JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Another meaningless survey shows 4 in 5 Australians want “clean energy” (if someone else pays)

Yet again, it’s another mindless apple-pie-survey produced to fog the debate

Poll, Australia, Climate change, renewables, willingness to pay, Sept 2017.

Most Australians don’t want to pay anything more for renewable power.

Four in five (78%) said Yes: the Australian government should introduce a new Clean Energy Target to encourage the construction of new clean energy sources in Australia.” — The Australia Institute

If we ask people if they’d like free/cheap/clean stuff, they say “yes”. If we ask them how much they want to pay for renewables, 62% say “N.o.t.h.i.n.g”. Which is why the Australia Institute didn’t ask them.

They also didn’t ask whether voters would change their vote on this issue, because we already know, time after time, that voters rate climate change last on their list of priorities. You can bet the Australia Institute would have asked that question if they thought the public would give the right answer, instead they surely know that people vote for jobs, to lower the cost of living and to have a strong economy instead of shipping our manufacturing industry to China in a sacrificial quest to change the weather.

So many other, better, surveys show the lie behind this one

Fully 54% of Australians are skeptics of man-made global warming, and 80% don’t donate to environmental causes or change their votes for it. Even a sympathetic Lowy poll showed 55% of Australians don’t want to pay for the environment. Most Australians say that mankind is not main driver of the climate. Online, skeptics rule the polls. Which country has the most skeptics? Australia tops that survey. Why are most Liberal politicians such patsies for this debate?

All over the world voters don’t want to pay

In the UK half of Brits don’t want to pay a cent on changing the climate. In the US 42% of US adults don’t want to pay even $12 a year to stop climate change — that’s one piddling dollar a month. (Has anyone seen a Canadian, New Zealand or EU survey? Please let me know.)

So instead of useful information, we get headlines to pressure Turnbull into thinking that 78% of voters want him to introduce the Clean Energy Target that he is considering backing away from. Will he be fooled? My bet is that he will wipe the words “Clean Energy” out of the title to get his “backbenchers” off his back and to avoid igniting boiling fury among Coalition voters. But Turnbull will find another way to subsidize the Green Blob to keep them from calling him names. That’s how he works. He brought in an emissions trading scheme and carbon tax by stealth — calling it a “safeguard mechanism” buried in fine print. The “environment” is so toxic for voters who are not part of the eco-religious left. A supposedly centre-right leader has to hide the money and power behind innocuous language.

The problem for Turnbull is that Australians have been systematically misinformed about the costs of the forced renewables transition, so at any point, a ticking time bomb could go off when they find out how much intermittent, unreliable wind and solar panels cost.

We need a survey to ask Australians how many cents per kilowatt hour wind and solar are subsidized? What percentage could say 8 – 9c KWhr? How many would also know what the wholesale price of coal fired electricity is? (It’s 3 – 4c/KWhr). Those surveys would demonstrate how immature, underdone and pathetic our national debate has been on this topic. Those surveys, and the ignorance of the public on such basic questions, would also show the true value of the ABC.

From The Australia Institute:

Respondents were also asked what kind of generation should be supported by a new Clean Energy Target. Respondents could select all that applied.

  • 81% said the CET should build renewables like wind and solar.
  • Only 27% selected gas fired power and only 16% selected coal fired power.
  • Respondents selected 1.33 on average.
  • Amongst voting groups, 79% of LNP voters selected renewables, more than double gas (37%) and triple coal (24%), while 68% of One Nation voters selected renewables, again much higher than gas (24%) and coal (23%).

BACKGROUND INFO

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (66 votes cast)
Another meaningless survey shows 4 in 5 Australians want "clean energy" (if someone else pays), 9.4 out of 10 based on 66 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/yb52dwa6

142 comments to Another meaningless survey shows 4 in 5 Australians want “clean energy” (if someone else pays)

  • #
    Dennis

    Another meaningless survey.

    Right!

    141

    • #

      Meaningless – it – ain’t. Like Cook’s-cook-the-books survey.

      http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/archives/08-2014

      62

      • #

        Red Thumbs should read the link by Jose Duarte
        -and weep.

        40

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          Beth,
          Jose Duarte is very good for social\political matters! For actual ‘Science’ (desperate attempt to falsify yourself); try R.P.Feynman:

          The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool….
          ———————————-
          the scientific spirit of adventure — the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it — the humility of the intellect.

          All the best!-will-

          31

  • #
    Dennis

    How about;

    Are you happy paying world’s highest electricity pricing.

    171

    • #
      robert rosicka

      I think that statement the other day that said $60,000,000,000 spent to change the worlds temps by 0 degrees should be turned into a question for them .
      Even the young and gullible know money .

      241

  • #
    robert rosicka

    I thought I read somewhere else that this survey targeted the under 30′s , which if the case is biased to the brainwashed .

    202

  • #
    Tdef

    Fog is right. What debate? Disagreement is not allowed. This is just Himmler quality propaganda.

    141

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘The Australia Institute conducted a national survey of 1,421 Australians through Research Now…’

    Push polling.

    112

  • #

    There are lies, damn lies and statistics. So much of all of that when it comes to the warming worriers.

    I just got back from an amazing global warming gathering; around 8000+ motorbikes at San Remo for the 2017 Blessing of the Bikes. I think my eyes will be hanging out by the time I finish editing all the photos and video, and writing up the story. But what a day, a Hog at full throttle will cause a greenie to curl up into a simpering ball, a thousand will cause them to spontaneously combust, which is probably why there were none there.

    171

    • #

      to get clean free energy one would have to either walk out into the sunshine or open the curtains or some other very difficult tactical move probably beyond us modern types

      10

  • #

    The trouble with a survey like this is that everyone oh sorry, 97% of people believe that electricity is just electricity, and it’s all the same no matter where it comes from, because, after all, it just comes out of the proverbial hole in the wall.

    No one knows that the renewables of choice, wind and solar CANNOT ever provide power on the same scale, reliability, and availability that the traditional methods of power generation (eg coal fired power) have provided it, and therein lies the whole source of the problem. Because it comes out of the same hole, and is connected to the same grid, (even though 75 to 80% the power at that grid is coal fired power) they have the impression it is just the same, because power is always there.

    Until people are aware of the fact that it is not the same, then they will always vote for renewables, no matter what, and when asked, out of typical political correctness, and not wanting to rock the boat, they’ll just say ….. Yep! no matter what they may privately think.

    And they don’t even want to know, because the supposed problem is one that they think does not even exist.

    The renewables proponents, and the proposers and constructors will NEVER tell you, and if any coal fired power entity, or supporter, does try to say anything, the typical response (from the loudest renewable supporting voices) would just reply, “well, they would say that wouldn’t they.”

    So, no one knows.

    Hence, no problem.

    The only time it will ever become a problem is when coal fired power actually is removed from the grid, and that’ll be too late then.

    Tony.

    361

    • #
      Deplorable Lord Jim

      They don’t know because politicians (the majority captured by global warming alarmism and virtue signaling) do not do their job.

      101

    • #
      Craig

      Tony,

      Take baseload coal away entirely, how stable does the grid now become and how frequent would black or brown outs become?

