Australian Politics Forum

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › General Board › privatisation

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46

privatisation (Read 34022 times)

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13328
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #675 - Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am

lee wrote on Feb 27^th, 2025 at 4:31pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 27^th, 2025 at 4:09pm:

no, it means CO2 and methane associated with the fossil industry are also major greenhouse gases.

No they are not. CO2 = about 420ppm (0.042%) by volume of the atmosphere. Methane = 1.2 ppm (0.00012%) approximately. And both are mostly covered by the IR of water vapour. Methane lasts about 10 years in the atmosphere.

But if you have figures that disagree, show them. Wink

Crippled brain lee: doesn't know increasing, even if minute, quantities of certain substances can be disastrous

Quote:

...there is no IPCC consensus ....

google

Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activities, with the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists (around 97%) agreeing on this point; this consensus is supported by leading scientific organizations worldwide, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

97% not a good enough consensus? Only crippled-brain lee would deny it.

Quote:

Oh you mean those forecasts by climate scientists that have not come true? Any of them? No Sea Ice past 2013, Snowfall will be a rare and exciting event? Countries will be underwater from SLR prior to the year 2000? You mean those forecasts? Grin

crippled brain lee: I said private sector greed was the problem hindering the green transition, he diverts back to his climate denial delusions.

Quote:

Nope. That is your BELIEF. How many witches will need to be burnt at the stake before your religion folds? Wink

oh dear, it's mirror time; man-made climate change is agreed from scientific evidence, as shown by google.

It's YOUR efficient 'invisible hand' market theory which is the witchcraft religion, as shown by market failure everywhere.

Quote:

Why have so many companies thrown in the towel on Hydrogen? Why is it you won't say? Apparently 79% are stuck in limbo.

poor crippled brain lee... I DID say, to repeat: because those companies' share-holders are demanding the higher returns from exploiting fossil fuels cf renewables, rather than scaling up expensive new technologies (which already exist in labs) re hydrogen and green steel.

But in a global climate emergency, private-sector greed will destroy us all.

Quote:

"In recent months, some of the biggest would-be developers of the fuel have canceled projects, axed orders and scaled back investment plans. The low-carbon fuel is simply too expensive to stimulate demand in many sectors of the economy."

That's correct - or rather, the transmission upgrades and storage requirements of cheap renewables (ie, powered by free sun and wind) is "expensive", and beyond the capacity of profit-seeking companies, requiring public sector investment.

But the public - and politicians - are still hoodwinked by the mainstream government money is 'taxpayer money' narrative.

Something will have to give, to avoid an climate/ecological catastrophe.

« Last Edit: Feb 28^th, 2025 at 11:08am by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18101
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #676 - Feb 28^th, 2025 at 12:23pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

doesn't know increasing, even if minute, quantities of certain substances can be disastrous.

And yet can't point to it being disastrous. Why is that? And now they are minute? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

Yes, there is a strong scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is primarily caused by human activities, with the vast majority of actively publishing climate scientists (around 97%) agreeing on this point; this consensus is supported by leading scientific organizations worldwide, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

97% not a good enough consensus? Only crippled-brain lee would deny it.

Two things.

1. Nothing about climate change being disastrous.

2. Those 97% studies are bogus as I have shown many times.

Cook et al 2013 being the the main.

I will quote from their paper. See if you can follow.

"The ISI search generated 12, 465 papers. Eliminating papers
that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or
without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers
written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals.
To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into
three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).

Out of those 11,944 papers - "Endorse AGW 32.6% (3896) "

32.6% is not the highly "acclaimed" 97%

Then there is the categories they chose.

"(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. E.g., esearch assumes greenhouse gas emissions cause
warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf

So they lumped these 3 together. So let's look at that.

Category 1 - says Humans are the PRIMARY source of AGW. More on that later.

Category 2 -says humans are having some impact.

Category 3 specifically says "assumes". Assumptions are not science.

Now to the numbers in Categories 1.2.3.

Category 1 "Search Results
Search Term
Author
Category
Endorsement Level
From Year
To Year

Results 1 to 25 out of 65:"

65 Papers out of 11,944 = 0.054% not anywhere near 97%.

Category 2 - "Search Results
Search Term
Author
Category
Endorsement Level
From Year
To Year

Results 1 to 25 out of 934:"

934 papers out of 11,944 = 7.8%

Category 3 - " Search Results
Search Term
Author
Category
Endorsement Level
From Year
To Year

Results 1 to 25 out of 2934:"

2934 out of 11,944 = 24.6%. And that one is based on assumptions, which are not science.

