lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 5:04pm:


I don't need to link it. If it was incorrect, you would have linked it. Instead you deflected in your usual lame arse way

John Smith wrote Yesterday at 9:18am:


Yes you do. It was your claim. I can't find it. You?

John Smith wrote Yesterday at 11:56am:


You do realise that is a report of a report. Not the report.

From your reference -

"Economists Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh made the finding in a research paper, How Partisan is the Press?, that also said that on another measure of bias The Age slants towards Labor."

Wow economists now do bias. And they have different measures.

And 2009?

Also -

"Overall, we find that the Australian media are quite centrist, with very few outlets being statistically distinguishable from the middle of Australian politics."

Here is the 2009 paper -

https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/items/4a79702f-fb4e-4caf-a918-9abd0ba...

" On this metric, the only media outlet that is significantly slanted is ABC Channel 2 television news, which is significantly pro-Coalition during the period in question."

Wow. One period of time, an election year, and coverage of 107 "intellectuals".

John Smith wrote Yesterday at 11:56am:


If the latest you can find is 2009 maybe your research skills aren't up to scratch.

Baronvonrort wrote Yesterday at 3:46pm:


Gee, amazing how you overlook Snowy Hydro 1 and Tasmania, Baron.  What is wrong, isn't it sexy enough for you?  Tsk, tsk, tsk... 

lee wrote Yesterday at 4:37pm:


It is your story, Lee, you tell us what happens...  Tsk, tsk, tsk...

Australia will face pressure from the UK to set an ambitious goal after Keir Starmer’s Labour government committed to cut emissions by 81 per cent by 2035. *

Australia’s 2030 climate target, to cut emissions from 2005 levels by 43 per cent by 2030, is viewed as a relatively modest aim as it does not comply with the objective of the Paris Agreement for nations to commit to action consistent with limiting global warming to under 2 degrees.

Australia’s Climate Change Authority is currently considering responses to a draft target it issued in April to reduce emissions by 65 to 75 per cent by 2035.

https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/australia-to-delay-2035-climate-targe...


* In the UK Nuclear power is a significant percentage of the yearly electricity source.
They are building more Nuclear plants.



https://grid.iamkate.com/

Communities vent frustration at Coalition's nuclear plan for their towns

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2024 at 3:30pm:
 

Now you are actually denying your claim that AGW-CO2 is a "hoax" , and that  fossil pollution is not injurious to health.

You are the ultimate fraud. 

Quote:


Dummy, you said economics is not a science, I agree; as to peak oil,  it depends on discoveries of new oil and whether we leave it in the ground or not.
Your lack of logic is egregious; estimates of peak oil are also related to political decisions re transitioning from oil. 

Quote:


"believe"....what? That economies function spontaneously without design by economists? 

Dummy, economists study resource mobilization and distribution; obviously politics is a factor.

[I promote a major role for government plannng in the economy, because there is no shortage of resources which woud actually enforce poverty, ie. poverty is a political  choice benefitting the wealthy.

"Markets are good servants, but a poor master, and  a worse religion": Amory Lovins]

But obsolete orthodox economists insist a carbon tax will  most efficiently engender the transition to a green economy - despite making electricity even more unaffordable for the poor.

Quote:
 

Too funny; a range of AGW-CO2 projections  arrived at by scientific consensus isn't unscientific, even if not absolute  like scientific laws of physics;  and correlations between fossil use and harm to health ARE based on scientific observation. 

Quote:


Not guess work;  you ran away from the studies which have shown a positive correlation between poverty and youth crime, BECAUSE you can't grasp the meaning of projections and estimates based on proven correlations.

eg, estimates of savings to the community if poverty and associated youth crime are reduced by effective intervention.

Or - closer to the topic of this thread - estimates of the  quantity of  pumped hydro storage required, as we approach 100% renewables, estimates which will be firmed-up (pun?) as we approach 100% renewables...despite your low IQ assertion 100% renewables are impossible "because PVs wear out".

Excess storage of free solar and wind energy means the replacement PVs etc can be manufactured as required, using renewable energy.   

Nuclear may be required in some countries, but not in Oz......which is not to deny the last unit of elecricity to be added to the Oz grid might be cheaper via an always on  nuclear plant than by adding more excess renewables storage  (batteries/ puped hydro).