Made me check my spelling.

Looks like net zero is dead or dying, here and all around the world.

I guess it made some people rich, mostly China I guess selling all the "clean enery" infastucture.
Locally it destroyed a lot of bushland, put the cost of living up, made Australia less competitive, Whyalla being the latest victim to succumb.

Did absolutley nothing to affect the global climate, nada zero nilch.

Its not like it was difficult to understand that it would make Australia poorer and do nothing for the environment, if anything its made it worse.

How do people get sucked in and vote for it.

But the tropics is getting hotter. I remember growing up in Darwin in the 80s. Wet season was 32C tops. There was no need for an A/C. I noticed the global instability effect after the 1991 Gulf war up there. This war seemed to dump a bunch of populates into the atmosphere during that time. I could see the oil wells burning in the aerial news footage. Then, after this war, the wet season temperatures went up to 33-34C. It was only a degree, but, after 1991, it never went back to 32 max. Now, it's normal for Darwin to be 38C in October,and the wet seasons lasting 10-11 months. I talk to SE Asian coworkers who take trips back to their home lands, and they tell me the same thing. They just don't remember the temperature gauge being that high when they were growing up in the 80s. It seems to me the tropics is the worse affected. So, for my point of view, to say global warming is a hoax, you would have to be some sort of complete retard if you lived in the tropics and dismissed this effect. I think the above was a crack at solving this issue.

I just think that until the world's rich people are affected by global instability (which I don't think they are yet), then, and only then, will there be movements to counteract this man made effect. Maybe all the rich people are all planning to build a spaceship and fly to Planet B ?. For everybody else, it's bad luck.

jn1 said..
But the tropics is getting hotter. I remember growing up in Darwin in the 80s. Wet season was 32C tops. There was no need for an A/C. I noticed the global instability effect after the 1991 Gulf war up there. This war seemed to dump a bunch of populates into the atmosphere during that time. I could see the oil wells burning in the aerial news footage. Then, after this war, the wet season temperatures went up to 33-34C. It was only a degree, but, after 1991, it never went back to 32 max. Now, it's normal for Darwin to be 38C in October,and the wet seasons lasting 10-11 months. I talk to SE Asian coworkers who take trips back to their home lands, and they tell me the same thing. They just don't remember the temperature gauge being that high when they were growing up in the 80s. It seems to me the tropics is the worse affected. So, for my point of view, to say global warming is a hoax, you would have to be some sort of complete retard if you lived in the tropics and dismissed this effect. I think the above was a crack at solving this issue.

I just think that until the world's rich people are affected by global instability (which I don't think they are yet), then, and only then, will there be movements to counteract this man made effect. Maybe all the rich people are all planning to build a spaceship and fly to Planet B ?. For everybody else, it's bad luck.

I dont think the record reflects your observations, so to call people retards because they didnt imagine what you did is unfair

cammd said..

Try thinking for yourself instead of just outsourcing it to vested interests.

Why would I do that when I have a highly qualified climate scientist like yourself to advise me?

myscreenname said..

cammd said..
Looks like net zero is dead or dying, here and all around the world.

All that's left for you to do is to stop everyone buying cheap Chinese electric cars and solar panels.

Chinese were proven right by investing in a renewable energy future.

Buy whatever you want but stop the tax payer funded subsidies.

China stopped building coal power stations have they.

cammd said..

I dont think the record reflects your observations, so to call people retards because they didnt imagine what you did is unfair

I was not referring to anybody (you) on this forum as that. I was referring to a given world leader with the attention span of a 7 YO ADHD. When global warming effects Him (and his cohorts), things will change. I lived in Darwin 20 years, and was an avid fisherman. I would follow the weather intently. Talking to my Darwin friends recently, and looking at the Darwin Airport historical records on BOM, I there have been 38s on October. As common as 42's in Adelaide in January. You can split hairs if you like.

cammd said..

Buy whatever you want but stop the tax payer funded subsidies.

You are using your wealth of knowledge about climate science to consider fossil fuel subsidies right?

"Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australian governments $16.3 billion in 2025–26, an increase of 9.4% on the previous year. By contrast, the cost of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) increased by only 7.6% over the same period."

apo.org.au/node/333728

Any profitable wind farm will pay company tax. If wholesale prices don't reduce, profitability should increase as the finance is paid off.
Chat GPT gave me a list of projects it thinks are making money.

Most likely profitable today (based on revenue + CF + QLD pricing):
Coopers Gap (47% CF)
Dulacca (45% CF)
Wambo (44.5% CF)
Clarke Creek (42.8% CF)
Granville Harbour (TAS) (52% CF, strong TAS wind resource)
These projects consistently show high output, strong revenue, and favourable regional capture prices.

However, in absolute terms, miners will pay more tax because mining is a much bigger industry.

Is anywhere $275 cheaper than it was a few years ago.

cammd said..
China stopped building coal power stations have they.

And the relevance is?

cammd said..

China stopped building coal power stations have they.

And the relevance is?

cammd said..
I dont think

The most accurate comment he's made.

Be-Jeezuz cammd, what's not to get ?

Real net zero demands that we sell it to others cheap and then pay them to burn it.

If we get real smart we can even pay them to mine it, process it and ship it as well.

It's what I'd accuse MSN of alluding too, for the benefit of proving I am awesome on these forums and being able to make some sarcastic comments - but I don't think it is.

I believe MSN has always said here Net Zero policy doesn't make any sense, and in part because the measure of zero excludes more than it includes, so what is the point of having it.

I don't think he is saying we should have a net zero policy and also include overseas emissions generated from whatever we export in that policy.

Although I do think others here are saying that, not because they have though about it, but because their desire to prove their wokeness results in it without them thinking about it.

Carantoc said..

I don't think he is saying we should have a net zero policy and also include overseas emissions generated from whatever we export in that policy.

I think he might saying that