      80

      • #

        The Base Load coal fired component is between 75 and 80%. Gas fired is around 5 to 8%, Hydro is around the same and Wind is around 7.3%. (That 7.3% is of the Base Load component only, because when it is the normal average daily power, then it’s around 4 to 5% max)

        So, take away coal fired power and just leave gas, hydro and wind, and you’d have around 20 to 25% of power maximum.

        For the grid to actually operate, it requires THE LOT.

        If you only have 20 to 25% of power being generated, and the actual consumption is the normal 100%, then the grid fails totally, no matter how much power is being generated, and as to the frequency of blackouts and brownouts, it would be 100% BLACKED OUT, complete failure of the grid, no power to anyone at all, full stop.

        Tony.

        300

        • #
          AndyG55

          Even if you take away 20% or probably far less, of current coal

          The grid FAILS TOTALLY, unless gas and nuclear can be boosted.

          Renewables CANNOT provide that base load power that is used 24/7.

          173

        • #
          AndyG55

          The country is on a KNIFE EDGE when it comes to electricity supply.

          Unless some more SOLID, RELIABLE new sources are established.

          Failure is only a matter of time and circumstances.

          213

          • #
            PeterS

            Yes but as usual with thick skulls the message is only ever understood when the failure actually happens. Let’s see how many blackouts we get this summer. I’m not hoping for any but let’s be real here – if we are to get any it must hit home to people how crook things are. If that doesn’t do it then there is no hope. Meanwhile the rest of the world will be laughing at us while they are busily building large numbers of new generation coal fired power stations. The be honest the more I think about it the more I smell a rat.

            120

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Talking to another engineer from the air Force, incidentally from SA, i was saying about how the whole grid is cooked by too much unstable generating capacity.

            He looked at me, grimaced and slowly nodded, and very wearily conceded that point was correct.

            It proves the point that engineers who know their stuff and havent embraced politics, can clearly see the reality. It further proves the point CAGW is a political fix, and not based in engineering.

            20

      • #
        bobl

        Craig,
        Tony isn’t quite right, limits to his trade background I suggest. Using current infrastructure Tony is probably right, however it would be possible to have Gas provide the inertia and load the unreliables on top of that, shedding load to match supply availability. My guess is that with a baseload capability of 20% and say 10% unreliables over that (Total of 30% of full capacity) the grid could cover around 22.4% of the Average, That is Gas could be relied upon to do its 20% Hydro it’s 2% and the renewables around 5% of their Nameplate 8% or 0.4%.

        At times you would manage to get up around 25/26% but at nothing like 99.5% reliability.

        Bear in Mind though that the Load isn’t static, as a percentage of peak demand, Gas is more like 15%, so in fact at 99.5% reliability a 30% grid with 2% Hydro and 8% unreliables could sustain about 12-15% of consumers take into account maintenance and short term peaks and that drops to around 10%.

        More than likely if this was attempted, rotating load shedding would ensure that everyone had electricity a reliable 15% of the time (3.6 hours a day)

        This highlights the exact problem, unreliables can’t replace 99.5% reliable generation without huge levels of redundancy around 25:1 for Solar and 100:1 for wind. It can (in theory) be done, but the overbuild (redundancy) required to achieve legislated reliability levels makes it impractically expensive. At these levels of redundancy the CO2 debt created by building the unreliables is never repaid so in practice trying to do this will increase CO2 emissions.

        Unions and Labor governments like it though, because it represents jobs to keep continuously building infrastructure that never actually meets the need. It’s a modern version of having one worker digging holes while another fills them in. Workers are employed but nothing gets achieved – another term is “Busy work” – work with no point. It’s your and my money (in Electricity charges that goes to paying the clods digging the holes and filling them in). This Job component is what also keeps the Libs in line, to ditch it is to undermine the jobs in the noisy renewable sector.

        Indeed I can say that the proponents are actually attempting to leverage the consumer to install sufficient redundancy to make such a system work. CO2 is now just an excuse, the proponents are ideologically wedded to renewable energy – not to reducing CO2. Consumers like the idea of energy independence , that’s why they consistently favour renewable energy – The problem is that it’s not at “ANY COST”. Without confronting the cost question even I favour energy independence, but alas, I’m an Engineer and know the costs – once you know something it’s actually quite hard to unknow it.

        There is only one operator in Australia that really has any chance of achieving anything approaching 100% renewables.

        111

        • #
          Craig

          Hi bobl, so we can basically say that an ideology is going to bust my balls via my wallet no matter the grid make up from this point on. Can’t remember voting for this, anybody else?

          60

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Nope. Only way to stop it dead us make such none of the liberal, labor or green pollies get elected at next election at every level. That way we can cauterize the bleeding CAGW wound through radical political surgery…..

            10

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “There is only one operator in Australia that really has any chance of achieving anything approaching 100% renewables.”

          And just what color Unicorn is that? Perhaps “Whiter than white” (Unobtanium dioxide)!! :-)

          30

    • #
      Craig

      Thanks for the analysis Tony.

      120

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      In 1692 mass hysteria and scapegoating in Salem Massachusetts resulted in the arrest of two hundred and the murder of twenty.
      Here in Australia coal-fired power stations are under arrest and seven have so far been murdered.
      How can we pretend to live in the age of enlightenment?
      Some ruinables executive has started a discussion on Linkedin that some folks here might wish to join.

      20

    • #

      Being neither right-wing nor libertarian I’m pretty happy with the idea of regulation in the national interest. The challenge is to identify “national interest”.

      My idea is that coal should be a compulsory electricity source through most of Australia, in the national interest. Gas, another precious resource but with different adaptation, should be saved for other purposes where possible though it may well be the best option for some regions. The management of hydro should be changed so that water is released prudently, not to meet quota or other spurious needs. South Australia should be encouraged to develop its vast nuclear potential, especially in view of its geological stability, while we should refuse uranium exports to areas with questionable geology for nukes.

      It should be illegal to mainstream old fashioned niche technology like battery, solar and wind because money is a precious resource which needs to be conserved as much as soil and water; and the use of oil for mainstream power should be banned on national security grounds (because Strait of Hormuz and the naughty world in general, duh).

      There should be an annual official ceremony held in towns along the the Sydney-Gunnedah-Bowen Basin where coal is proclaimed KING and a gigantic Green Blob resembling the creeping mass in the Steve McQueen movie is burnt in effigy. (See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GODDLgM1gKo )

      I’m only joking about this last suggestion…and I’m not really joking about that.

      00

  • #
    Deplorable Lord Jim

    Majority of Australian’s do not want to pay anything or next to nothing for ‘renewables’ but politicians, the media and leftists (cloud cuckoo landers) continue to insist on them hugely.
    This is rule by the technocratic ‘elites’, not democracy.

    131

    • #
      King Geo

      A combo of “bill-shock” & the “imminent LIA” should change the state of play, assuming the latter starts soon. I say bring on the next LIA – the La Nina isn’t really strengthening this month so GC in 2017/2018 is now less likely. Just a reminder to you all that Dr David Evans did predict with his “Notch Solar Theory (mid 2014)” that the “delay” following the “2004 TSI significant fall” may result in the onset of GC ~ 2017 (delay of ~ one solar cycle), especially if it coincided with a “La Nina” event. In case you are not aware the last two LIA’s (~1645-1715 & ~ 1790-1830) followed significant falls in TSI (David Evans, 2014).