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=3&yf=1991&yt=2011

We know you don't do science, you just believe.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

I said private sector greed was the problem hindering the green transition, he diverts back to his climate denial delusions.

And you posted nothing to support your contention. You are merely a blowhard.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

oh dear, it's mirror time; man-made climate change is agreed from scientific evidence, as shown by google.

Which I have shown is fallacious. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

because those companies' share-holders are demanding the higher returns from exploiting fossil fuels cf renewables, rather than scaling up expensive new technologies (which already exist in labs) re hydrogen and green steel.

So shareholders demand a commensurate payout to risk? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

But in a global climate emergency, private-sector greed will destroy us all.

Once again resorts to hyperbole, you haven't shown any climate emergency, and certainly not from the IPCC. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

the transmission upgrades and storage requirements of cheap renewables (ie, powered by free sun and wind) is "expensive", and beyond the capacity of profit-seeking companies, requiring public sector investment.

Rubbish. The article clearly refers to fuel (hydrogen), although the transmission would be hugely expensive for those times when there is abundant energy, they have to factor in peak supply not just normal or below normal supply. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

But the public - and politicians - are still hoodwinked by the mainstream government money is 'taxpayer money' narrative.

No that is your MMT supposition. Grin

« Last Edit: Feb 28^th, 2025 at 12:30pm by lee »

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #677 - Feb 28^th, 2025 at 12:51pm

'privatisation' - the handing over for a few shekels to some mates who then turn a mighty profit while having the 'seller' as a shareholder and thus amenable to constant price rises etc - is nothing but the transfer of government money into private hands - Robber Barony and outright theft. It's almost Python-esque or Yes Minister-ish...

"How much for that power station!"
"One million shekels."
"Here - I'll take it!"
"Hang on - aren't you going to haggle?"
"Haggle - I gave you a million!"
"A MILLION! that power station cost me an arm and a leg - and me with ten kids to feed..."
"All right - half a million!"
"That's better!.... 'Alf a million for this power station, and my poor old mother in the hospital..."
"All right $600k! I have to go before the public sees me here!"
"SIX hundred thousand shekels! It's worth at least two million!"
"But you just gave it to me for one million!"
"Bert!" uurrngh!
"All right I'll give you eight hundred thousand and that's my final offer.."
"Nine hundred and I'm still taking a loss!"
"ONE MILLION THEN!"
"Sold! You want it wrapped and upgraded for free?"

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13328
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #678 - Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 12:23pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 10:59am:

doesn't know increasing, even if minute, quantities of certain substances can be disastrous.

And yet can't point to it being disastrous. Why is that? And now they are minute? Grin

Er - the consensus science? moving on....

Quote:

Two things.

1. Nothing about climate change being disastrous.

2. Those 97% studies are bogus as I have shown many times.

Er - a warming planet from AGW-CO2 will be a disaster, sooner or later, and 97% agreement is not bogus.

You seem to be arguing over the speed with which the AGW-CO2 climate disaster (a 97% consensus, regardless of timing whether a decade or a century) is approaching us.

Quote:

I will quote from their paper. See if you can follow.

No thanks, I will leave that to the 97% of climate scientists who reject your paper.

Quote:

2934 out of 11,944 = 24.6%. And that one is based on assumptions, which are not science.

https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=&e=3&yf=1991&yt=2011

Skeptical science.. like RFK jnr; now a child has died from measles, in vaccine-sceptic Texas.

Quote:

We know you don't do science, you just believe.

Evidence-based science, yes. The oceans ARE warming, glaciers melting etc.

Quote:

And you posted nothing to support your contention. You are merely a blowhard.

That private sector greed is hindering transition to green?

Only blind freemarket economists and ideologues can't see it.

Quote:

Which I have shown is fallacious. Grin

via 'skeptical science'...

Quote:

So shareholders demand a commensurate payout to risk? Grin

There's no more risk (for established companies) in exploiting fossils, than any other industry.

Quote:

Dummy, the barrier is the expence for private companies to develop new technologies.

Quote:

No that is your MMT supposition. Grin

Dummy, its just fact: obviously currencing-issuing governments don't NEED "taxpayer money", that's just the mainstream delusion of individuals who think money can only be created in private banks.

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18101
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #679 - Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:43pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

Er - the consensus science? moving on....

You haven't shown consensus, liar.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

You have been proposing an existing climate crisis, liar.

You haven't shown a 97% consensus, liar.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

No thanks, I will leave that to the 97% of climate scientists who reject your paper.

