[riskydave]

To correct you, let me tell you that I haven't installed any solar panels on the roof of my house and never will.
Reason being that, as I stated before, when the solar panels were introduced as the next best thing since sliced bread I installed some of them on my communications stations sites and in some clients communications sites as well. As I said they proved totally unreliable hence why I stopped selling/supplying them to my customers and ever since I went the other way. I built my business with customers being the utmost priority not just selling products for the sake of making a dollar.
If you only knew how many times we had to ride on horse back and/or with 4WD with chains on in snowy weather to go to he top of he hills to replace batteries or having to charter helicopters to go and replace batteries you wouldn't talk like that. Hence why I will repeat it time and time again, THEY ARE VERY VERY UNRELIABLE AND I WILL NOT USE THEM, nor recommend them to anyone...PERIOD.!
As for the rest of your post, well it is just a matter of differing opinions. Yours against mine.
And just to let you know I live on a property as well (one of a few) and I own a decent size amount of land too which for the area I live in, is quite large.
Now and If you were to read my post properly you would soon realise that I never accused you of lying. I just asked you as to how you can run your house with just 6.6 Kws of power a day.
As for the rest I refuse to reply to the nasty side of your post.

I agree with mylittletibbies, I live off the grid for 8 years with a very tiny solar system and had no problem with it at all and by very tiny I mean a 1000watt system with batteries, my wife and I powered our 3 bedroom house and I got to one stage where she could use her hair dryer for a small amount of time in the mornings, I now have a 6.6 KW system at the opposite end of the country, the 1000 watt system was near Mudgee NSW the one I have now is an hour north of Townsville and I have had my worst power bill for two years this month, 30 dollars, so in saying it is unreliable I think you must have had some really crappy panels or dodgy installers or something. I am happy as heck with mine. I have a mate in Wellington NSW also with a system similar to mine except he has a battery on his, I do not, he has no electricity bill whatsoever.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I agree with mylittletibbies, I live off the grid for 8 years with a very tiny solar system and had no problem with it at all and by very tiny I mean a 1000watt system with batteries, my wife and I powered our 3 bedroom house and I got to one stage where she could use her hair dryer for a small amount of time in the mornings, I now have a 6.6 KW system at the opposite end of the country, the 1000 watt system was near Mudgee NSW the one I have now is an hour north of Townsville and I have had my worst power bill for two years this month, 30 dollars, so in saying it is unreliable I think you must have had some really crappy panels or dodgy installers or something. I am happy as heck with mine. I have a mate in Wellington NSW also with a system similar to mine except he has a battery on his, I do not, he has no electricity bill whatsoever.

Thank you for your comments, I realize he didn't outright say I was a
liar, but his comments certainly insinuated it .
This is the 4th lot of solar panels I've had, on different houses,and I've been perfectly happy with them all.
I guess if you need horses, helicopters, chains etc and battle through snow you're not really in good solar panel country

 

[Kelpie]

I agree with mylittletibbies, I live off the grid for 8 years with a very tiny solar system and had no problem with it at all and by very tiny I mean a 1000watt system with batteries, my wife and I powered our 3 bedroom house and I got to one stage where she could use her hair dryer for a small amount of time in the mornings, I now have a 6.6 KW system at the opposite end of the country, the 1000 watt system was near Mudgee NSW the one I have now is an hour north of Townsville and I have had my worst power bill for two years this month, 30 dollars, so in saying it is unreliable I think you must have had some really crappy panels or dodgy installers or something. I am happy as heck with mine. I have a mate in Wellington NSW also with a system similar to mine except he has a battery on his, I do not, he has no electricity bill whatsoever.

Well good luck with you an your system.
Nevertheless, like the other poster you fail to address the problem you will be facing, and the cost you will have to bear when the lifespan of your solar panel will reach it's end. And that is a major problems where sellers and people like you are failing to address.

THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM LET ME TELL YOU, BUT...............NO ONE WANTS TO ADDRESS IT. AS TO WHY I DON'T KNOW BUT REST ASSURED THAT THE TIME OF RECKONING WILL COME WHERE YOU WILL BE FORCED TO ADRESS IT.

You are also discarding, nor making any comments about the reality that thousands upon thousands of children mining that highly toxic material are dying while suffering and in pain each and every year while no one cares. IS THAT SELFISH.?? I THINK SO.

Oh yes, saving a few dollars AND SUPPOSEDLY THE "UNPROVEN" IDEA OF SAVING THE PLANET (BS AT BEST when most people are of the beliefs that comments made by about 200 scientist are far superior than the other 31,000 American scientist alone are stating and proving the contrary) IS OKAY WHILE LETTING ALL OF THOSE CHILDREN DYING.

