Sky News Aus is considered a hard right news station that aired false information.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news-australia/

ABC Aus is a slight left news station with mostly factually information and are part of the international fact checking group.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

So no they are not the same. One reports the news with a slight bias, the other presents outright laws and a hard bias. And this is the problem. People seem to think that these groups are only slightly biased when they are extremely biased and believe they are entirely factually when most right wing sources are not factual. But then any independent attempts to examine truth and bias in the media are rejected because people do not want truth, they want to hear what they want.

Thanks for that C. It seems so obvious that I didn't even bother go down the wormhole. He's even acknowledged the fact that left wingers are increasingly concerned/complaining about the ABC drifting to the middle which you'd think would indicate that it's clearly "more balanced" than SNA which right-wingers lap up. 

I enjoy shooting the shit with Incy by and large but sometimes I just have to hold my hands up because his position is just so baffling to me. When someone endorses the content of Andrew Bolt etc it's basically like all hope is lost. He probably thinks the same thing about me but you know...

Nov 17, 2020 5:26:41 GMT c said:

Sky News Aus is considered a hard right news station that aired false information.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/sky-news-australia/

ABC Aus is a slight left news station with mostly factually information and are part of the international fact checking group.

mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news-australia/

So no they are not the same. One reports the news with a slight bias, the other presents outright laws and a hard bias. And this is the problem. People seem to think that these groups are only slightly biased when they are extremely biased and believe they are entirely factually when most right wing sources are not factual. But then any independent attempts to examine truth and bias in the media are rejected because people do not want truth, they want to hear what they want.

It's incredible. Even as of last night Sky News was still towing the election fraud line, and openly mind you, in criticism of Fox News. So much so, you'd think right wing Australia was the 51st state.

I am hoping Trump goes there after the election. His career in the US is likely over, but Aus seems to be ready to embrace all he has to offer.

thehardtimes.net/blog/i-was-brainwashed-by-the-liberal-media-then-i-saw-a-video-of-a-man-ranting-alone-in-a-truck/?fbclid=IwAR1Tv3pl4LbjtojZKormoLG8mcOteS3XPpRJvnVpzalue1zEl_54qmR9g6E

Nov 17, 2020 5:44:19 GMT c said:

I am hoping Trump goes there after the election. His career in the US is likely over, but Aus seems to be ready to embrace all he has to offer.

Venture just 200km outside of either Sydney or Melbourne, and its a combination of 1950s America and Mad Max Fury Road. So, perfect Trump country.

Nov 17, 2020 7:58:47 GMT NATH45 said:

Nov 17, 2020 5:44:19 GMT c said:

I am hoping Trump goes there after the election. His career in the US is likely over, but Aus seems to be ready to embrace all he has to offer.

Venture just 200km outside of either Sydney or Melbourne, and its a combination of 1950s America and Mad Max Fury Road. So, perfect Trump country.

Melbourne CBD is like an AOC wet dream of moronic leftism. Anyone who votes for the greens in Australia has no pragmatic sense whatsoever.

Nov 17, 2020 9:08:07 GMT iNCY said:

Nov 17, 2020 7:58:47 GMT NATH45 said:

Venture just 200km outside of either Sydney or Melbourne, and its a combination of 1950s America and Mad Max Fury Road. So, perfect Trump country.

Melbourne CBD is like an AOC wet dream of moronic leftism. Anyone who votes for the greens in Australia has no pragmatic sense whatsoever.

I know this bloke who listens to Heavy Metal exclusively. Nothing else. And when talking about music, and disclosing to him that I don't listen to Heavy Metal, his response is "you must listen to Britney Spears then" similarly the cool & hip alt-right, have the same infliction. You guys straight up believe anyone who doesn't sit on the right, must be a Greenie. Or vote The Greens. Not true. 

And while I'm on it, the word " conservative " these days is really a buzzword adopted by the crass, or the arrogant - you choose, that allows them to do and say stupid things. See anyone who works for Sky News for example. Rowan Dean wouldn't last 15 minutes in the real world without a chair being wrapped around his face considering some of the rubbish that comes out off his mouth. But sure, there's real conservatives in the world I won't deny that. 

However, 15 years ago your racist uncle wasn't a conservative - he was a racist. Today he's a conservative. A patriot. He doesn't have any political thought or process otherwise. 15 years ago, your homophobic mate from school wasn't a conservative - he was homophobic ( and possibly closeted ) but today he's a conservative standing up for traditional family values. 15 years ago, that mate you had that spouted off "politically incorrect" things wasn't a conservative - he was a dickhead, regardless of intelligence. Today, he's a conservative protecting his free speech - most likely because he's also racist or homophobic. 

