “think, like all players here, matters not in the out turn of political events going forward, except perhaps collectively”, yet you also claim that individual action on climate change is not useful, only (multi national) action.
Perhaps you should also decline to comment on climate change? For the sake of consistency?
BJ is, as always, completely missing the point.
Qnd your point is?
That you rubbished me for posting something unrelated to the topic but readily accept such postings from your mates with no such comment.
Poor obtuse stu can’t get that when all LW govts go down the catastrophe belief pathway and supply the most ridiculous of solutions, that there is nothing related in either their thinking or actions.
I suppose when you are so dumb you need that sort of logic to be able to exist.
I was interacting with you, not Neville.
Despite your frequent feather brained attempts to link me with Neville’s comments, I rarely if ever respond to them.
JFC are you really that slow. Here again is what I wrote “ That you rubbished me for posting something unrelated to the topic but readily accept such postings from your mates with no such comment.”. It is not about linking you to Neville’s quotes it is about you being totally one-sided. So just give up. STFU
Poor Stuey has the sads. He, of course, is not in the least one sided. Just ask him, he’ll tell you.
PS, read the first sentence, about “interacting”.
The choice facing OZ Labor as we move towards the next FED election is something we can all speculate about.
But what about the choice facing the EU members as they follow the Brexit drama and the consequences.
Now Switzerland has walked away from further EU talks after 7 long and tedious years of yapping with the EU bureaucrats.
Let’s hope that Nigel Farage is correct and this dopey monstrosity unravels over the next ten years.
Here’s the choice facing Labor.
But like all the obtuse, blind and stu-pid, they fail to get it:
“UNITED NATIONS (AP) _ A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.”
And the choice facing the west likewise.
But we are all too stupid to see it:
Not all of us. Just our “leaders, “influencers”, and the sheeple who follow them.
SD you beat me AGAIN to another top post from Jo, but your UN prediction of monster inundation from SLR IF we hadn’t fixed co2 emissions rise by 2000 is just more proof of the corruption + delusions of the L W UN extremists.
And stu-pid OECD countries are wasting trillions $ on their NON PROBLEM while China and developing countries are happily increasing co2 emissions to record levels.
And our stu-pid blog donkeys BELIEVE every word of their new secular religion. IOW no data or evidence just a fanatical belief.
OH and no sign of any dangerous SLR at all.
Germany certainly needs all the Russian GAS that they can get. ASAP.
Very cold spring temps AGAIN.
Neville and BJ,
When are the woke gonna wake?
The latest BOM data for ENSO is neutral and slightly more hopeful for a negative IOD for winter, spring. Who knows?
Next update 15 th June.
Neville, as long as we don’t get any of those positive IODs again for a while.
I’ve got all my fire trails ready but would you believe, the clowns in charge of bushfire control won’t let me strike a match even though it is perfect conditions for cool burning.
You would think that after Binna Burra was destroyed recently, they would be right onto the obvious solution.
I even got an Aboriginal environmental fire control expert out to see if he could assist but so far, nothing.
The Sir Humphreys have taken over.
I might have to put out a request for arsonists.
Good article in the Spectator last week, about The Choice Facing Labor after the by-election.