On 20/09/2021 1:20 pm, Rod Speed wrote:
> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Phil Allison wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **Who gives fuck? Our PM is an insignificant
>>>>>>>>>>>> shit-for-brains, who is
>>>>>>>>>>>> incapable of organising a piss-up in a brewery.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** That that describes the TW ratbag  quite well.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   > My opinion: Biden was a poor choice as POTUS.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** Massive understatement
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   >Too old. HOWEVER, there  was a worse choice for POTUS:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/every-time-that-donald-trump-couldnt-remember-someones-name
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** Beware TOXIC web site run by even worse ratbags than TW.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> **We are or were, somewhat strategically important. Our PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> is the most
>>>>>>>>>>>> insignificant, incompetent boob ever to inhabit the office.
>>>>>>>>>>>> And yes,
>>>>>>>>>>>> that idiot, Tony Abbott is on the same list. Arguably,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Scummo is worse.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ** For the uninformed:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1.   TW is totally *besotted* with AGW theory, has been for
>>>>>>>>>>> two decades.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **"besotted", "for two decades"? Try FIVE decades. I've been
>>>>>>>>>> reading everything I can get my hands on about AGW theory
>>>>>>>>>> since the early 1970s. It was first postulated by my favourite
>>>>>>>>>> mathematician, Fourier, back in the first half of the 19th
>>>>>>>>>> century. That hypothesis was confirmed by Arrhenius, before
>>>>>>>>>> the end of the 19th century. Despite more than 100 years of
>>>>>>>>>> trying, deniers (like Abbott, Scummo, Bolt, Kelly, Jones,
>>>>>>>>>> Murdoch, Trump, et al) of AGW theory have been unable to prove
>>>>>>>>>> Arrhenius wrong. AGW theory is solid. If you wish to debate
>>>>>>>>>> the subject with me, I am always ready.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2.   The PM and former PM Abbot are not, like most sane people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **Both Scummo and Abbott are religious frutcakes. They both
>>>>>>>>>> believe that there is an invisible monster (aka: God), who
>>>>>>>>>> lives in the sky and performs magic tricks. At NO TIME, in the
>>>>>>>>>> entire history of humanity, has there been any verifiable
>>>>>>>>>> evidence to show that such a monster exists, or has ever
>>>>>>>>>> existed. ANY person who subscribes to such beliefs is clearly
>>>>>>>>>> delusional. If you feel that such a monster exists, then you
>>>>>>>>>> need to seek psycho-therapy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 3.   So he has an overwhelming need to hate them -  just to
>>>>>>>>>>> keep face.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **"Hate"? No. Abbott and Scummo are clearly and provably
>>>>>>>>>> incapable of doing the job as PM of Australia. Both fucked up
>>>>>>>>>> badly. I don't "hate" them. I am, however, profoundly
>>>>>>>>>> disappointed in those morons who kept them in government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 4.   TW  is a poster boy for the Dunning Kruger effect (
>>>>>>>>>>> Google it)
>>>>>>>>>>> 5.   TW cannot justify any of his extreme ideas, not one.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> **What "extreme ideas" do you refer to? AGW theory? You're on
>>>>>>>>>> VERY thin ice there. Feel free to discuss the issue with me.
>>>>>>>>>> In the mean time, spend a little effort here:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> www.ippc.ch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with all that shit is that even if it is true,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no "if".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope. Correct.
>>>>>
>>>>> We'll see...
>>>
>>>> There is no "we'll see'. We are already seeing it.
>>>
>>> No we are not with your hysterical claim about 60C
>>
>> **"WE" won't see 60 degree C heatwave days, but those who come after
>> us will.
>
> That remains to be seen given that they weren't
> seen when we last saw CO2 levels of 600 ppm.

**I will ask again:

* When were CO2 levels at 600ppm?
* What was the average temperature of the planet?
* Cite.