The thing is, if people leaning to the left are promoting progress, equal rights, conversations about equality and diversity. Speaking about not just climate change ( and I'll slow down here, because those leaning to the right can't seem to get past the definition of climate change or settle on one, because semantics ) but renewal energy, sustainability, environmental protection, etc and so on - that's fucking fantastic. Because all you hear from these so called " conservatives " is.. we want to say what we want, regardless of who it offends - free speech! Fuck Yeah! We don't want to talk about any of the above, let alone act on it, because we don't live in a racist or unequal society ( despite the wide-spread protests ) Climate change isn't real, it's a myth perpetuated by the left to rid me of my money. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. White Police Officers kill just as many white people as black.. and these people aren't your political leaders - the real leaders, saying this.. these are your political commentators saying these things, your Sky News.

It's absolute bullshit, that deliberately adds nothing to the conversation. And that really is the definition of conserve - to protect, to maintain, to retain, to unchange. Because for the privileged usually spewing this crap and of course the uncultured & ignorant that feed off this shit, life has never been better. Why change?

I'd rather than 10 Greta Thunberg Jr's running around, than another Rowan Dean or Andrew Bolt. Because they're actually doing something positive. 

Nov 17, 2020 11:06:00 GMT NATH45 said:

Nov 17, 2020 9:08:07 GMT iNCY said:

Melbourne CBD is like an AOC wet dream of moronic leftism. Anyone who votes for the greens in Australia has no pragmatic sense whatsoever.

I know this bloke who listens to Heavy Metal exclusively. Nothing else. And when talking about music, and disclosing to him that I don't listen to Heavy Metal, his response is "you must listen to Britney Spears then" similarly the cool & hip alt-right, have the same infliction. You guys straight up believe anyone who doesn't sit on the right, must be a Greenie. Or vote The Greens. Not true. 

And while I'm on it, the word " conservative " these days is really a buzzword adopted by the crass, or the arrogant - you choose, that allows them to do and say stupid things. See anyone who works for Sky News for example. Rowan Dean wouldn't last 15 minutes in the real world without a chair being wrapped around his face considering some of the rubbish that comes out off his mouth. But sure, there's real conservatives in the world I won't deny that. 

However, 15 years ago your racist uncle wasn't a conservative - he was a racist. Today he's a conservative. A patriot. He doesn't have any political thought or process otherwise. 15 years ago, your homophobic mate from school wasn't a conservative - he was homophobic ( and possibly closeted ) but today he's a conservative standing up for traditional family values. 15 years ago, that mate you had that spouted off "politically incorrect" things wasn't a conservative - he was a dickhead, regardless of intelligence. Today, he's a conservative protecting his free speech - most likely because he's also racist or homophobic. 

The thing is, if people leaning to the left are promoting progress, equal rights, conversations about equality and diversity. Speaking about not just climate change ( and I'll slow down here, because those leaning to the right can't seem to get past the definition of climate change or settle on one, because semantics ) but renewal energy, sustainability, environmental protection, etc and so on - that's fucking fantastic. Because all you hear from these so called " conservatives " is.. we want to say what we want, regardless of who it offends - free speech! Fuck Yeah! We don't want to talk about any of the above, let alone act on it, because we don't live in a racist or unequal society ( despite the wide-spread protests ) Climate change isn't real, it's a myth perpetuated by the left to rid me of my money. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. White Police Officers kill just as many white people as black.. and these people aren't your political leaders - the real leaders, saying this.. these are your political commentators saying these things, your Sky News.

It's absolute bullshit, that deliberately adds nothing to the conversation. And that really is the definition of conserve - to protect, to maintain, to retain, to unchange. Because for the privileged usually spewing this crap and of course the uncultured & ignorant that feed off this shit, life has never been better. Why change?

I'd rather than 10 Greta Thunberg Jr's running around, than another Rowan Dean or Andrew Bolt. Because they're actually doing something positive. 

Please tell me what Greta Thunberg or her Extinction Rebellion idiots are doing that are even remotely "positive"
You want to talk about the real world, Greta and her leftist moronic cult are the people who walk into a meeting and say... "What we need is a cheap efficient and reliable solution" while folding their arms with a smug look on their face as if they had said something remotely helpful.