      TSI = Total Solar Irradiance

      70

    • #
      PeterS

      In other words the government is happily spending our money. Sounds to me we have another left-wing political party in government. We might as well have ALP in power – at least they are honest and open about what they stand for so we all know who we have elected, and not some fake party. In many ways it’s worse to have a fake party running the place than one that we all know where they stand.

      90

      • #
        King Geo

        Peter the “Turnbull Govt” is looking at polls like the CET Poll and reacting accordingly. If the poll showed that 28% not 78% Aussies favor the CET then they would re-open the coal-fired power stations etc etc. The fact that the CET is ludicrous, and very damaging to the Oz Economy, is not not the issue for them – it is being popular and getting re-elected that counts. If this belief in the CET continues then Oz is facing a very rim future.

        110

    • #
      bobl

      Not true, many people are willing to pay for renewables in order to off-grid or relieve the cost of government distorted energy markets, but invariably they want to own those generators.

      There aren’t too many consumers that want to pay their utility for this privilege though, most want the utility to pay them instead.

      50

  • #
    manalive

    Simply give consumers the choice on their quarterly bill, it shouldn’t be too difficult to calculate the cost of dispatchable electricity without the subsidies and additional costs due to inroads of ‘renewables’.
    Those who wish to display their planet-saving virtue and can afford it would be happy to pay the extra.
    If those surveys conducted on behalf of the rent-seekers are to be believed only a minority will choose the cheaper planet-destroying option.

    80

    • #
      Hivemind

      People in the ACT actually can elect to pay extra on their monthly power bills for nothing, I mean extra unreliables.

      10

    • #
      amortiser

      Add to that the requirement that when the renewables ran out their power is cut off. High prices and no power would likely make them think again.

      40

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Manalive, orrect me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember, a few years ago, that the power companies offered one the option of paying 4% extra to get “clean renewable energy” out of your hole in the wall, rather than that dirty coal generated stuff. We are no longer offered that option, so clearly no one took up this outstanding offer to “save the planet”.

      50

      • #
        robert rosicka

        I remember that scam very well , especially when I found out our power comes from the snowy hydro scheme .
        Very few greenies took advantage of the offer but still wonder how many people in my area got sucked in by this conn.

        20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Probably about the same proportion that purchases extra “carbon credits” from an airline.

        10

  • #

    The simple fact that many don´t get:
    Consumers need low cost energy at definitive times of the day. Capacity to cover up for unreliables has capital and operational costs, energy storage cause energy loss.
    The costs of providing a reliable energy supply whenever needed are hidden costs that must be added to the costs of unreliable energy supplies.

    111

    • #
      bobl

      Yes, 25:1 overbuild for Solar and 100:1 overbuild for Wind to get to something approaching the reliability of a steam driven turbine.

      60

  • #
    TdeF

    This is why the RET works so well!

    A secret part of your electricity bill which has pushed it through the roof and allows the politicians to claim they have no part in the outrageous ripoff from 4c kwhr to 40c kwhr. It’s not shown on your bill. It’s not a tax. It is not about carbon but fossil fuel. It’s a secret handout or your cash to other people so they can build windmills and install solar panels and charge you for the electricity they produce.

    No one would tolerate the RET if they knew what it was but Turnbull and Shorten and Di Natalie are busy with their fog, pretending it is all so complex, so difficult, so unfortunate and Turnbull is studying the problem intensely.

    Don’t take too long Malcolm. Abbott is telling the truth and talking sense again. That must be stopped. Disloyal.

    271

    • #
      bobl

      TDef here is my analogy

      Consider two Cola producers say Coca-Cola and Pepsi, one Competitor Coca- Cola – let’s call it Coke (because Coke is also ironically the common name for coking coal) has cornered the Cola Market. So the government preferring Pepsi steps in and legislates the following:-

      For every case of Coke produced (not sold) they must pay Pepsi for the equivalent cost of 2 Cases of Coke. But Pepsi doesn’t have to produce anything for Coke, they just hand over a “certificate” saying Coke may produce their case of Coke.

      In addition, Coke is prohibited legislatively from selling any Coke until Pepsi, primed with all the cash being handed over from Coke completely runs out of pepsi.

      Finally, No-one actually likes pepsi, so the government mandates that all cola shall be generically packaged so that no-one can actually specify that they want Coke and not Pepsi

      Remembering that Coke pays twice the cost of a carton of Coke to Pepsi and still has to pay for production of that case of Coke, the Cost of Coke is muliplied by 3, which of course means Pepsi, the competitor Coke is funding, is also able to charge a similar price, So not only does competitor Pepsi get the cash from Coke, it’s also able to charge 3 times the normal rate for it’s own product. Wholesalers and Retailers add in their margins which are based on the production price, adding 50% each, so the wholesale price is now 4.5 times production cost and the retail price is 6.75 times production cost.

      Now Substitute Coal Electricity at a production cost of 4c per KWh for coke and note that 6.75 x 4 is 27c per Kwh which is ironically what retail Electricity costs.

      This whole scheme has one Business subsidising its competitors like this – If the government did this to CocaCola would it even be legal?, yet we blindly accept that the exact same scheme is just dandy when the targetted business is coal fired electricity generators.

      160

      • #
        TdeF

        It is not legal. It is just law.

        The whole RET Renweable Energy (Electricity) Act 2001 is probably illegal. I doubt the law would stand up in the High Court and breaks an ancient rule that governments can force you to enrich others. It was the reason for Magna Carta. A government can raise taxes for the ordinary business of government. A government can fine. A government can charge for services.

        A government should not force you to pay somebody else for a right you already had, to generate your own power with your own power station from your own coal. For this you get nothing. Then the electricity retailers double it.

        The cunning part of this law is that no one knows it exists. The ‘targets’ are furphies, added later to confuse people. It is all about (carbon) Certificates and the government stays out of the money. They just organize and police this stripping of our money and make sure we give it to the people they approve.

        120

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        And on top of all that, Bobl, both companies will charge you, and give to the Government, a 10% GST, which is now 6.75 times what it was in the old free market, before the Government interfered. No hope in Hell of the Government wanting to change anything then, is there?

        80

        • #
          bobl

          Good pickup, I hadn’t thought of that

          20

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          And on top of that, the generator transforming fuel into electricity must endlessly ‘report’ on intangible such as the various imaginary greenhouse gases that his operation produces, and pander to free-ranging arrogant government agents that demand to see the evidence. The accounting necessary to compute these reports is astounding.

          10

  • #
    Antoine D'Arche

    I think it also depends on the postcode of the survey respondents. No offence to those that live in an inner urban area of Melbourne (especially) and Sydney but geez those people are moronic. My colleague, a surgeon, wants to use renewables in Australia to fix the air pollution in Mumbai. This is what he wrote, in public, on FB: The battery station is not to replace the entire needs of the state but rather to supplement peak demand. We have to start somewhere.

    Eventually the energy stored in batteries will come from the sun (or should come from the sun). There’s ample business opportunity.

    I don’t see the downside. The sun shows up for work every day. Never late. Never a sick day.

    How can it be bad for business?
    Now, THAT is what we’re facing. My god, but that is ignorance and stupidity on a grand scale.

