thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
The ongoing strength of rooftop solar installations contrasts with the sharp slowdown in new investments for large-scale solar farms in recent years.
No surprise there. Get a subsidy.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
Note: cashed-up private sector players are keen to reduce power bills by installing solar on their roofs, but the general public, represented by government, don't won't to fund the necessary PUBLIC infrastructure required for the transition.
Cashed up? You mean those telemarketers who ring up and offer good deals.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
And the quote you omitted shows that Jefferson saw - centuries ago - the public funding problems which would arise when private banksters hijacked the nation's currency-issung power.
Jefferson was before his time.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
That's the particular current problem for public sector funding ie the AGW problem which everyone around the world wants to deal with (as per your own quoted examples, thanks again...), but don't want to pay for.
And still nothing on climate predictions.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
So those with the cash splash out on roof PVs, for very little reward because the transmission and storage doesn't exist to enable payment for exported energy from the single roof.
Ah yes. The storage made with unafordium.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
the world believes the IPCC consensus science.
You are the brain damaged one I have given you the Science, you want the models.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
I'm merely reporting the record temps measured by meteorologists around the globe last week.
It wasn't meteorologists. Dummy. It came from ClimeREanalyser. Dummy.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 14
th, 2023 at 4:12pm:
.seems Cook has been believed and you haven't.
That's because so many people are innumerate. I will quote the actual paper for you.
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So 11,944 papers and 66.4% held no position. that leaves, as they say, 32.6%. And that ranged from causing >50% of warming to some, to apparently implied approval.
"(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming '
(2) Explicit endorsement without quantification Explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact
(3) Implicit endorsement Implies humans are causing global warming. "
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/02402432.6% has never been and can never be 97%.