If it was possible to have clean, green sustainable energy we would already have it, unfortunately it is not that easy.
Yes, we could all eat bugs and ride bicycles from our 3m squared apartments to our office building where we work out peoples social credit on Excel... but that ain't going to happen.
The problem with the Greens.. with the left... is that they have no alternative policy... Fossil fuels are terrible!!!
Okay, what is the solution? Tell me NATH45

RENEWABLES! Everyone exclaims breathlessly, except they don't provide baseload power, so you must run two complete energy systems.
Renewable energy is not cheap, it is only cheap when measured on a per kW manufacturing cost ignoring existing infrastructure.
It's not always sunny or windy, so you still need to burn coal.
They only way to make renewable energy affordable is to tax the shit out of coal and gas... Great energy is now so expensive manufacturing industries jack their prices until nothing is affordable...
So the business closes and the manufacturing goes offshore to countries like India and China whose energy targets under the Paris climate agreement are higher in 2030 than they are today.

So OMG STOP Adani! Right? How did that work out for Labor??
So we don't export our awesome A-Grade coal, does this mean one gram less coal is burnt globally? Nope, they just burn shitty low grade dirty coal instead.
So we do what the greenies want we shoot our industry in the head and eat bugs... What is the net change to global carbon emissions? Zero because emerging economies fill the gap.

Call me a racist, call m a boomer, I still look for a low carbon emission economy... But of all the technologies available now, it is only possible with nuclear.
But feel free to educate me on the economically impossible cost of your woke philosophies...

Nov 17, 2020 7:58:47 GMT NATH45 said:

Nov 17, 2020 5:44:19 GMT c said:

I am hoping Trump goes there after the election. His career in the US is likely over, but Aus seems to be ready to embrace all he has to offer.

Venture just 200km outside of either Sydney or Melbourne, and its a combination of 1950s America and Mad Max Fury Road. So, perfect Trump country.

Trump world tour 🥳

Nov 17, 2020 12:26:33 GMT iNCY said:

Nov 17, 2020 11:06:00 GMT NATH45 said:

I know this bloke who listens to Heavy Metal exclusively. Nothing else. And when talking about music, and disclosing to him that I don't listen to Heavy Metal, his response is "you must listen to Britney Spears then" similarly the cool & hip alt-right, have the same infliction. You guys straight up believe anyone who doesn't sit on the right, must be a Greenie. Or vote The Greens. Not true. 

And while I'm on it, the word " conservative " these days is really a buzzword adopted by the crass, or the arrogant - you choose, that allows them to do and say stupid things. See anyone who works for Sky News for example. Rowan Dean wouldn't last 15 minutes in the real world without a chair being wrapped around his face considering some of the rubbish that comes out off his mouth. But sure, there's real conservatives in the world I won't deny that. 

However, 15 years ago your racist uncle wasn't a conservative - he was a racist. Today he's a conservative. A patriot. He doesn't have any political thought or process otherwise. 15 years ago, your homophobic mate from school wasn't a conservative - he was homophobic ( and possibly closeted ) but today he's a conservative standing up for traditional family values. 15 years ago, that mate you had that spouted off "politically incorrect" things wasn't a conservative - he was a dickhead, regardless of intelligence. Today, he's a conservative protecting his free speech - most likely because he's also racist or homophobic. 

The thing is, if people leaning to the left are promoting progress, equal rights, conversations about equality and diversity. Speaking about not just climate change ( and I'll slow down here, because those leaning to the right can't seem to get past the definition of climate change or settle on one, because semantics ) but renewal energy, sustainability, environmental protection, etc and so on - that's fucking fantastic. Because all you hear from these so called " conservatives " is.. we want to say what we want, regardless of who it offends - free speech! Fuck Yeah! We don't want to talk about any of the above, let alone act on it, because we don't live in a racist or unequal society ( despite the wide-spread protests ) Climate change isn't real, it's a myth perpetuated by the left to rid me of my money. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. White Police Officers kill just as many white people as black.. and these people aren't your political leaders - the real leaders, saying this.. these are your political commentators saying these things, your Sky News.

It's absolute bullshit, that deliberately adds nothing to the conversation. And that really is the definition of conserve - to protect, to maintain, to retain, to unchange. Because for the privileged usually spewing this crap and of course the uncultured & ignorant that feed off this shit, life has never been better. Why change?

I'd rather than 10 Greta Thunberg Jr's running around, than another Rowan Dean or Andrew Bolt. Because they're actually doing something positive. 