In closing I still can't figure out as to how you can use a 1000watt system (Yes you wrote 1000 watts) and live a comfortably life when you can't even run a fridge on that alone.

Anyway to each his own. Enjoy your life the best way you can, and I will enjoy mine to its utmost. After reaching my rape old age and raised my children to the best one can offer, I will not live under those conditions.

Someone is making an asolute fortune on this invented and baseless crap while laughing all their ways to the Bank, and it ain't you or I........ Rest assured of that....Period.!

 

[mylittletibbies]

Please tell me where I can read some of these 31,000 scientists opinions and proof of their statrments. Also where can I read about these thousands of children dying in Africa, I have never ever heard anything about this .
I mentioned this to my son who is a well read young man and quite up with all these sorts of world events.
He had not heard anything about this but said he would research it and would appreciate any information you could give regarding the basis of your statements, as there obviously must be this information somewhere.

 

[Kelpie]

Please tell me where I can read some of these 31,000 scientists opinions and proof of their statrments. Also where can I read about these thousands of children dying in Africa, I have never ever heard anything about this .
I mentioned this to my son who is a well read young man and quite up with all these sorts of world events.
He had not heard anything about this but said he would research it and would appreciate any information you could give regarding the basis of your statements, as there obviously must be this information somewhere.

I am kooking for it. I saved it just in case but at presnet I cna't find it and it seems that it has been removed from Google.
In the meantime read the following. you will find it interesting.
As for the children dying in Africa mining that toxic material it was on a full show on Jazeera. And guess who owns those mines.........CHINESE OF COURSE. What criteria do they have even with their own people and with the who don't believe in what they are trying to tell them.?
China's Deprogramming Camps - Uyghur Transformation Camps

Here we go:

Top reviews from the United States​

Dennis B. Mulcare
5.0 out of 5 stars Reality-grounded Scrutiny of a Post-normal Science Subterfuge
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2017
Verified Purchase
Only one thing really surprised me in this quite valuable book by aptly credentialed and classically disciplined scientists. On pages 51-52, they recount the rationalization and endorsement of science as subservient to elitist dictates, or alleged ‘consensus’ to put it euphemistically, under the pretext of mawkish political urgency. In particular, post-normal scientist Michael Hulme holds that “the idea of climate change...(is) an intellectual resource....(that) can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our...needs.” So apparently at least, climate change is primarily an instrumental issue to advance a progressivist agenda. In turn, according to his frank articulation of ‘post-normal science’, bone fide science is to be subordinate to political ends where deemed expedient. (Thus piqued, I have ordered Hulme’s referenced book to explore his indulgent liberties in promoting fraudulent science as supposedly justified by social or political priorities.)

But actions are more impactful than words: according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), legitimate science was constrained from the outset (p. 40). Specifically, the UNFCCC defines “climate change as human-caused climate change.” Further, it includes a stipulation “to disregard naturally caused climate change” (deliberately denying the undeniable long-standing phenomenon of routine variability of global temperature). This stipulation is preposterous for several reasons. First, it is vacuously true that the climate is changing; after all, it is a complex dynamical system, and it will continually change indefinitely, even without human presence or intervention. Second, any external forcing function or driving input to such a system inherently stimulates certain of its natural or non-driven responses. As a practical matter, moreover, a core issue for actual science here is to delineate the forced and the natural response components in order to determine whether and how human interventions may affect the climate. So the UN in effect dictated post-normal science to bias or circumscribe the admissible outcome of any funded investigation.

Nor has the program’s subsequent implementation been left to chance. In effect, pervasive fidelity compliance has ensured investigative obeisance to the a priori climate change agenda. Grant money hustlers have received considerable funding as well as recognition/promotions, while their reputations have been shielded in cases of evident errors, distortions, and false claims, so long as these did not compromise the agenda. Contrawise, those old-fashioned ‘normal scientists’ who dissented or expressed reservations regarding the conduct or incremental outcomes of the overall IPCC program have been relentlessly vilified, even though some of them are the premier experts in relevant disciplines. And of course, the fossil fuel industry serves as a reputation assassination target to keep the climate change boosters aroused or distracted (pp. 49-50). The scope of this informal yet quite effective compliance network is commensurate with the very high political and economic stakes attendant to the UNFCCC’s agenda.

Specific practices or occurrences cited by the authors indicate the nature, cleverness, and sometimes heavy-handedness of compliance techniques:

• The IPCC program engages in a range of anti-scientific practices like screening contributors/reviewers while sometimes not sharing data or identifying sources (pp. 42-43)
• Rigid control over the findings and exact wording of the Summary for Policymakers has earned it the label of the Summary by Policymakers (p. 41)
• The Climategate revelations disclosed a plethora of sordid conspiratorial practices in the explicit words of certain perpetrators (p. 49)
• The classic intellectual blunder of conflating correlation with causation is pivotal in attempts to associate alleged global warming with human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (p. 88)
• Reversal of the null hypothesis decision-making principle, or in effect an egregious confirmation bias stance, is a patent repudiation of sound scientific practice (p. 56).