>
>>> We haven't even seen england returning to the
>>> climate that was there when the romans were
>>> there and clearly civilisation survived that fine.
>>
>> Are you STILL blathering on about a bunch of drunken Italians, in an
>> insignificant corner of the planet?
>
> That wasn’t just an isolated example of local climate
> change, neither were the ice ages or greenland when
> the vikings chose to colonise there.

**Then cite your evidence to show that the effect was planet-wide.
Northern AND Southern hemispheres.

>
>>>>>>>> Really smart guys have been studying this stuff for a very long
>>>>>>>> time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> It wasn’t that long ago those same people were
>>>>>>> claiming we were seeing global cooling.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fact.
>>>>
>>>> Then YOU need to cite where "those same people (who are studying AGW
>>>> theory) were claiming we were seeing global cooling".
>>>>
>>>> The SAME people. YOUR claim. Support it with evidence.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>> The first para from YOUR cite:
>
>> "Global cooling was a conjecture,
>
> So is AGW

**Umm, no. AGW theory was first proposed by Fourier. It was proven by
Arrhenius. That proof has NEVER been disproven. Not once, not ever. If
you think that Arrhenius is wrong, then post your proof.

>
>> especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling
>
> It wasn’t just about imminent, some or the scientists
> stated that we had actually seen cooling since 1940
> and that that was continuing.

**I just cited YOUR evidence you boob. You're arguing with your own cite!

>
>> of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation,
>
> Just like your hysterical claims about 60C temps.

**Again: You're arguing with your own cite.

>
>> due to the cooling effects of aerosols and orbital forcing. Some press
>> reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling;
>
> Not just press reports, by the scientists of the day too.

**Cite which CLIMATE SCIENTISTS made such claims.

>
>> these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the
>> time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced
>> greenhouse effect.[1]"
>
> Plenty of scientists said that too, it wasn’t just the press.

**Cite which CLIMATE SCIENTISTS made such claims.

Do try to stop arguing with your own cite.

>
>> 'Global cooling' was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.
>
> That remains to be seen too. We do know
> that we do get ice ages periodically.

**We DID. No argument from me.

Tell me: What caused those ice ages?

Take as much time as you need to explain.

>
>> Since Arrhenius proved the connection between CO2 and rising
>> temperatures,
>
> But couldn’t explain why we didn’t see anything
> special average temperature wise when the CO2
> level was over 600ppm.

**Despite repeated requests, you have:

* Failed to tell us when this 600ppm event occurred.
* Failed to tell us what the average temperature of the planet was.
* Failed to present a cite to validate your claim.

>
>> no climate scientist has bought into your bullshit.
>
> It isn't my bullshit and hardly any climate scientist is
> actually stupid enough to run your line about 60C

**Oh really. When you look at these graphs, explain what magical,
mysterious mechanism will cause temperatures to suddenly stop rising:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:Satellite_Temperatures.png

So, what will this magical mechanism be? You claim to know more than
every climate scientist on the planet. A Nobel Prize awaits.

You may place your trust in Alan Jones ScoMo, Tony Abbott, the other
deniers and magic. Me? I don't believe in magic, religion or any other
gobbledegook. Just science.

>
>>>>>> The guys who were babbling on about 'global cooling' were the
>>>>>> imaginative writers of Time Magazine:
>
>>>>> Bullshit. That was just reporting what the others were rabbiting on
>>>>> about.
>
>>>> No. Time Magazine is not a scientific publication of note.
>
>>> There was in fact a hell of a lot more claiming that than one time
>>> article.
>>> It was in fact just reporting on what they were claiming.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>>
>> Who is "they"?
>
> The scientists of the day. including the U.S. National Academy of
> Sciences (NAS)