Please tell me what Greta Thunberg or her Extinction Rebellion idiots are doing that are even remotely "positive"
You want to talk about the real world, Greta and her leftist moronic cult are the people who walk into a meeting and say... "What we need is a cheap efficient and reliable solution" while folding their arms with a smug look on their face as if they had said something remotely helpful.

If it was possible to have clean, green sustainable energy we would already have it, unfortunately it is not that easy.
Yes, we could all eat bugs and ride bicycles from our 3m squared apartments to our office building where we work out peoples social credit on Excel... but that ain't going to happen.
The problem with the Greens.. with the left... is that they have no alternative policy... Fossil fuels are terrible!!!
Okay, what is the solution? Tell me NATH45

RENEWABLES! Everyone exclaims breathlessly, except they don't provide baseload power, so you must run two complete energy systems.
Renewable energy is not cheap, it is only cheap when measured on a per kW manufacturing cost ignoring existing infrastructure.
It's not always sunny or windy, so you still need to burn coal.
They only way to make renewable energy affordable is to tax the shit out of coal and gas... Great energy is now so expensive manufacturing industries jack their prices until nothing is affordable...
So the business closes and the manufacturing goes offshore to countries like India and China whose energy targets under the Paris climate agreement are higher in 2030 than they are today.

So OMG STOP Adani! Right? How did that work out for Labor??
So we don't export our awesome A-Grade coal, does this mean one gram less coal is burnt globally? Nope, they just burn shitty low grade dirty coal instead.
So we do what the greenies want we shoot our industry in the head and eat bugs... What is the net change to global carbon emissions? Zero because emerging economies fill the gap.

Call me a racist, call m a boomer, I still look for a low carbon emission economy... But of all the technologies available now, it is only possible with nuclear.
But feel free to educate me on the economically impossible cost of your woke philosophies...

Yet again, adding absolutely nothing to the conversation. Your response didn't move any of those talking points forward one bit. In fact, it supported my previous statement. Here's a man yelling at clouds again, because they changed what 'it' was. Now what being right-wing isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'left' seems weird and scary. Are you out of touch, no it's the children who are wrong. You choose.

Side question, have you seen the 1998 Toby McGuire classic, Plesentville? Moving on..

Greta Thunberg, Elon Musk, green ideals, green energy in 2020 isn't about today. It's about who comes next. Who do these people influence, who do they change? What policy, what technology, what progress does it inspire? If it means a handful of World Leaders see some good in what Greta for example is saying, and it inspires ( taking the good, from the bad ) change in policy or at the very least allows for conversation leading to change without a conservative commentator screaming about the damage it will cause to his share portfolio. Fantastic. She has single handedly added more good to this world than any right wing commentator has ever done.

It's about, how do we execute these ideals and making them work. First conversation, then policy, then action without the right continually discounting it as myth.

Similarly the right couldn't completely adopt facism ( you bought him up ) they had to adopt some of the less extreme ideals and call it conservatism

Nov 17, 2020 21:02:53 GMT NATH45 said:

Nov 17, 2020 12:26:33 GMT iNCY said:

Please tell me what Greta Thunberg or her Extinction Rebellion idiots are doing that are even remotely "positive"
You want to talk about the real world, Greta and her leftist moronic cult are the people who walk into a meeting and say... "What we need is a cheap efficient and reliable solution" while folding their arms with a smug look on their face as if they had said something remotely helpful.

If it was possible to have clean, green sustainable energy we would already have it, unfortunately it is not that easy.
Yes, we could all eat bugs and ride bicycles from our 3m squared apartments to our office building where we work out peoples social credit on Excel... but that ain't going to happen.
The problem with the Greens.. with the left... is that they have no alternative policy... Fossil fuels are terrible!!!
Okay, what is the solution? Tell me NATH45

RENEWABLES! Everyone exclaims breathlessly, except they don't provide baseload power, so you must run two complete energy systems.
Renewable energy is not cheap, it is only cheap when measured on a per kW manufacturing cost ignoring existing infrastructure.
It's not always sunny or windy, so you still need to burn coal.
They only way to make renewable energy affordable is to tax the shit out of coal and gas... Great energy is now so expensive manufacturing industries jack their prices until nothing is affordable...
So the business closes and the manufacturing goes offshore to countries like India and China whose energy targets under the Paris climate agreement are higher in 2030 than they are today.

So OMG STOP Adani! Right? How did that work out for Labor??
So we don't export our awesome A-Grade coal, does this mean one gram less coal is burnt globally? Nope, they just burn shitty low grade dirty coal instead.
So we do what the greenies want we shoot our industry in the head and eat bugs... What is the net change to global carbon emissions? Zero because emerging economies fill the gap.