That paper is one that alleges a 97% consensus. As I have said you don't do science, liar.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

Skeptical science.. like RFK jnr; now a child has died from measles, in vaccine-sceptic Texas.

" Our climate is absorbing a lot of heat. When scientists add up all of the heat warming the oceans, land, and atmosphere and melting the ice, they find our climate is accumulating 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second.

This warming is due to more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels means we are emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This is the main contributor to global warming.

To communicate the sheer amount of heat our planet is accumulating, we have created this widget, embeddable on blogs and also available as a Facebook app, an iPad app, and an iPhone app. To help get the word out on just how much global warming our planet is experiencing, add the widget to your own blog or use the widget on Facebook, like it and share it. "

Under the heading "Global Warming at 4 Hiroshima Atomic Bombs per second"

Skeptical Science is promoted as the leading Climate website. It is easy t see you don't know your arse from your elbow. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

Evidence-based science, yes.

You don't do science you just believe.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

The oceans ARE warming, glaciers melting etc.

And it has happened may times before. Nothing to do with CO2. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

That private sector greed is hindering transition to green?

And still nothing to support your contention. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

via 'skeptical science'...

Explained above.

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

There's no more risk (for established companies) in exploiting fossils, than any other industry.

There is because hydrogen is not economic to produce. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

the barrier is the expence for private companies to develop new technologies.

Hydrogen is an old technology, the difficulties still exist. It has been used since at least the 18yh century. Roll Eyes

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

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

obviously currencing-issuing governments don't NEED "taxpayer money", that's just the mainstream delusion of individuals who think money can only be created in private banks.

You mean we get taxed to save us from spending? Grin

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13328
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #680 - Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm

lee wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:43pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 28^th, 2025 at 1:19pm:

Er - the consensus science? moving on....

You haven't shown consensus, liar.

Pass, I'll go with the google report, which you ignored.

Quote:

You have been proposing an existing climate crisis, liar.

You haven't shown a 97% consensus, liar.

Wrong on both counts: insurance companies are withdrawing from the market, NOW, dummy; and google attested to the 97% consensus.

Quote:

That paper is one that alleges a 97% consensus. As I have said you don't do science, liar.

Whereas google attests to the 97% consensus, via an analysis/summation of ALL papers.

Quote:

Skeptical Science is promoted as the leading Climate website. It is easy t see you don't know your arse from your elbow. Grin

'Skeptical Science' is among the 97% consensus? How is that "skeptical"?

And google attests the 97% consensus on AGW-CO2 emissions from ALL climate papers.

Quote:

And it has happened may times before. Nothing to do with CO2. Grin

There you go, still denying the 97% AGW-CO2 emissions consensus relating to sea temp. and glacier melt.

Quote:

...no evidence for private sector greed hindering the transition...

It's self-evident, except to a delusional 'invisible hand'/ efficient free market ideologue.

Note: the private sector is where individuals compete to maximize their own wealth; obviously govenment is required to maximise the wellbeing of everyone including those least able to compete in 'invisible hand' markets.

As well as managing an increasing global climate emergency which requires exiting filthy fossil exploitation ASAP, despite the objections of the greedy private sector.

Quote:

There is because hydrogen is not economic to produce. Grin

Governments not restricted by private sector costs, can advance the tech to scale, ASAP, cost is NOT the barrier.

Quote:

Hydrogen is an old technology,

Poor dumb lee, the tech for green steel is still advancing.

Quote:

TGD: obviously currencing-issuing governments don't NEED "taxpayer money", that's just the mainstream delusion of individuals who think money can only be created in private banks.

You mean we get taxed to save us from spending? Grin

;

No (.....but I will use this opportunity to educate you, dummy).

Taxes are not required to fund a c-i government; they can be used to change (unhealthy) consumption, and to incentivize other consumption patterns (eg, change to EVs).

So.. why can't c-i governments create interest-free money in their own national treasury, when the private sector creates interest-bearing money in private banks (when they write loans for "credit worthy" customers?)

Reminds me of the old Bob Hope joke:

"A bank is a place that will lend you money if you can prove that you don't need it".

Not a good situation for a government to be in, when they are responsible for adequate provision of essential services like health, education and housing....which is why Albo is in danger of losing the next election.

« Last Edit: Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:43pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18101
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #681 - Mar 1^st, 2025 at 4:16pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Pass, I'll go with the google report, which you ignored.

Not ignored, fallacious. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Wrong on both counts: insurance companies are withdrawing from the market, NOW, dummy; and google attested to the 97% consensus.