    110

  • #
    tom0mason

    99 out of 100 people surveyed said they would like free lunches for life (one said he wasn’t that hungry).

    200

  • #
    RickWill

    A large number of Australians have already been enticed to willingly fund solar power. They are now turning to batteries to get more value from that already sunk cost and take more control over their living expenses by insulating themselves from the electricity price gougers. Electricity costs are already prohibitive for heavy industry and is closing down or moving off grid.

    The only prospect of this changing any time soon is rolling power shedding this coming summer. If SA goes out before the state election that could be the start of the change. Weatherill kicked out and Turnbull emboldened, channelling Tony of old with coal as the saviour. The federal government will need to move a LOOOONG way from their present position going by the advertisement here:
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/disgusting-government-spends-300k-on-60-seconds-of-grand-final-advertising-20171003-gytvxq.html
    No mention of coal in that.

    91

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Only 300k, that is small beer compared with the WeatherDill government’s spending on just its “We are taking control of electricity” advertisments. (I may not have got the wording quite right as I always change channels or switch off when the ad appears).
      Also they are spruiking Subdidies for Jobs program and the Better Health/Grand new Hospital theme.
      SA must be the only State with a hospital in its capital that has special door fitting to stop snow being blown in. And combining the last 2 ads there are people now employed as door stops to let the trolleys get through the doors. I think there might be a book in that..Alice and the new hospital?

      70

  • #
    el gordo

    Lukewarmer speaks out.

    ‘Yet many of us still have a sense that solar and wind is sweeping across the world, a cost-undercutting miracle that will swiftly overtake fossil fuels and save the day. Solar and wind get good PR. But if they were cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch.

    ‘A close look at the data and scenarios from the OECD’s International Energy Agency, the foremost energy analysts, reveals that just 0.6 per cent of the world’s energy is today derived from solar photovoltaic and wind energy technology.’

    Bjorn Lomborg / Oz

    121

    • #
      Graeme#4

      VERY good article by Mr Lomborg in today’s The Australian. He succinctly sums up the state of play very well, and clearly explains why the Paris Agreement achieves nothing, and that the money could be better spent focusing on other worldwide issues. He may be a lukewarmer but he writes superbly.

      160

      • #
        el gordo

        I have recommended Lomborg join Judith Curry on the Red Team, but I’ve changed my mind.

        Delingpole writes better and I nominate him instead.

        ‘Abbott’s speech – which is causing Australia’s notoriously left-wing media to explode like ripe watermelons struck by hollow-point bullets – ought to serve as a painful reminder to Australia’s Liberal party of the talent they lost when they decided to knife this Jesuit-trained, Oxford-educated, rock-solid, family man conservative in the back and replace him with the slippery Davos-style globalist Turnbull.’

        70

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          [The comment you are responding to, has been removed] Fly

          OK!! Can you give us a hint? What about the historic Billy Shakespeare, “et tu Brutae”? I thought you did not like Peshmerga awareness. :-)

          11

          • #
            Will Janoschka

            “[Will be trashed after you have the chance to see this. Sorry.] AZ”

            Hokay, you, Fly, and Joanne are the only ones to whom I was communicating! :-)

            00

        • #
          Allen Ford

          Turnbull is more your Davros-style villain than “Davos-style globalist”, e g!

          00

  • #

    Another shonky push poll which shouldn’t fool a pigeon. By another snout-in-trough organisation with a Superman comic name.

    Surely now is the time to close most university departments and all the qangos which spin off from them. For the good of science, civilisation and common sense.

    If necessary, pay academics not to publish and not to survey, the way some governments pay farmers not to grow certain crops. Do whatever. But close them down.

    90

    • #
      Another Ian

      M

      Many years ago when New Scientist ran Ariadne’s column one of the subjects there was things from Dreadco. (ca. 1960′s iirc)

      Which was a research organisation based on commercial principles. One example was research on birth control – If the UN fronted up with the most funds then they would do research on birth control. If it was the Catholic Church then they would do research on not-birth control.

      There was another musing on the possibility of a computer based religion, with (what I remember of it – no longer have the copy)

      Mores about opposite to those practiced by most potential followers

      Rewards based on the premium bond principle

      And the concluding wonder was how many people would follow it even if they knew that the computer gear was provided by Brand X and the software was written by Joe Blogs.

      Sounds like a fore-runner of cagw when you think about it

      30

  • #
    Michael Reed

    Any of the elite class with incomes that are triple
    those of of the average Australian like politicians
    don’t really get the problem of paying $3000 to $4000
    a year for electricity bills,( note also they received a $4000
    pay rise this year)Their self importance and disposable
    income definitely insulates them against cost of living problems and
    alllows them to virtue signal about the value of green energy which
    is ridiculously expensive,not scalable and intermittent.The added
    bonus is that politicians get to show the populace
    what heroes they by fighting fake pollution..

    141

    • #
      RexAlan

      I think that as far as most politicians are concerned $3000 – $4000 a year would be a great investment if it secured their exorbitant pensions through virtue signaling and the extra votes that they seem think it would give them.

      41

  • #
    TdeF

    Then you get the abrogation of the role of science. Where was the science debate? I have never heard one.

    So we decide huge issues now by poll? Sir Paul Nurse attacked James Delingpole on this point with his argument that he, the expert, should decide how to treat his patient. This was a geneticist arguing with a journalist, but is as close to a debate as anyone has heard. In the new approach, we poll the patients for the best treatment. Whatever you do, do not ask Tony from Oz. He might tell you that you were barking mad.

    Now we are being asked to make decisions based on Groupthink. So if enough people believe we need windmills, transparently because they have been told only windmills can save them, a survey of such people will justify the horrific expense?

    Even so, amazingly the surveyed people do not want to pay for windmills.

    In South Australia, the man in the street knows from first hand experience that they don’t work. The man in the street is also skeptical of the new genius idea of huge batteries, especially as if they were needed, they should have been part of the plan in the first place before Weatherill dynamited any power station, or Andrews forced Hazelwood to close.

    As Turnbull said so facetiously, that was a private matter for the company. What?

    Now we just wait for the blackouts across the East Coast while Turnbull studies the difficult subject and sends his minions out to silence Abbott. Savva, Van Onsolen, Bishop and the entire ABC. You know Abbott is hitting home.

    Now a simple calculations shows the world’s biggest battery would last 4 1/2 minutes, people are getting skeptical of everything they are being told. Who told Weatherill he could spend $100Million on a giant battery?

    In a country which owes $500Billion, it is amazing how Weatherill and the other premiers and Turnbull are trying to spend their way out of the mess they alone have created. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

    171

    • #
      PeterS

      In a country which owes $500Billion, it is amazing how Weatherill and the other premiers and Turnbull are trying to spend their way out of the mess they alone have created. The lunatics are in charge of the asylum.

      That’s why I rather have the real deal, namely the ALP in power since we know what they honestly and openly stand for. As long as we have a fake party in power things will have absolutely zero chance of getting better. With a real party in power causing the same if not worse damage. deluded and gullible voters will all but disappear leaving open the opportunity for a real and good party to form government, as distinct from the current fake and bad government.

      71

      • #
        TdeF

        No, the ALP disaster would be even worse. The boats would start again. Uncontrolled migration, like Europe. The spending would go up higher, if that was possible. We have been promised even more RET.