Call me a racist, call m a boomer, I still look for a low carbon emission economy... But of all the technologies available now, it is only possible with nuclear.
But feel free to educate me on the economically impossible cost of your woke philosophies...

Yet again, adding absolutely nothing to the conversation. Your response didn't move any of those talking points forward one bit. In fact, it supported my previous statement. Here's a man yelling at clouds again, because they changed what 'it' was. Now what being right-wing isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'left' seems weird and scary. Are you out of touch, no it's the children who are wrong. You choose.

Side question, have you seen the 1998 Toby McGuire classic, Plesentville? Moving on..

Greta Thunberg, Elon Musk, green ideals, green energy in 2020 isn't about today. It's about who comes next. Who do these people influence, who do they change? What policy, what technology, what progress does it inspire? If it means a handful of World Leaders see some good in what Greta for example is saying, and it inspires ( taking the good, from the bad ) change in policy or at the very least allows for conversation leading to change without a conservative commentator screaming about the damage it will cause to his share portfolio. Fantastic. She has single handedly added more good to this world than any right wing commentator has ever done.

It's about, how do we execute these ideals and making them work. First conversation, then policy, then action without the right continually discounting it as myth.

Similarly the right couldn't completely adopt facism ( you bought him up ) they had to adopt some of the less extreme ideals and call it conservatism

Again, not sure why I bother when you show a complete inability to engage.
You raised conservatism VS the left and raised Greta.
This is essentially the problem of the left, they're all about sweeping ideals with no concept of how to implement them.
I am less a conservative than I am a pragmatist.

It's not Greta Thunberg's job to come up with the solution. She's, what, 16 years old? She's not an economist, a politician, a world leader, an architect, a scientist, an engineer. She's an activist.

Her job - not in the literal sense, since I believe she's doing this all voluntarily - is to raise awareness as best as she can. As NATH45 said she wants to bring more awareness and urgency to environmental issues so that the people who are qualified and capable of making the practical decisions (economists, scientists, politicians, engineers etc.) have the drive to push these changes forward.

Can nobody speak up on anything they are passionate about if they are not qualified to pose a complete practical solution? Because Greta is brave enough to speak up, she is expected to have a 5,000 page manifesto of exactly how to implement her ideas?

Nov 17, 2020 21:26:57 GMT Emperor said:

It's not Greta Thunberg's job to come up with the solution. She's, what, 16 years old? She's not an economist, a politician, a world leader, an architect, a scientist, an engineer. She's an activist.

Her job - not in the literal sense, since I believe she's doing this all voluntarily - is to raise awareness as best as she can. As NATH45 said she wants to bring more awareness and urgency to environmental issues so that the people who are qualified and capable of making the practical decisions (economists, scientists, politicians, engineers etc.) have the drive to push these changes forward.

Can nobody speak up on anything they are passionate about if they are not qualified to pose a complete practical solution? Because Greta is brave enough to speak up, she is expected to have a 5,000 page manifesto of exactly how to implement her ideas?

Yes, I can understand someone being passionate... But standing up and saying "How dare you" isn't at all helpful and doesn't achieve anything but the front cover of Time magazine.
My issue isn't directly with Greta, my issue is that we don't have anyonw with any viable solutions.
Nobody can get elected in a western nation under any of these socialist plans for reform.

Nov 17, 2020 23:19:29 GMT iNCY said:

Yes, I can understand someone being passionate... But standing up and saying "How dare you" isn't at all helpful and doesn't achieve anything but the front cover of Time magazine.
My issue isn't directly with Greta, my issue is that we don't have anyonw with any viable solutions.
Nobody can get elected in a western nation under any of these socialist plans for reform.

Gotta say, achieving the front cover of Time magazine is a pretty big accomplishment, and shows that she has raised enough awareness to breach the mainstream. Maybe nothing will come of it, but you can't fault her for trying.

I do agree that her approach was not the most helpful, but I doubt she would have made headlines around the world if she said "can you fix the environment pretty please?". It's about raising awareness.

Lack of viable solutions is a problem too, although we do hear of countries making significant steps towards significant non-nuclear renewable energy production.

We do not lack solutions, we lack knowledge of the solutions. It is assumed you cannot store energy, which if you take a second to think about is utterly absurd given we are surrounded in our daily lives by devices that can store energy extremely well. For large scale we have many options ranging from battery banks to salt / conversion reactors.