Which Insurance compamies. Google is like you believing what it is told. No thought necessary.

Google/ How about wiki? - "After reading a 2007 speech by then US Senator Jim Inhofe, who maintains that global warming is a hoax, John Cook created Skeptical Science as an internet resource to counter common arguments by climate change deniers.[3] "

You are a fool, Your knowledge is abysmal. But you still believe. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Whereas google attests to the 97% consensus, via an analysis/summation of ALL papers.

So which all papers does it address? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

'Skeptical Science' is among the 97% consensus? How is that "skeptical"?

Ask SKS (Skeptical Science)

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

And google attests the 97% consensus on AGW-CO2 emissions from ALL climate papers.

Google does that? What paper have they published that examines "ALL climate papers"?

You are such a fool. Google doesn't publish papers at all. They reference other studies. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

There you go, still denying the 97% AGW-CO2 emissions consensus relating to sea temp. and glacier melt.

You haven't quoted anything other than opinion. No science papers? I can't deny an opinion. you are entitled to one, it doesn't make you correct. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

It's self-evident, except to a delusional 'invisible hand'/ efficient free market ideologue.

So another opinion dressed up as "fact". Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Note: the private sector is where individuals compete to maximize their own wealth; obviously govenment is required to maximise the wellbeing of everyone including those least able to compete in 'invisible hand' markets.

Like forcing up electricity prices because of cheaper renewables? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

As well as managing an increasing global climate emergency which requires exiting filthy fossil exploitation ASAP, despite the objections of the greedy private sector.

You still haven't shown a "global emergency". Merely some wombling about it could be a a decade or more away. Science doesn't do "coulds". Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Governments not restricted by private sector costs, can advance the tech to scale, ASAP, cost is NOT the barrier.

Quote:

Only if it can be scaled up. There has been no upscaling to date. Despite being around for over 200 years. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

the tech for green steel is still advancing.

So you say. At a snails pace if at all. So tell us about current upscaling. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Not a good situation for a government to be in, when they are responsible for adequate provision of essential services like health, education and housing....which is why Albo is in danger of losing the next election.

So Governments can't provide adequate essential services without taxpayer funding. And here you have been saying it isn't necessary, because of adequate resources to fund MMT. Wink

So to summarise - You have no knowledge, you don't even know what you don't know. An absolute failure. Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #682 - Mar 1^st, 2025 at 5:17pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2025 at 8:09pm:

Is there a connection between the last 5 pages and Privatisation?

I began "the last 5 pages", by noting that free market/ privatization freaks are objecting to the Oz government's take-over/support for an essential steel industry, including green steel at Whyalla, which a crooked/incompetent private sector operator (namely GFG) has bungled in the face of global tariffs and global over-production in the "free market" (complicated by lower prices from producers advantaged by 'economies of scale').

lee of course is a delusional AGW-CO2 climate denier, so he's negating the prospects of a green steel industry at Whyalla - or anywhere else.

Quote:

Still nobody is aware of a single successful privatisation in Australia. The people are ripped off every time.

Correct.

But the '("invisible hand") free market knows best' mythology dies hard....a bit like the (historical) 'Christ is God' Christian myth and other religious beliefs, die hard.

Like the trickle down effect will wet your socks if you didn't pull your zipper up.

« Last Edit: Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 1:17pm by Dnarever »

IP Logged

Dnarever

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 59447
Here
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #683 - Mar 1^st, 2025 at 5:19pm

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 4:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Pass, I'll go with the google report, which you ignored.

Not ignored, fallacious. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Wrong on both counts: insurance companies are withdrawing from the market, NOW, dummy; and google attested to the 97% consensus.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Whereas google attests to the 97% consensus, via an analysis/summation of ALL papers.

So which all papers does it address? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

'Skeptical Science' is among the 97% consensus? How is that "skeptical"?

Ask SKS (Skeptical Science)

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

And google attests the 97% consensus on AGW-CO2 emissions from ALL climate papers.

Google does that? What paper have they published that examines "ALL climate papers"?

You are such a fool. Google doesn't publish papers at all. They reference other studies. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

There you go, still denying the 97% AGW-CO2 emissions consensus relating to sea temp. and glacier melt.

You haven't quoted anything other than opinion. No science papers? I can't deny an opinion. you are entitled to one, it doesn't make you correct. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

It's self-evident, except to a delusional 'invisible hand'/ efficient free market ideologue.