**Which scientists of the day? Who is "they"?

>
>> A bunch of idiots? Not interested in what idiots think about AGW.
>
> Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?
>
>>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
>>>>>
>>>>>> Time Magazine is not and has never been a scientific journal of
>>>>>> note. It is as credible, on matters of science, approximately as
>>>>>> credible as a Murdoch publication. Which is to say: Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>>>  NONE of the peer-reviewed science journals published such rubbish.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> Then present your evidence.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>>>>>> As I stated before:
>>>
>>>>>> Arrhenius proved that rising CO2 levels led to higher average
>>>>>> temperatures more than 100 years ago.
>>>>>
>>>>> How odd that with the massive rise in CO2 levels that we have seen,
>>>>> the change in average temperatures has been barely measurable
>>>>> and haven't returned to what the romans saw in england etc.
>>>
>>>> What the fuck are you smoking. I don't give a fuck about weather
>>>> conditions in some insignificant corner of the planet was experiencing.
>>>
>>> It wasn’t just there or in greenland.
>>
>> And yet, you blather on about a bunch of drunken Italians in England.
>
> Because that is the evidence of significantly higher temperatures
> than now which not only didn’t produce any tipping point, actually
> improved things for civilisation at that time and we didn’t see any
> 60C heatwaves or the decimation of all flora and fauna either.

**Wrong. Temperatures are higher today than at any time in human
history. Including the time when a bunch of drunken Italians were
wandering around Europe.

>
>>>> You're talking about a place half the size of Victoria, for fuck's
>>>> sake. Climatology is concerned with AVERAGE climate conditions on a
>>>> planet-wide scale. To put that into perspective, England represents
>>>> 1/4000th the surface area of this planet. Four fifths of fuck-all.
>>>>
>>>> 1.1 degrees C AVERAGE temperature rise is both measurable and
>>>> significant.
>>>
>>> Pity it was more than that when the romans were in england and the
>>> vikings in greenland.
>>
>> **Again: Local climate effects are not the issue. Planet-wide climate is:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>>
>> "That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the
>> Greek climate was basically the same then as around 2000."
>
>> Our climate is warmer today, than it was in 2000.
>
> Climate varys, that’s no news.

**Our climate is in a warming TREND.

>
>> Therefore, the temporary, local warming back then, was cooler than it
>> is today.
>
> Not in england.

**Again: 1/400th of the planet's surface.

>
>>>> Here is a record of temperatures for the past 2,000 years.
>>>
>>> Pity about before that.
>>>
>>>> Planet-wide, NOT a minuscule 1/4000th section of the planet.
>
> More of your flagrant dishonesty given that
>
>    The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
>    period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

**From YOUR cite:

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

>
>>>>>> NOT ONCE, in the intervening 120-odd years, has any credible
>>>>>> evidence been put forward to disprove Arrhenius' theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I just stated blows it completely out of the fucking water.
>>>>
>>>> **How? You cite a bunch of drunken Italians planting grapes as
>>>> evidence of something?
>>>>
>>>> You're kidding.
>>>
>>> Keep this shit up and you will be ignored.
>>
>> **Oh dear. You have me scared now.
>>
>>>
>>>>>> If you think you can, then you may be eligible for a Nobel Prize,
>>>>>> like the one that Arrhenius won.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Over to you: Present your evidence that every single climate
>>>>>> scientist on the planet is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> That claim is pure bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> Nup. Fact:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect
>>>
>>> Pity about
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
>
>>>>>>>> AGW theory is solid and proven, both experimentally and
>>>>>>>> observation wise.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Easy to claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it's easy to claim. The evidence is utterly and
>>>>>> completely overwhelming.
>>>>>
>>>>> More bullshit with the fact that the average temperatures have
>>>>> done nothing even remotely like what the CO2 levels have done.
>>>>
>>>> **Wrong:
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Take close note of the fact that EVERY time CO2 levels rise,
>>>> temperatures rise in concert. EVERY SINGLE TIME.
>>>
>>> Not true about the time when its was well over 600ppm
>>
>> **OK. When did that occur?
>> What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were
>> that high?
>>
>> Cite please.