The main problem we face is people not really caring to look into the math being presented by conservatives. Sure alternative energy is costly if we present the costs of alternative energy vs nothing. Which is how we frame this conversation. We assume coal energy has no costs, gas energy has no costs, and there are no costs from the increasing environmental events related to a warming world such as hurricanes, droughts and fires. Start the conversations assuming that there are costs to both sides and the cost of green energy drops fast. Even using energy storage now, we can save excess grid energy to be used later. This energy is currently wasted. Reducing energy loss, a big part of green energy, also can be done now and lower costs in the future.

But really we are having two conversations. One is how to move to green energy and stop environmental damage and the other is how to retain profits for those with heavy investments in fossil fuel energy generation. It is sad that we are favoring giving money to one industry who pays nothing for the damage they cause, and claim it is the best solution we have because anything else will have costs that we already are paying anyway.

Nov 17, 2020 23:32:45 GMT Emperor said:

Nov 17, 2020 23:19:29 GMT iNCY said:

Gotta say, achieving the front cover of Time magazine is a pretty big accomplishment, and shows that she has raised enough awareness to breach the mainstream. Maybe nothing will come of it, but you can't fault her for trying.

I do agree that her approach was not the most helpful, but I doubt she would have made headlines around the world if she said "can you fix the environment pretty please?". It's about raising awareness.

Lack of viable solutions is a problem too, although we do hear of countries making significant steps towards significant non-nuclear renewable energy production.

Yeah, this is where you lose me completely... I see no advantage to "raise awareness" what does it even mean?
The problem is not about awareness, it is about the lack of solutions that exist.
Everyone who has signed on to the Paris 2050 targets has ZERO chance of achieving their targets, the ones that do will be because they did via accounting tricks, not through real reform.

Nov 18, 2020 0:45:27 GMT c said:

We do not lack solutions, we lack knowledge of the solutions. It is assumed you cannot store energy, which if you take a second to think about is utterly absurd given we are surrounded in our daily lives by devices that can store energy extremely well. For large scale we have many options ranging from battery banks to salt / conversion reactors.

The main problem we face is people not really caring to look into the math being presented by conservatives. Sure alternative energy is costly if we present the costs of alternative energy vs nothing. Which is how we frame this conversation. We assume coal energy has no costs, gas energy has no costs, and there are no costs from the increasing environmental events related to a warming world such as hurricanes, droughts and fires. Start the conversations assuming that there are costs to both sides and the cost of green energy drops fast. Even using energy storage now, we can save excess grid energy to be used later. This energy is currently wasted. Reducing energy loss, a big part of green energy, also can be done now and lower costs in the future.

But really we are having two conversations. One is how to move to green energy and stop environmental damage and the other is how to retain profits for those with heavy investments in fossil fuel energy generation. It is sad that we are favoring giving money to one industry who pays nothing for the damage they cause, and claim it is the best solution we have because anything else will have costs that we already are paying anyway.

I am not opposed to renewable energy, it is a great idea that remains an idea...
There are huge flaws with your arguments which are always glossed over by those promoting renewable energy.
People talk about solar for example being cost effective compared to coal... If you were building new infrastructure that may be the case on a per kW basis.
Then you start to talk about what you just mentioned... Salt storage is not viable, so you are looking at battery technology, which is insanely expensive.
The part that nobody allows for is that a solar plant in the middle of a desert may generate energy for up to 10hrs per day.
That means you need storage for 14hrs of electricity...
Not only that, the part that is never discussed is you have to generate energy in vastly greater amounts to store it.
An average house in Australia is about 15.4kwhr per day, which is at best case .64kwhr per hour.
Imagine that scaled out by a city, not such a big deal, but we are talking about the need for storage...
So with fossil fuel baseload power you can generate the 0.64kwhr all day and night, but with solar you need to generate enough to store... So you need to generate twice that and allow for transmission and storage losses.
When you factor all of this in, renewables don't work... if they did we would have them already, because business wants the cheapest electricity costs they can get.

Maybe the whole world would be better off if we all just did away with electricity?

Feels like that would go a long way toward that whole equality or equity thing, leveling the playing field between first and third world countries.

Nov 18, 2020 1:56:12 GMT 🤯 said:

Maybe the whole world would be better off if we all just did away with electricity?

Feels like that would go a long way toward that whole equality or equity thing, leveling the playing field between first and third world countries.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the goal of the Paris climate treaty is.
Socialism always seem to be the answer.