So another opinion dressed up as "fact". Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Like forcing up electricity prices because of cheaper renewables? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

As well as managing an increasing global climate emergency which requires exiting filthy fossil exploitation ASAP, despite the objections of the greedy private sector.

You still haven't shown a "global emergency". Merely some wombling about it could be a a decade or more away. Science doesn't do "coulds". Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Governments not restricted by private sector costs, can advance the tech to scale, ASAP, cost is NOT the barrier.

Quote:

Only if it can be scaled up. There has been no upscaling to date. Despite being around for over 200 years. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

the tech for green steel is still advancing.

So you say. At a snails pace if at all. So tell us about current upscaling. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

So Governments can't provide adequate essential services without taxpayer funding. And here you have been saying it isn't necessary, because of adequate resources to fund MMT. Wink

So to summarise - You have no knowledge, you don't even know what you don't know. An absolute failure. Roll Eyes

Didn't read even one from this mess. Strongly suspect it a great decision.

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 18101 Gender:	Re: privatisation Reply #684 - Mar 1^st, 2025 at 6:19pm Oh a science denier.
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13328
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #685 - Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 4:16pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 3:33pm:

Pass, I'll go with the google report, which you ignored.

Not ignored, fallacious. Roll Eyes

According to you.

Anyway, the world IS grappling with the green transition, let's see if you and your ilk can succeed in saving the filthy fossil industry (eg, BP abandoning its green transition plans beause ren. energy isn't as profitble, for shareholders).

Quote:

Which Insurance compamies. Google is like you believing what it is told. No thought necessary.

Now you show us you are complete fool, apparently hiding under a rock - the insurance industry as a whole, dummy, as reported in global media, not google.

Quote:

So which all papers does it address? Roll Eyes

google employs AI to facitate summary of ALL published papers.

Quote:

You are such a fool. Google doesn't publish papers at all. They reference other studies. Roll Eyes

They reference ALL papers, and summarize the reception of them all, hence google's finding of a "97% consensus that we must transition to a green economy".

Quote:

So another opinion dressed up as "fact". Grin

Dummy: the 'efficient free market' hypothesis is a fundamental axiom of mainstream economics, not my "opinion"; the point is market failure is endemic, causing
"inefficiencies in production and allocation, incomplete information, and inequality.".

Quote:

Like forcing up electricity prices because of cheaper renewables? Grin

See how lee, the blind (and dumb) 'efficient free market' ideologue (and climate denier who wants definitions) is going around in circles, I already explained markets can't fund the national infrastructure required to enable PV and turbine companies to survive in the free market.

Quote:

You still haven't shown a "global emergency". Merely some wombling about it could be a a decade or more away. Science doesn't do "coulds". Roll Eyes

Science DOES alert to trends.

Quote:

Only if it can be scaled up. There has been no upscaling to date. Despite being around for over 200 years. Roll Eyes

Of course lab experiments can be scaled up; eg, China is building the latest thorium reactors in the Gobi desert, planned to begin operating in 2029 (the US abandoned thorium reactor research in the 60s, and has now acknowledged China is ahead in the tech by 15 years or so). Ditto for scaling up green steel tech.

Quote:

So tell us about current upscaling. Wink

Ask google, dummy.

Quote:

So Governments can't provide adequate essential services without taxpayer funding. And here you have been saying it isn't necessary, because of adequate resources to fund MMT. Wink

poor lee, hasn't a clue: "taxpayer" funding of government is a ruse to enable private capital (owned by the elites, as opposed to workers) to keep more of the nation's production for itself.

Indeed taxpayer money isn't needed by a c-i government; the task of government is to ensure RESOURCE supply and demand are in balance, to avoid inflation, not to 'balance a budget' (the mainsteam myth keeping governments broke because no-one likes paying taxes).

Quote:

So to summarise -..

Given your general ignorance and delusions, any summary from you will be GIGO.

« Last Edit: Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:51pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 13328
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #686 - Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:44pm

Dnarever wrote on Mar 1^st, 2025 at 5:17pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Feb 26^th, 2025 at 11:58am:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24^th, 2025 at 8:09pm:

Is there a connection between the last 5 pages and Privatisation?

Still nobody is aware of a single successful privatisation in Australia. The people are ripped off every time.

Correct.

But the '("invisible hand") free market knows best' mythology dies hard....a bit like the (historical) 'Christ is God' Christian myth and other religious beliefs, die hard.

Like the trickle down effect will wet you socks if you didn't pull your zipper up.