        What we want is the government we elected democratically, four year ago, not this Black Hand who stole government. If it wasn’t for Daniel Andrews in Victoria demonstrating how bad a Union controlled government would be, Shorten would be PM today.

        Abbott scored a landslide victory and campaigned on a sensible solution to keep everyone happy. Grow trees not windmills. Cheaper, nicer, ecological solutions. That is not what anyone wanted. They wanted what we have now, billions of dollars flowing into the hands of the rich, middle class and strangers overseas. $100million to the Clinton Foundation? Four hundre million for Climate Change, overseas? $3Billion going overseas for windmills? $3Billion more into the pockets of power distributors, windmill owners, home solar owners. Forget Pink Batts. This is madness.

        Then the State governments spending hundreds of millions covering up the damage with Billions in secret payments to Engie/Mitsui, Alcoa and the big mills in Whyalla and Port Pirie and even Hazelwood. Pelican Point in Adelaide is suddenly running flat out. How? Why? What are South Australian taxpayers funding? . Soon we (the government) will be paying people cash to turn off their factories and airconditioners so they do not use electricity? What? Where are they getting this money? The work on Turnbull’s water battery has already started, without debate, without planning, without competing a feasibility study and without any concern as to cost and payback. Then we have the NBN, the Disability scheme and all the other rivers of gold. Where are they getting all this money.

        Labor is in power in WA, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland. So they should be in Federal parliament because they are not worse? No. Bring back Abbott. He is the ONLY one making sense. He should never have been removed. That was not democracy. That was something else.

        Be careful what you wish for. Can we please have the man we elected back? He would have left the Liberal party years ago if he did not think it could be rescued. A lot hinges on whether Barnaby Joyce loses his seat.

        There is also the matter of the 1 year statutory jail sentence for falsification of that critical document, a jail sentence even suspended which would prohibit being a member of parliament. Hanson went to jail for far less. Much now hinges on the High Court. Malcolm does not want to fight another election. He would lose.

        153

        • #
          TdeF

          Add the Tasmania government paying $11Million a month for diesel generators. Weatherill paying $100Million for a battery. Turnbull hiring hundreds to start building ‘Snowy II’ with a cost of $2-6 billion. The Australian Submarine Corporation paying $30Million for a diesel generator and the new Liberty OneSteel building its own generation. None of this is necessary. That is our money being thrown away, replacing or duplicating what was working.

          111

        • #
          bobl

          Falsification is a lot different to being ignorant of your status. It’s necessary to prove intent.

          20

          • #
            Tdef

            So Xenophon, a practicing lawyer who advises professionally on signing such documents was unaware his father had a British passport or that he had patrial rights? Very British name too.

            This is a very specific form with a criminal penalty. Most politicians are lawyers. So they can all plead ignorance and incompetence. Appropriate.

            80

          • #
            Tdef

            Everyone with a migrant parent has patrial rights. Everyone knows that. It is why the declaration exists. The US President has to be born in America. Those are the rules. What they did was illegal. The excuses are ridiculous.

            70

            • #
              TdeF

              Remember too that some of these people were themselves born overseas. They hold rights in their own name, not patrial rights.

              It is a simple matter to surrender such alien rights and they cannot say they were unaware. They chose to hold onto them and falsely sign. This has been tested before in the courts. What they did was understandable and clearly everyone was doing it, but it was wrong, illegal and criminal and all to their financial advantage. Do we really want such people in parliament? These are the law makers themselves. Surely they should be held to a high legal standard?

              50

      • #
        clive hoskin

        Peter maybe you should check what the ALP’s policies are.One of them is 50% renewables,plus getting rid of the internal combustion engine.Those two alone will sink this country in a very short time.So,no the ALP/Greens will never be the answer.

        40

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “Now we are being asked to make decisions”

      You are not being “asked” anything by such tyranny! You are being told what to do and how to think! :-(

      31

  • #

    Oooh, in moderation. (

    40

  • #
    Dennis

    Avoid AGL as a provider of electricity, they are a large part of our problem.

    Seek the best of a bunch of not great deals, do better than worst …

    https://www.canstarblue.com.au/energy/electricity/nsw-providers/a-comparison-of-nsw-electricity-costs/

    51

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    In a country where politicians jump to and fro in response to the latest “poll” we no longer have real government.

    As a consequence we face a bleak future based on:

    * high and rising electricity prices for residents and business.

    * electricity costs to industry that make Australia uncompetitive.

    * unreliable power supply which can go off at any time and cause massive damage to industry and danger to individuals.

    * elected representatives who are blind to the issues involved and whose main focus is in getting to the end and the inevitable parliamentary pension.

    We need accountability in parliament.

    KK

    90

    • #
      Another Ian

      KK

      As posted previously

      Government by consensus seems the in thing

      Worldwide consensus is to build HELE coal generation

      Why are we not following that consensus?

      60

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        That’s absolutely right that the consensus worldwide is that HELE generation is the best from all perspectives.

        The only reason it is not accepted here is because it hasn’t been confirmed by a survey.

        KK

        70

        • #
          Will Janoschka

          “it hasn’t been confirmed by a survey.”

          If a surveyor on construction site, the foul critter with clip-board and white hard-hat; standing in your sight line, is the construction supervisor!! Where is my weapon?
          All the best!-will-

          21

  • #
    David Maddison

    These surveys are not objective and are designed or even manipulated to give the desired answer.

    “Surveys” today are just like fake news. Remember also how the fake surveys in the US all said Clinton would win.

    Surveys are also manipulated to give the desired result in the same way temperature data is manipulated to show the desired warming result.

    Question everything. The elites never tell us the truth.

    92

  • #
    pat

    how about a poll of people who get all their news and information from ABC ONLY? they would think “renewables” will work fine without coal, that China has turned it’s back on coal & going fully renewable, that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels, that the combustion engine will soon be dead, etc etc.

    here are the geniuses at ABC’s Triple J – you can check their photos out online to add some flavour:

    the topic begins 30secs in, ends temporarily around 17mins in, returns around 22mins25secs in, & continues up until the end:

    AUDIO: 29mins32secs: 20 Sept: ABC Triple J Hack: What’s the future of coal in Australia and are renewables the answer?
    The Prime Minister says we need to keep coal-fired power stations open longer, while his political opponents say we should be closing them down. So where should our power come from in the future, what’s the best technology, and what happens to the jobs of coal plant workers?
    Presenter – Tom Tilley
    http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/hack/8947428

    rough paraphrase:

    Tom: have your say, phone in. Greens say we should be closing down coal-fired power stations one at a time each year. we’re going to get to the bottom of the argument.
    first, reporter Jo Lauder is taking us to the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. dirty, noisy, massive.

    Jo: coal currently makes up three-quarters of Australia’s total energy, followed by gas and renewables, but our coal-fired power stations are getting old.

    Tom: first text: coal will run out in the very near future, so why don’t we look for alternatives sources now…
    someone in Bondi: coal companies are trying to flog coal off for cheap because they know it’s a dying industry. it’s a dirty, dirty clearance sale.

    Tom: we still have 23 but, one by one, they are shutting down. hard for the communities.