Nov 18, 2020 2:00:21 GMT iNCY said:

Nov 18, 2020 1:56:12 GMT 🤯 said:

Maybe the whole world would be better off if we all just did away with electricity?

Feels like that would go a long way toward that whole equality or equity thing, leveling the playing field between first and third world countries.

Yeah, that's pretty much what the goal of the Paris climate treaty is.
Socialism always seem to be the answer.

It would be socialism to do away with electricity the world over?

Nov 18, 2020 2:02:11 GMT 🤯 said:

Nov 18, 2020 2:00:21 GMT iNCY said:

Yeah, that's pretty much what the goal of the Paris climate treaty is.
Socialism always seem to be the answer.

It would be socialism to do away with electricity the world over?

So to a lesser extent, the Paris climate accord is that on not such an extreme scenario.... Not the elimination of electricity, but the "levelling of the playing field"

This is what Australia has signed to under the Paris accords:



26% below current levels by 2030...

Now China:



An agreement that their energy use will be 47% higher than 2010 in 2030. 
Does that sound like a climate emergency?


India:



So what they are saying is that Western countries have to completely sacrifice their way of life today, right now... As in get rid of your cat and stop eating beef tomorrow on the Basis that China and India will be required to do something similar in 2030 whether they do or not... And even if you completely blow up your economy as they are suggesting, global carbon emissions will be higher in 2030 than they are today....

I am not anti-renewables, but the whole thing is a a sham....
A poor solution that is absolutely impossible, because whose going to agree to having their manufacturing job shipped to China and their energy costs doubled with ZERO decline in global emissions?

How is salt storage not viable when there are dozens already in active use with more in production?

And with green power, you still retain backup coal generation you realize that right? You only activate it as needed, and not as the primary.

The right wants to take this into extremes hypotheticals to make arguments to show it can never work and seem to have no understanding of what is actually being proposed. But really this is like people screaming at the sun claiming motor carriages will never replaces horses because they cannot drive un uneven terrain or man can never leave Earth because they will explode in space. Every major advance in society has seen a large group claim it is impossible, economically unfeasible or will bring forth the end of society. Socrates rallied against writing knowledge in books. People claimed electricity was too dangerous to use on a widescale level. People rallied against cars when they were first introduced. We see this time and time again.

Nov 18, 2020 2:37:11 GMT c said:

How is salt storage not viable when there are dozens already in active use with more in production?

And with green power, you still retain backup coal generation you realize that right? You only activate it as needed, and not as the primary.

The right wants to take this into extremes hypotheticals to make arguments to show it can never work and seem to have no understanding of what is actually being proposed. But really this is like people screaming at the sun claiming motor carriages will never replaces horses because they cannot drive un uneven terrain or man can never leave Earth because they will explode in space. Every major advance in society has seen a large group claim it is impossible, economically unfeasible or will bring forth the end of society. Socrates rallied against writing knowledge in books. People claimed electricity was too dangerous to use on a widescale level. People rallied against cars when they were first introduced. We see this time and time again.

I think you misunderstand my argument...
Energy is a simple evaluation of three points:

• Reliable
• Affordable
• Environmentally friendly

Pick any 2

Energy is a key cost to the economy, if you want to increase the cost of energy fine, no problem... As long as you can accept a rise in the cost of everything.
Except people don't accept rises in costs, they tend to riot...
In every single suggestion that has been put forward the cost of manufacturing sky rockets and factories close for manufacturing to be moved to a plant in a low energy cost economy.
It is a zero-sum game, increase the costs and you increase the prices, we are not talking about a trivial amount of money.

As you rightly suggest you can keep the existing energy sector running, so baseload power of fossil fuels supported by renewables...
Here's the thing, that means you run solar during the day and pull fossil fuels in the evening.
Which means you have the cost of maintaining infrastructure across two completely different energy production methodologies.
Currently with fossil fuels the production costs are amortized across a certain number of kwhr's when you decrease the output the energy gets more expensive.

Maybe molten salt gets there, but currently it is a pipe dream.

Wind is solar power is 25% cheaper per kilowatt hour right now in AUS before you add in carbon capture costs. This in addition to 1% or your taxes right now being given to the fossil fuel industry. Each taxpayer in Australia right now pays 450 bucks on average to the fossil fuel industry yearly. I would argue that this is not affordable. Which means right now you get reliable only with costs continually rising as the cost of fossil fuel use rises while the costs of wind and solar continues to decline.