**OK. When did that occur?
What was the average temperature of the planet when CO2 levels were
that high?

>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Sometimes, CO2 levels lead the rise and sometimes they lag.
>>>> Whichever way it happens, the two events are closely linked.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> the world worked fine when the romans were growing
>>>>>>>>> grapes in england and the vikings were in greenland
>>>>>>>>> and clearly will work fine again if we see that again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Provided you have property in Greenland, maybe.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The romans didn’t need that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Greenland?
>>>>>
>>>>> In europe.
>>>>
>>>> Then stop babbling on about Greenland. I still don't know why you
>>>> are babbling on about a bunch of drunken Italians growing grapes in
>>>> an insignificant corner of the planet, but I guess it means
>>>> something to you.
>>>
>>> It’s the evidence that average temps were much higher then
>>> and we survived that fine.
>>
>> **It's evidence that average temps were somewhat COOLER than they were
>> today.
>
> Not in the roman warm period they weren't.

**From YOUR cite:

"That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the Greek
climate was basically the same then as around 2000."

>
>>>>>> First I heard about that. Grapes are grown all over the place.
>>>>>> Including Australia. They've been grown in England for many
>>>>>> hundreds of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> But at nothing like the level the romans did in england.
>>>>
>>>> **Again: Who gives a fuck what drunken Italians were doing a couple
>>>> of thousand years ago in an insignificant corner of the planet?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am unsurprised that the Romans planted grape vines. They were
>>>>>> partial to the odd glass/jug of wine.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the climate in england then made that very viable.
>>>>
>>>> **OK.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then it later wasn’t.
>>>>
>>>> **OK.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said: What happened in an insignificant corner of the planet
>>>> a couple of thousand years ago, is irrelevant.
>>>
>>> Not when it’s the evidence of much warmer global temps than now.
>>
>> **Incorrect:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>>
>> "That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the
>> Greek climate was basically the same then as around 2000."
>>
>>>
>>>> Just throwing it out there, but the possible reason why the Poms
>>>> stopped growing grapes, is because the drunken Italians left and the
>>>> Poms went back to beer. And, if you've ever tasted Pommy wines,
>>>> you'll understand why the Poms drink beer.
>>>
>>> Because the climate there is much cooler now than when the romans
>>> were there.
>>
>> **Incorrect:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>>
>> "That and other literary fragments from the time confirm that the
>> Greek climate was basically the same then as around 2000."
>
> Pity about
>
>    The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
>    period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic
>
>>>>>>>> However, if you think that the odd heatwave of 60 degrees C in
>>>>>>>> Victoria is a good thing,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That wasn’t seen then and there is no reason
>>>>>>> to believe that it would happen now.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Now"? Nope. In  a 100 or so years? As we rapidly approach the
>>>>>> 'tipping point',
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no evidence of any tipping point.
>>>>
>>>> That's because we have not reached it yet.
>>>
>>> But no evidence that there is any tipping point given that
>>> that wasn’t see when the romans were growing much
>>> better wine in england than is possible now and the
>>> vikings were growing much more in greenland than
>>> is possible now.
>>
>> **That's because CO2 was not responsible for the temporary warming
>> experienced back when the drunken Italians were wandering around
>> Europe. It is not known with any precision why the warming occurred
>> back then.
>
> Corse it is, climate varys, stupid. We even have ice ages and little ice
> ages at times.

**And, here's the thing:

* We KNOW why the planet is warming right now. CO2 levels. There is no
other valid explantion.

>
>>>> However, there is evidence that the tipping point is being approached:
>>>
>>> Bullshit there is.
>>
>> **OK. You tell me:
>>
>> What magical mechanism exists to cause the present warming to cease?
>
> Same one that produces ice ages and little ice ages
> and what produced the signicant drop in temps
> post 1940, natural variation in world climate.

**And YOU need to tell us what magical mechanism will do that. We know
why temperatures were cooler from the 1940s through to the 1970s -
Atmospheric pollution. Ironically, pollution controls on automobiles and
industry have caused global warming to accelerate.