    Jo: feigns concern about workers, as they all have to transition away from coal.

    around 11mins 40secs one listener brings up how renewables can’t supply baseload supply.
    Tom: that raises the question that really goes to the core of this whole argument. In the studio is a man who can explain what is really going on and answer that question, Tony Wood, who used to be a senior exec with Origin Energy and is now a energy policy analyst with Grattan Institute.

    Tony Wood: by 2050 the existing coal-fired power stations will be gone. but that doesn’t mean we have to panic. 2050 is still a long way away, but we should make sure that, as we close those plants aggressively, we have the capacity to replace them with whatever is the most appropriate technology.

    caller from near Liddell power station. I live in Cessnock. air quality is quite bad due to coal mining. it’s worrying when there are better technologies for the planet available.

    Tom: Abbott says we should stop subsidising renewables.
    Tony Wood: renewables versus coal is the wrong question. we’ve been subsidising coal in a sense because it hasn’t been paying for the environmental damage it does. and we should also subsidise renewables. make it as affordable as possible. need to reduce greenhouse emissions. storage.

    Tom: you said, over the next 30 years, all the existing 23 coal-fired power stations will close down. the big question is are renewables, and gas, coming along fast enough to replace what would be a massive drop in power supply?

    Tony Wood: not yet. now what I mean by that is at the moment AEMO is confident we have the things in place to get us through next summer and the subsequent summers. they want a bit more in reserve because of the power stations that have shut down. our reserve or our insurance has fallen away a bit. but it’s really only until we get past 2022, 2024 that they say we must make sure we have the new dispatchable capacity coming online, and that’s when we’ll start to see what Finkel recommended…we’ll have wind and solar, but we also back it up with storage, with gas, with batteries and so forth. that’s the journey we have to take. if, in that process, coal continues to have a role, and it will, that’s absolutely fine, as Abbott has been saying, but it doesn’t make sense to keep those coal-fired power stations going forever and most probably new coal plants aren’t going to be any cheaper than new renewable plants.

    ends around 17mins:Tom: anti-Trump joke. we’ll go back to coal later. goes on to other topics.
    22mins25secs: back to coal. big old Hazelwood closed. back to Jo.

    Jo: ex-workers. locals all want renewables. guy who moved to the area because of climate change and renewables.

    Tom: Tony Wood, it’s interesting to hear the reaction from the locals. ***this week there was a really interesting poll by ReachTel for The Australian Institute in the Hunter Valley and 61 said they prefer the Govt to invest in renewable energy and only 32 percent said they wanted the Govt to invest in coal. what does that tell us about the outlook of the people living in these coal communities?

    Tony: most people are sufficiently clear-headed, sufficiently informed, to know there is a direction here that is now underway, and we are headed down that direction. that doesn’t mean that coal won’t continue to be a serious contributor to our energy supply in Australia & elsewhere for decades to come. Govt must set the direction that we are on a pathway here, etc. give incentives to the investors to make the decisions. whether it turns out coal is the answer, or continues to have a role, that’s fine. THE END.

    60

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Creepy, mindbending and manipulative.

      And this passes for informed public dialogue paid for by the TTTTT Taxpayer.

      What 10 year old could resist the very slick performance.

      71

  • #
    Zigmaster

    I feel exasperated reading about these surveys knowing that they are manipulated. I just hope that the politicians aren’t fooled by this. There is also the issue of big business such as the business council , BHP etc where the left has unashamedly infiltrated these organisations. The tentacles of this corrupt movement are difficult to shake . Whether it’s universities, schools, parliaments, religions ( climate change is the one issue Isis and the Vatican agree on), the public service, sporting bodies , Hollywood, the media they all conspire to badger people into formulating leftist ideologies . Fake news was invented to describe the propagander spouted by the left on climate change. As much as I hate the way Turnbull handles this issue it will be ten times worse under Labor.

    71

    • #
      GD

      I just hope that the politicians aren’t fooled by this.

      Of course they’re fooled by these ‘surveys’. They’re actually fuelled by these ludicrous surveys. And that’s as far as their research goes.

      70

      • #
        el gordo

        There is a triumvirate of politicians, scientists and media holding up the facade.

        The weakest link is the MSM and we saw this exhibited recently in their attack on Tony Abbott, so we need to devise a strategy to get the national broadcaster onside, then the rest of the media will follow.

        At that point the politicians, witnessing a scientific paradigm shift, would fall into line.

        30

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        “We need to canvas the electorate, to establish the extent of public opinion, that shows support for …
        or is antithetical towards …”

        Let us not lose sight of the fact that policy is set by the people who count (those who tally the results of surveys).

        20

  • #
    James

    I want clean energy. I want coal plants that do not emit soot and black smoke. All they should emit is plant fertilizer in the form of Carbon dioxide and water vapor! I do not want intermittent forms of generation that have to be backed up, and I don’t want an electric car full of nasty metals in the battery!

    100

    • #
      GD

      I want coal plants that do not emit soot and black smoke.

      Can you name one coal-fired power station in Australia that emits ‘soot and black smoke’?

      100

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Can you name one coal-fired power station in Australia that emits ‘soot and black smoke’?”

        Only from their cooling towers. ;-)

        82

      • #
        James

        Exactly my point, Australia has perfect clean power right now! I get pissed off when I see photos of water vapor being emitted as an example of pollution.

        70

      • #
        Rollo

        Can you name one coal-fired power station in Australia that emits ‘soot and black smoke’?

        Don’t be fooled they all emit black evil carbon, but you can’t see it unless the photo is taken with the emissions backlit by the sun.

        10

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You have not addressed the point raised by James, which was about the emissions of “soot and black smoke”, both of which are related to particulates.

          Instead, you conflate the original statement into meaning emissions of a benign chemical on the periodic table, that is necessary for the maintenance of life on this planet.

          20

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Rollo:

          Back in the seventies I was working in Pt. Adelaide and saw the Chief Engineer race outside and scan the sky. Naturally I went out and looked for the emergency. It was a faint haze escaping from the smokestack of our (smalish) oil fired boiler, which quickly stopped. He said that he had just received a tel. phone call demanding why he was permitting such pollution. Then we looked ‘up-river’ to the origin of the call a wood milling/ fabrication factory and saw this great black cloud rolling out over the Port River as they burnt off waste.
          I never found out what prompted the wood burner to draw attention to our temporary lapse but it has stuck in my mind as a prime example of hypocrisy.

          10

    • #
      Dennis

      My recommendation to you, and as I often recommend to people who post about dirty coal etc., contact the Environmental Protection Agency nearest to you and ask why they have allowed the pollution you apparently observe to take place.

      EPA and harsh laws against polluting were established in the 1970s and from what I have observed pollution has been tackled and dealt with.

      Coal must have missed EPA attention?

      50

      • #
        James

        Coal is clean energy as far as I am concerned! Looking at the survey, it is a survey designed to obtain this result.

        60

  • #
    Reed Coray

    These surveys should be conducted via old-fashioned mail. The people being surveyed should be sent a package containing (a) the survey form and (b) a stamped return envelope with instructions to include with their survey response $100 to support whatever cause is being promoted. If nothing else such a practice will decrease the number of responders.

    60

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    For free take, for pay — waste time.