As for getting energy at night, you use wind or drain batteries. Molten salt is not needed until there is a generation decline. The science has been figured out. It is not up for debate. The only thing up for debate is why do people insist that they use a more expensive form of energy that demands billions in taxes to continue to producing energy over a cheaper option that has no center of control to extort the government with?

www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/nov/18/australias-climate-record-labelled-simply-embarrassing-and-among-worst-of-g20-nations

It's a (inter)national disgrace! Emissions three times the G20 average per capita.

I saw something on Twitter earlier about San Francisco banning the installation of gas in new buildings. We love to point at laugh at all the stupid things from America but we're so much worse in so many ways. Scott Morrison has pulled the wool over so many eyes with his dorky dad routine - he has and always will be actively damaging our country and our future.

Australia is what many teach for environmental effects since the country is said to be very linked to climate change in terms of weather effects, fires, freshwater / seawater issues, sea level rising, ect. It is the only large country without neighbors that can be seen as a single system. From what I understand the country is also pretty screwed in terms of global effects, which makes local effects all the more important. Can literally see where the beaches in the last 40 years have vanished and the sea encroaches on the land and buildings now actively being threatened. As Antarctica continues to melt and cleave apart the coastal damage to Australia will be immense.

To pause from the climate discussions that I will resume...

It is a sad day to be an Australian.
I am deeply ashamed of the results of the war crime investigations undertaken in Australia.
This is not the Australia I have come to know and I feel the deepest regret to the Afghani people for what has been done to them by our country.

Nov 19, 2020 1:00:02 GMT iNCY said:

To pause from the climate discussions that I will resume...

It is a sad day to be an Australian.
I am deeply ashamed of the results of the war crime investigations undertaken in Australia.
This is not the Australia I have come to know and I feel the deepest regret to the Afghani people for what has been done to them by our country.

Some of the stories coming out are just beyond abhorrent. The idea that we have a reality show on TV at the moment justifying/promoting this kind of toxic behaviour is just unbelievable. 

/photo/1

Nov 19, 2020 2:01:02 GMT @admin said:

Nov 19, 2020 1:00:02 GMT iNCY said:

To pause from the climate discussions that I will resume...

It is a sad day to be an Australian.
I am deeply ashamed of the results of the war crime investigations undertaken in Australia.
This is not the Australia I have come to know and I feel the deepest regret to the Afghani people for what has been done to them by our country.

Some of the stories coming out are just beyond abhorrent. The idea that we have a reality show on TV at the moment justifying/promoting this kind of toxic behaviour is just unbelievable. 

/photo/1

I don't think the SAS should be tarnished as a group with this sort of behaviour and the mental conditioning etc. these guys have to go through is necessary, these people have to be insanely tough mentally to not lose their cool when the bullets are flying.
My disgust is at the situation and the behaviours, the vast and overwhelming majority of Australian soldiers serve with distinction and I am sure that there are more heart broken service men and women than there are people in the general public today.
I was listening to a foreign policy commentator on Sky News yesterday. (I know right) and he was not defending the actions of these soldiers at all, but he was deeply critical of the Howard government.
We went to war with the USA in Afghanistan and Iraq only to support our allies, we had no strategic goals other than that.
because the Australian public don't want to see Australian servicepeople die on the news we just send Commandos and SAS.
The point being made is that you cannot keep putting these people on frequent rotations into these sort of situations and expect people to be okay, they are going to be desensitized to violence.
Afghanistan is a dirty war, any war against an insurgency is always going to be ugly... Same as Vietnam where women blow up prams to kill soldiers.
Again, I make no excuses for the behaviours but the investigation should cover ALL of the points that lead to these crimes.

Wow, that is crazy. This story did not break in the US at all to my knowledge.

Sounds like this is a classic Lucifer Effect situation where a system is allowed to devolve due to a lack of oversight. Given the way American special forces get "information" I would say that is where you should be looking. The US policy on torture is one that creates situations where this violence is normalized. Zimbardo really dug deep into this when he examined the situation in Iraq where shit like this happened. I would not be shocked that the same situation lead to this abuse in Afghanistan as many of the same people involved in Iraq were leading the troops there. The troops take the fall, but the people who create the system that allows the abuse never are held accountable. What the troops do is still wrong, but there is a deeper wrong in putting them into a situation that encourages this behavior.

And the issue is not desensitization of violence, as that itself is not a bad thing, but it is becoming desensitized to the abuse. The focus often shifts to the violence, but war is violent. War does not have to be abusive however. There is a huge difference between violence for self-defense and violence for personal gain or to invoke fear.