Another important fact that I learned was the existence of decadal, multidecadal, and centennial oscillatory modes of natural climate phenomena (pp. 65 & 89). These cyclic modes have been empirically identified and characterized. This means that these climatic frequencies overlay the response times of the projected temperature excursions attributed to the human release of carbon dioxide. Hence, there is an inherent problem of distinguishing the observed natural and the human-caused contributions to temperature change. Furthermore, natural climatic contributions may be variously additive or subtractive at a given measurement time, depending on the phases of their cycles. The techniques for distinguishing the disparate contributions to temperature variation are beyond the scope of this book, but this challenge clearly complicates the analysis and interpretation of observations. Basically then, the natural modes of temperature variation are in effect noise with respect to the measurements intended to calibrate the effects of human release of carbon dioxide.

Debating the scientific issues or merits of post-normal renditions of climate change, however, is essentially futile, at least in the near term. Dialogue between classical or normal science and its post-normal aberration cannot be conducted because of a mismatch in intellectual planes: good faith openness versus ideological pseudo-reality. A ploy that many proponents of climate change employ is the use of deliberately vague statements that are incomplete or ambiguous, and hence resistant to refutation (p. 42). Furthermore, the extant climate science is quite uncertain, even discounting the distortions imposed by the IPCC political agenda. As this book amply affirms, the current research ‘findings’ are patently so undependable that they cannot provide even a marginal basis for associated policy decisions. But the dubious credibility of such findings will not stop the politicians and post-normal scientists from striving to promote and exploit the bogus, prescripted IPCC narrative.

In closing, certain key points made by the authors regarding climate science merit broader visibility and due consideration:

• Water vapor overwhelmingly exhibits more impact as a greenhouse gas than does carbon dioxide (p. 35), and the former is not properly incorporated into IPCC models (p. 66)
• Ice core samples reveal that global temperature excursions have typically preceded atmospheric carbon dioxide changes by several hundred years (pp. 64 & 80)
• Evidence of substantial solar influence on global temperature is ignored in IPCC models; after all, solar-induced effects are part of the excluded normal variability (p. 80)
• There are indices of global temperature other than IPCC’s atmospheric focus (p. 71). Just how those various indices can be reconciled or integrated is highly problematic and subject to the rather arbitrary matter of weighting their respective measurements (p. 37).

In all, the book is quite informative on an introductory level, albeit somewhat repetitious. And I much appreciate its ample references that can enable more penetrating reading. Rather satisfyingly, this book reinforced, elaborated, and amplified many of my prior suppositions about the government-funded climate change investigations as well as their modus operandi. With this resultantly expanded perspective, I can now examine the in-depth climate change literature by ‘normal scientists’.

 

[Kelpie]

I am kooking for it. I saved it just in case but at presnet I cna't find it and it seems that it has been removed from Google.
In the meantime read the following. you will find it interesting.
As for the children dying in Africa mining that toxic material it was on a full show on Jazeera. And guess who owns those mines.........CHINESE OF COURSE. What criteria do they have even with their own people and with the who don't believe in what they are trying to tell them.?
China's Deprogramming Camps - Uyghur Transformation Camps

Here we go:

Top reviews from the United States​

Dennis B. Mulcare
5.0 out of 5 stars Reality-grounded Scrutiny of a Post-normal Science Subterfuge
Reviewed in the United States on October 9, 2017
Verified Purchase
Only one thing really surprised me in this quite valuable book by aptly credentialed and classically disciplined scientists. On pages 51-52, they recount the rationalization and endorsement of science as subservient to elitist dictates, or alleged ‘consensus’ to put it euphemistically, under the pretext of mawkish political urgency. In particular, post-normal scientist Michael Hulme holds that “the idea of climate change...(is) an intellectual resource....(that) can be deployed across many of our human projects and can serve many of our...needs.” So apparently at least, climate change is primarily an instrumental issue to advance a progressivist agenda. In turn, according to his frank articulation of ‘post-normal science’, bone fide science is to be subordinate to political ends where deemed expedient. (Thus piqued, I have ordered Hulme’s referenced book to explore his indulgent liberties in promoting fraudulent science as supposedly justified by social or political priorities.)