    30

  • #
  • #
    Another Ian

    Off this thread but similar on the talk-down of the “global cooling scare” of the 1970′s

    https://realclimatescience.com/2017/10/orwellian-class-fraud-at-scientific-american/

    20

  • #
  • #
    clipe

    http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/jack-mintz-pipeline-antagonism-and-lopsided-equalization-stir-catalonian-feelings-in-alberta

    It was not at all helpful that the less-than-affable Montreal mayor, Denis Coderre, declared it a “victory for Canada” when TransCanada withdrew its licence application for Energy East, a pipeline project that actually would have provided market-diversification benefits to the national economy. It would be no different than if the mayor of, say, Winnipeg — home to a Boeing plant — declared it a Canadian victory after the U.S. Commerce Department slapped on two import duties on Quebec’s heavily subsidized Bombardier planes.

    Coderre’s insensitive comment reminds many Western Canadians of their own past grievances. It was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s father who, with the 1980 National Energy Program, imposed a breathtakingly unfair wealth transfer from Western provinces to Central Canada. Pierre Trudeau had slapped export taxes on Alberta oil exports to the U.S. to subsidize energy imports for Eastern Canadians. Maritimers, Ontarians and Quebecers got cheaper gasoline and heat paid for by Westerners. Ottawa’s blatant prejudice stirred some Westerners to entertain the idea of separation, but after the Mulroney government was elected in 1984 and dismantled the NEP, the idea returned to Alberta’s political fringe.

    40

  • #
    Ian1946

    O/t but on the AEMO dashboard it shows wind and other is this included in the generation number or should it be added to the generation number?

    E.g in SA the numbers are:

    Demand 853
    Generation 889
    Other 328

    Is generation 889 or 889 + 328

    30

    • #
      RickWill

      Yes – wind and other should be added to the generation to get total generation.

      If total generation is exceeding demand then the difference is being exported to Victoria and NSW. If total generation is less than demand then SA is net importing.

      50

      • #
        Ian1946

        Thank you the page makes more sense now, if wind power collapsed in SA now they would be ok but Vic and NSW would be in real trouble

        30

  • #
    John Watt

    As outlined in above comments the survey questions are meaningless. We already pay subsidies for renewables. A more relevant survey would ask “Are you happy paying the 10c/kWh renewable subsidy that you already pay? Are you happy paying the $700 per year renewable subsidy?” A question that is too politically incorrect for our survey companies?

    90

  • #
    Ross

    This survey and the “competing” survey about how much people are prepared to pay clearly shows a large part of the population are into “feel good” moves and voting. The competing survey shows them to be hypocrites and I don’t like labelling my fellow citizens like that. But that is the result of not thinking and and just wanting to have good feelings or not wanting to go with the crowd. How has it got to this ? Education systems, MSM sound bites, just don’t really care –I don’t know but probably a combination of all three.

    50

    • #
      el gordo

      For propaganda to work successfully it has to be emotive, such as saving the planet for the grandkids. Its been force fed through the education system and reinforced by a corrupt MSM.

      As mentioned earlier its a relatively small push poll, put out by a mob with pseudo marxist’s leanings and isn’t credible.

      50

  • #
    Just Thinkin'

    Wanted to put this in “Unthreaded”. So, here it is here.

    Just watched the Watermelon Party leader on The Agenda having a chat with PVO and

    some other bloke.

    I think he borrowed this speech from Tony Abbott and just substituted “ruinables” for

    COAL in every place.

    I doubt VERY MUCH if he, or any of his ilk, have any idea what Base Load Power

    really is. You know, that eighteen thousand (18,000) MegaWatts of power we on

    the East Coast are using at any point in time. This is the MINIMUM we use. All the time.

    And South Australia, with all their bird chompers etc, still need an extension cord to

    prop up their power supply.

    Oh boy. Some people.

    70

    • #
      toorightmate

      PVO is as useful as a flywire waterbag.
      Another professor to join the ranks of other esteemed professors, such as Flanner, Gillard, Palmer. Oh Boy – what a team!!

      50

  • #
    el gordo

    BoM still says Tasmania is going to be warmer than average, their models are rubbish.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/outlooks/#/overview/summary

    At the moment southern Australia from Perth to Sydney is still chilling and its late October.

    80

    • #
      David Maddison

      Back in the day, models had to be validated before their results were trusted or used.

      And their was also an expression GIGO for garbage in garbage out.

      21

  • #
    Ken1

    At 10.40am Sunday 15 Victorian wind generation is varying between 2 and 5MW. Currently Wind = 2, Small solar = 610MW, and Hydro = 87MW. Total Victorian generation is 4251MW. Add wind, solar and hydro together = 699MW, This means coal and gas are producing 3552MW. (figures from reneweconomy) I fail to see how wind and solar can produce “baseload” power. Maybe the Greenies have re-defined the meaning of the word “baseload” to mean something only they understand. The problem is that you can’t discuss anything now without them yelling DENIER, the way high priest Gore does, which means that everything they say is true and no discussion will be entered into. Which is a shame as I would like to have a fact based discussion without the abuse, mainly to find out how they rationalise what they say.

    40

    • #
      Another Ian

      Ken

      “mainly to find out how they rationalise what they say.”

      That is an “ultra secret”

      40

    • #
      robert rosicka

      I’ve been watching the dashboard and the widget for a while now and yes when the wind doesn’t blow the figures sure reflect it especially on overcast days .
      There were planned works but they keep cancelling them and no wonder why , just hope it doesn’t come back to haunt them when the really hot days arrive .
      Also wondering which state will have the first big blackout this year , not that I condone betting of course but it’s going to be a hard choice between Victoriastan and South Australia for my money.

      40

  • #
    David Maddison

    QUESTION: We clearly can’t trust BoM data as it is being altered to show the desired result.

    The survey that is the subject of this post was designed to achieve a certain result.

    Similarly, do you think AEMO Dashboard data can be trusted?

    52

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      I believe that it WAS trustworthy, until recently.
      Now, I have no faith since they went and put that Green Sheila from the USA in charge.

      30

    • #
      robert rosicka

      There is a discrepancy between the widget and the dashboard and it’s not because of the time difference so I’m thinking it’s creative .

      10

  • #
    pat

    “exclusive” or same old song?

    15 Oct: ABC: Environmentalists, scientists from the 1960s return to fight for Great Barrier Reef
    Exclusive by Kathy McLeish
    It is half a century since marine researcher Eddie Hegerl first dived on Ellison Reef on the Great Barrier Reef off Mission Beach in north Queensland.
    He was a penniless 22-year-old researcher when he joined a tiny grassroots group in their battle to save the reef from certain destruction…
    This weekend, Mr Hegerl returned to dive on Ellison Reef to mark the 50th anniversary and was joined by campaigners, conservationists and scientists.
    Dr Charlie Veron, marine biologist and former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS), said it was an extraordinary campaign.
    “It was I believe Australia’s biggest conservation battle ever — if it didn’t happen we wouldn’t have a Great Barrier Reef today — there would have been mining and oil drilling everywhere,” Dr Veron said.
    Sydney University history professor Iain McCalman said it was a campaign of the people…
    “Now we want to re-inspire people because we’re against enormous odds again.”…