>
>> Take as much time and space as you need to respond.
>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/massive-craters-in-siberia-are-exploding-into-existence-whats-causing-them
>>>>
>>>
>>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>>
>> **The Poms are good at beer and crap at wine. It's a cultural thing,
>> not a climate thing. The drunken Italians prefer their own particular
>> crap wine. The French, Aussies and Americans are best at making decent
>> wine. Sometimes the Germans do a good drop. And the Kiwis. The Poms?
>> Nup. Never.
>
> They did during the roman warm period.

**You have no taste. The Poms have NEVER produced decent wine.

>
>>>> As you are no doubt aware, methane is around 20 TIMES more potent as
>>>> a GHG than CO2. There are billions of Tonnes of CO2 in permafrost
>>>> regions. As the methane is released, then greenhouse effects will
>>>> increase. This will lead to more warming and more methane release.
>>>> Allied with this, will be the release of CO2 from the oceans, as the
>>>> oceans warm further. At some point, the effect will be impossible to
>>>> reverse. Then we will be fucked.
>>>
>>> How odd that that didn’t happen when the romans were growing
>>> much better wine in england than is possible now and the vikings
>>> were growing much more in greenland than is possible now
>>
>> **And once more: A LOCALISED climate change
>
> It wasn’t.
>
>    The Roman Warm Period, or Roman Climatic Optimum, was a
>    period of unusually-warm weather in Europe and the North Atlantic
>
>> is not a planet-wide one.
>
> The change in climate seen lately isn't either.

**Yeah, it is.

>
>>>>>> it is absolutely possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> How odd that that never happened even when the
>>>>> CO2 levels were much higher than they are now.
>>>
>>>> You really have done zero research, haven't you? NOT ONE TEENY TINY
>>>> BIT. Look at this:
>>>
>>> Don’t need to, that’s what I had researched.
>>
>> You not only have to research more, but you need to read your own
>> damned cites.
>
> You in spades with the roman warm period and global cooling.

**You may continue to use a localised climate variation to allow
yourself to continue to deny science, if that's what floats you boat.
However, until you explain the following:

* Why the warming period occurred.
* What will cause the present warming trend to reverse.

Then you are in deep shit. The ONLY known cause of the present warming
is due to the influence of excessive CO2 levels. Even Solar flux is
somewhat lower in the present cycle. When the Solar cycles resume, we
can expect the warming to accelerate. That may occur on the next cycle,
or in a hundred cycles. No one knows.

>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> CO2 levels were estimated to be thousands of ppm 50 million years ago.
>>>
>>> What I was referring to.
>>
>> **Points:
>>
>> * Humans didn't exist back then.
>
> Irrelevant. Clearly that was natural variation in climate.
>
>> * It was MUCH hotter back then.
>
> But didn’t see no flora and fauna as you hysterically claimed.

**You don't read so good. The flora and fauna that we eat.

>
>>>>>>>> then you are nuts. NOTHING survives 60 degrees C days.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> More mindless bullshit and you are thrashing yet another straw man.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you explain what flora and fauna survives 60 degree C days.
>>>>>
>>>>> Don’t need to, we didn’t see 60 degree C days when the CO2 levels
>>>>> were much higher than they are today. Its just your silly straw man.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, that is bullshit:
>>>
>>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>>
>> **Cite.
>>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>>
>>>> I hasten to add that no human was alive when CO2 levels and temps
>>>> were that high.
>>>
>>> But plenty of flora and fauna were when the CO2 level was
>>> twice what it is now.
>>
>> **And it was MUCH hotter. Tell me: How long would it take for humans
>> to evolve to deal with temperatures that high?
>
> They don’t need to, we have invented funky stuff like air conditioning.

**Oh well then, that's just fine. What about the poor buggers who don't
have air con? Dunno about yours, but my air con is rated to operate at
temperatures lower than 55 degrees C. Beyond that, it doesn't work. So,
when I need it the most, it won't work.