...although in that case, the sequence of the operation is important (you have to stop peeing first...) Shocked

Whereas the trickle down effect simply doesn't happen, as evidenced by the fact the billionaires just keep geting richer, while the poor remain poor.

« Last Edit: Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 3:02pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 18101
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #687 - Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 1:13pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

According to you.

Nope. According to the analysis of the paper. You don't do statistics either. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Anyway, the world IS grappling with the green transition, let's see if you and your ilk can succeed in saving the filthy fossil industry (eg, BP abandoning its green transition plans beause ren. energy isn't as profitble, for shareholders).

Anyway, it shows the stupidity of your position, since you can't defend it. Wink

How about the "greening" of the earth due to CO2? Doesn't that count.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Now you show us you are complete fool, apparently hiding under a rock - the insurance industry as a whole, dummy, as reported in global media, not google.

So there should be a plethora of insurance companies to cite. But No, you can't provide them. Wombling. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

google employs AI to facitate summary of ALL published papers.

Nope. If it does you should be able to cite a reference. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

They reference ALL papers, and summarize the reception of them all, hence google's finding of a "97% consensus that we must transition to a green economy".

I just googled that quote. Not one listed was google. Do you want to try again? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

the 'efficient free market' hypothesis is a fundamental axiom of mainstream economics, not my "opinion"; the point is market failure is endemic, causing
"inefficiencies in production and allocation, incomplete information, and inequality.".

More bluff and bluster. Why don't you cite your source or sources? Your fear is palpable. Wink

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

the blind (and dumb) 'efficient free market' ideologue (and climate denier who wants definitions) is going around in circles, I already explained markets can't fund the national infrastructure required to enable PV and turbine companies to survive in the free market.

Why not? The markets funded cars, electrics, agriculture. Have you worked out how much more mining needs to be done to come up with the metals needed? You can't recycle the current infrastructure, it has to be additive. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Science DOES alert to trends.

Nope. Trends go up and down. You only want to look at the short term, less than 200 years. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Of course lab experiments can be scaled up;

Nope. SOME lab experiments can be scaled up.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

China is building the latest thorium reactors in the Gobi desert, planned to begin operating in 2029 (the US abandoned thorium reactor research in the 60s, and has now acknowledged China is ahead in the tech by 15 years or so).

I agree. It was abandoned on the fear of nuclear.

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Ditto for scaling up green steel tech.

Nope. You haven't shown that. You can't just throw things in the mix and say both ARE achievable. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Ask google, dummy.

I asked you dummy, and there is no current proven upscaling. Just hopes. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

hasn't a clue: "taxpayer" funding of government is a ruse to enable private capital (owned by the elites, as opposed to workers) to keep more of the nation's production for itself.

Oh it's a ruse now. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Indeed taxpayer money isn't needed by a c-i government; the task of government is to ensure RESOURCE supply and demand are in balance, to avoid inflation, not to 'balance a budget' (the mainsteam myth keeping governments broke because no-one likes paying taxes).

So back to resources, have you figured out the resources required for the wind turbines? You know EXTRA copper, steel, nickel etc. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 12:35pm:

Given your general ignorance and delusions, any summary from you will be GIGO.

So says the one so ignorant he believes Skep Sci is a tool of the "deniers" Grin

IP Logged

Grappler Deep State Feller

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 85583
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: privatisation
Reply #688 - Mar 2^nd, 2025 at 1:18pm

"the poor remain poor. " ...make that 'poorer' .... is that Comparative Poverty or Poverty Pure?

An Abo living on the beach, wine and roses, sandy beaches, drinking rum every night, is better off with the same level of government support/income as the same Abo living in the concrete jungles.... his Comparative Poverty is a luxury lifestyle many would love to find... the Other Guy sleeps out in a cardboard box underneath the smog instead of under the stars only when he feels like it ...... take the boat and go fishing in the morning, eh?

Pure Poverty or Poverty Equality would put them in the same conditions exactly ..... we really need to close the Poverty Gap there...

But what about the last guy down the chain? This guy has got it so bad that if he lay down on a highway to let a truck run over him, the highway would be closed for repairs... if he went to Gaza and stood up and yelled "Jehovah is a pussy!" - the IDF would laugh, pack up and go home.... if he turned the other way and said "Mohamed is a heretic wanker!"... Hamas would applaud and consider him مبارك الله ...mubarak allah.. blessed of God...... give that boy an explosive vest!!! So off he goes into Israel looking for targets.. a school or something... triggers the thing, and out pops a clown face going - "Ha, Ha!"

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Pages: 1 ... 44 45 46

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page