    While elsewhere on Ellison and other reefs in the region there are beautiful dive sites and large areas where coral is alive and well, the section Mr Hegerl saw on the weekend is badly damaged.
    “Very little live coral, very little in this area anyway — very depressing and we’ve got to do better somehow,” Mr Hegerl said.
    He was joined on the dive by Queensland Tourism Industry Council chief executive officer Daniel Gschwind.
    “We saw the grandeur of the reef today, but we also saw the challenges — there are natural threats, there are manmade threats and above all, climate change,” Mr Gschwind said…

    Dr Veron said the “path we’re on is very, very serious”.
    “We have to have massive action on climate change,” Dr Veron said…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-15/great-barrier-reef-50-years-on-campaigners-return-ellison-reef/9050106

    20

  • #
    pat

    ***Greens are enemies of the people:

    15 Oct: Australian: Adani mine won’t happen, Greens predict
    by Rachel Baxendale with AAP
    Greens leader Richard Di Natale says he’s prepared to stand in front of bulldozers and get arrested to stop Queensland’s Adani mine, and expects to be joined by many thousands of Australians.
    Predicting the protest action would be bigger than that which stopped the Franklin Dam going ahead in Tasmania in the 1980s, Senator Di Natale accused the Labor Party of hypocrisy over its support for the mine.
    “You can’t position yourself as a party that supports renewables and believes that climate change is a problem, that says that you want to tackle climate change, and then support that great big polluting Adani coal mine,” Senator Di Natale told Sky News.
    “You’ve got Queensland Labor who are throwing money good after bad to ensure that jobs-killing, climate-destroying mine goes ahead, and you’ve got federal Labor who are right behind it who won’t come out and say that they won’t support it and that Bill Shorten would review the project.”

    Senator Di Natale said that contrary to messaging from Adani, the Coalition and Queensland Labor, the Adani mine would destroy jobs because it was (WILL?) destroy the Great Barrier Reef…

    “Make no mistake, ***people right around the country are so motivated to stop this thing that if we can’t stop it in the parliament we’ll stop it by standing in front of those bulldozers. It won’t go ahead. I’m very confident of that. No financier wants to pay for it. It can only go ahead with massive subsidies…
    Asked if he was prepared to get arrested, Senator Di Natale said, “so be it”…READ ON FOR OTHER RESPONSES/ADANI ANNOUNCEMENT ETC
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/adani-mine-wont-happen-greens-predict/news-story/7899ecf20b5897750ab1725a5e815f91

    30

  • #
    pat

    never watch this but heard the first mock Abbott segment on ABC News Radio this morning:

    VIDEO: 3mins: ABC Insiders: Energy Policy
    The details are to come, but the priorities are now clear. Energy prices and reliability are now paramount. Emissions, not so much. And if that means warmer temperatures? Here’s Tony Abbott….
    http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/energy-policy/9051378

    no chance whatsoever that Barrie Cassidy would mock Mark Butler or challenge his claims re “renewables”:

    VIDEO: 9mins55secs: ABC Insiders: (Shadow Minister for Climate Change and Energy) Mark Butler joins Insiders
    TRANSCRIPT:
    BUTLER: A clean energy target was a model delivered by the chief scientist to deal with some very significant challenges in the electricity sector. We need a set of investment rules to ensure that there is enough supply, new supply, built in the electricity system at the right time, and also to ensure that the new electricity that’s built into the system to replace the old coal generators that are closing is clean energy, is renewable energy. That’s the rationale behind a clean energy target, to establish a clear set of investment rules built around two public policy imperatives – ensuring there’s enough supply to guarantee reliability, and downward pressure on power prices, while also driving renewable energy to clean up a very heavily polluting electricity system…

    And it’s also important that we know that that new supply is going to be as clean as possible to ensure that we drive renewable energy investment and comply with our Paris targets. Now, Alan Finkel knew, as we all know, that renewable energy is increasingly the cheapest cost, or the cheapest form of new electricity generation build…ETC
    http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/mark-butler-joins-insiders/9051426

    ABC mis-informing the public, as usual.

    31

    • #
      old44

      The role of chief scientist is very important and his advice should be adhered to at all times.

      Winston Churchill’s chief scientist denied the existence of the V1 pilotless bomb and said the V2 wouldn’t get off the ground

      02

    • #
      AndyG55

      “that new supply is going to be as clean as possible”

      Modern HELE coal and gas are BY FAR the cleanest form of electrical power available.

      With the added benefit of providing much needed atmospheric CO2.

      01

  • #
    pat

    o/t but just to show the absolute reverence theirABC still has for Hillary Clinton. 18 months of campaigning for her, and still promoting her nearly 12 months after she (and they) lost the election.

    give us a break. pity for ABC/Ferguson that Clinton is caught up in yet another scandal (Harvey Weinstein donations, etc) precisely as they prepare to broadcast this nonsense. karma?

    only a 30-second trailer available so far, but worth watching for the Ferguson fawning and the attempt to make Clinton appear to be a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON giving a very important interview to the very important ABC.
    the message: President Trump is a clear and present danger, don’t you know:

    11 Oct: ABC Four Corners: Hillary Clinton: The Interview
    In a special edition of Four Corners, Hillary Clinton, in her only Australian television interview, talks with Sarah Ferguson.
    This ***riveting conversation, recorded in New York, takes us into the ***heart and mind of the woman at the centre of the most ***stunning election loss in modern US history.
    (LOL)This is a very different Hillary Clinton to the managed political performer. ???Candid, open and at times angry, the former presidential candidate talks about what went wrong and her fears for the future.
    An ***unmissable interview.
    Reported and presented by Sarah Ferguson, the interview goes to air on Monday 16th October at 8.30pm. It is replayed on Tuesday 17th October at 1.00pm and Wednesday 18th at 11pm. It can also be seen on ABC NEWS channel on Saturday at 8.10pm AEST, ABC iview and at abc.net.au/4corners.
    The interview will be streamed live on the Four Corners Facebook page and will be available as a podcast through the new ABC Listen app.
    http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/hillary-clinton/9038818

    20

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Paywalled, but there is a story in the Weekend Oz about Di Natali willing to stand in the way of a bulldozer. The comments are hilarious.

    30

  • #
    gbees

    Well when you ask a question like this you almost engineer a desired response:

    “The Government says the cost of renewable sources of energy, such as solar power are falling relative to non-renewables like gas. In this case, do you think taxpayer subsidies for investment in renewable energy should be continued, or should they be removed?”

    No mention of wind, no mention of coal. The cost of gas is in the headlines currently. The problem with wind energy is well known and the reliability and cheap cost of coal is also well known yet these are left out of the question. Further if you lead with, solar power costs are falling which by implication is due to ‘investment’ in renewables then what do you expect will be the response?

    How about a question like this? “Energy prices have risen significantly since renewable energy sources, solar and wind, have been introduced into the grid. Should Taxpayers continue to subsidise renewable energy’s introduction into the grid?”

    I’ll bet the answer would be a resounding no.

    Also who was actually surveyed? People paying the power bills or university students and others not responsible for paying home or business power bills?

    00

    • #
      Will Janoschka

      “Well when you ask a question like this you almost engineer a desired response:”

      Please, just like MDs don’t ‘doctor anything’; engineers don’t engineer anything! We both but can practice,and practice, sometimes getting ‘it’ near ‘pearfict’ (close enough for government work)! Way different from post modern academic science (religion)!
      All the best!-will-

      00