>
>> How long would it take to develop crops and animals to survive those
>> temps?
>
> Again, they survived fine when it was much hotter than it is now.

**Points:
* It wasn't hotter then.
* You don't know which plants survived and which did not.

>
>>>>>>>>> No need for any hysteria or shutting down anything.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Indeed. We just stop using coal and other fossil fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>> That shutting down the use of coal and fossil fuels.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No point in doing anything that stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Burning fossil fuels is causing the temperature of the planet to
>>>>>> rise at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past
>>>>>> million years.
>>>>>
>>>>> Pity we didn’t see 60C even when the CO2
>>>>> levels were much higher than they are now.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong:
>>>
>>> Nope. We didn’t see 60C days when the CO2 levels were 600 ppm
>>
>> **Cite.

**Cite.

>>
>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian#/media/File:All_palaeotemps.svg
>>>
>>>> That said, it is correct to say that CO2 levels are higher today
>>>> than at any time in (at least) the past million years. Same with
>>>> temperatures.
>>>
>>> Pity that there was plenty of flora and fauna around well before that.
>>
>> **Could humans eat it?
>
> Obviously the fauna could.
>
>> Could we survive such temperatures?
>
> Corse we could given that we have invented air conditioning.

**See above.

>
>>>>>>>> There are lots of viable alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> No need for them.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's no need to risk our civilisation by burning fossil fuels,
>>>>>> as there are viable alternatives.
>>>>>
>>>>> You stupidly refuse the much more viable alternative, nukes.
>>>
>>>> IF the morons running this country decided TODAY, to build a nuke,
>>>> it would not be generating power for 20 years.
>>>
>>> That’s bullshit, the chinese build them much quicker than that.
>>
>> **Points:
>>
>> * We are not likely to buy a Chinese reactor anytime soon.
>
> But that shows it can be done.

**BY THE CHINESE. Not by anyone else.

>
>> * Would you trust a Chinese reactor?
>
> Irrelevant, that shows that its perfectly possible.

**Not by anyone who isn't Chinese.

>
>>>> In 20 years, we could fill a tiny corner of SA, WA and NT with solar
>>>> PV and generate enough power to satisfy the entire planet's needs
>>>> for electricity.
>>>
>>> But no viable way of getting it to the rest of the world.
>>
>> **Utter bullshit. We can:
>>
>> * Use HVDC cable to the coast.
>> * Send power via undersea HVDC cable.
>
> Doesn’t work to supply the entire world.

**Doesn't have to.

>
>> * Convert electricity to H2 and freight it to all over the joint.
>
> Stupid way to do things instead of using nukes where the power is needed.

**Why? There is this:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/japans-big-bet-on-hydrogen-could-revolutionize-the-energy-market-11623607695

Last time I looked, Japan was the planet's 3rd largest economy.

>
>> However, my point was a thought experiment (mostly), since we have no
>> politicians in this country capable of independent thought,
>
> Politicians are irrelevant to stuff like that. They
> didn’t produce planes, ships, cars, etc etc etc.

**They are abosolutely relevant when we have morons like Scummo peddling
coal, gas and anything that isn't renewables.

>
>> nor scientific knowledge and they can't think past the next election
>> anyway. However, we do have a couple of entrepreneurs who want to make
>> a difference.
>
> Who wont in fact do anything of the sort that way.

**Bullshit:

https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/

>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> We could be an energy exporter.
>>>
>>> Not even to singapore, makes much more
>>> sense to have more nukes there instead.
>
>> **We'll see:
>
> It flop, just like the stupid tidal power systems all have.

**Why do you think that?

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

>
>> https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/monster-solar-farm-backed-by-atlassian-founder-about-to-get-significantly-bigger-20210820-p58kpm.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Fortunately, we have some forward thinking entrepreneurs in this
>>>> country:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/northern-territory-to-become-home-to-the-worlds-largest-solar-farm/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Taint gunna happen, you watch.
>>
>> **We'll see.
>>
>>