But actions are more impactful than words: according to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), legitimate science was constrained from the outset (p. 40). Specifically, the UNFCCC defines “climate change as human-caused climate change.” Further, it includes a stipulation “to disregard naturally caused climate change” (deliberately denying the undeniable long-standing phenomenon of routine variability of global temperature). This stipulation is preposterous for several reasons. First, it is vacuously true that the climate is changing; after all, it is a complex dynamical system, and it will continually change indefinitely, even without human presence or intervention. Second, any external forcing function or driving input to such a system inherently stimulates certain of its natural or non-driven responses. As a practical matter, moreover, a core issue for actual science here is to delineate the forced and the natural response components in order to determine whether and how human interventions may affect the climate. So the UN in effect dictated post-normal science to bias or circumscribe the admissible outcome of any funded investigation.

Nor has the program’s subsequent implementation been left to chance. In effect, pervasive fidelity compliance has ensured investigative obeisance to the a priori climate change agenda. Grant money hustlers have received considerable funding as well as recognition/promotions, while their reputations have been shielded in cases of evident errors, distortions, and false claims, so long as these did not compromise the agenda. Contrawise, those old-fashioned ‘normal scientists’ who dissented or expressed reservations regarding the conduct or incremental outcomes of the overall IPCC program have been relentlessly vilified, even though some of them are the premier experts in relevant disciplines. And of course, the fossil fuel industry serves as a reputation assassination target to keep the climate change boosters aroused or distracted (pp. 49-50). The scope of this informal yet quite effective compliance network is commensurate with the very high political and economic stakes attendant to the UNFCCC’s agenda.

Specific practices or occurrences cited by the authors indicate the nature, cleverness, and sometimes heavy-handedness of compliance techniques:

• The IPCC program engages in a range of anti-scientific practices like screening contributors/reviewers while sometimes not sharing data or identifying sources (pp. 42-43)
• Rigid control over the findings and exact wording of the Summary for Policymakers has earned it the label of the Summary by Policymakers (p. 41)
• The Climategate revelations disclosed a plethora of sordid conspiratorial practices in the explicit words of certain perpetrators (p. 49)
• The classic intellectual blunder of conflating correlation with causation is pivotal in attempts to associate alleged global warming with human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (p. 88)
• Reversal of the null hypothesis decision-making principle, or in effect an egregious confirmation bias stance, is a patent repudiation of sound scientific practice (p. 56).

Another important fact that I learned was the existence of decadal, multidecadal, and centennial oscillatory modes of natural climate phenomena (pp. 65 & 89). These cyclic modes have been empirically identified and characterized. This means that these climatic frequencies overlay the response times of the projected temperature excursions attributed to the human release of carbon dioxide. Hence, there is an inherent problem of distinguishing the observed natural and the human-caused contributions to temperature change. Furthermore, natural climatic contributions may be variously additive or subtractive at a given measurement time, depending on the phases of their cycles. The techniques for distinguishing the disparate contributions to temperature variation are beyond the scope of this book, but this challenge clearly complicates the analysis and interpretation of observations. Basically then, the natural modes of temperature variation are in effect noise with respect to the measurements intended to calibrate the effects of human release of carbon dioxide.

Debating the scientific issues or merits of post-normal renditions of climate change, however, is essentially futile, at least in the near term. Dialogue between classical or normal science and its post-normal aberration cannot be conducted because of a mismatch in intellectual planes: good faith openness versus ideological pseudo-reality. A ploy that many proponents of climate change employ is the use of deliberately vague statements that are incomplete or ambiguous, and hence resistant to refutation (p. 42). Furthermore, the extant climate science is quite uncertain, even discounting the distortions imposed by the IPCC political agenda. As this book amply affirms, the current research ‘findings’ are patently so undependable that they cannot provide even a marginal basis for associated policy decisions. But the dubious credibility of such findings will not stop the politicians and post-normal scientists from striving to promote and exploit the bogus, prescripted IPCC narrative.

In closing, certain key points made by the authors regarding climate science merit broader visibility and due consideration:

• Water vapor overwhelmingly exhibits more impact as a greenhouse gas than does carbon dioxide (p. 35), and the former is not properly incorporated into IPCC models (p. 66)
• Ice core samples reveal that global temperature excursions have typically preceded atmospheric carbon dioxide changes by several hundred years (pp. 64 & 80)
• Evidence of substantial solar influence on global temperature is ignored in IPCC models; after all, solar-induced effects are part of the excluded normal variability (p. 80)
• There are indices of global temperature other than IPCC’s atmospheric focus (p. 71). Just how those various indices can be reconciled or integrated is highly problematic and subject to the rather arbitrary matter of weighting their respective measurements (p. 37).

In all, the book is quite informative on an introductory level, albeit somewhat repetitious. And I much appreciate its ample references that can enable more penetrating reading. Rather satisfyingly, this book reinforced, elaborated, and amplified many of my prior suppositions about the government-funded climate change investigations as well as their modus operandi. With this resultantly expanded perspective, I can now examine the in-depth climate change literature by ‘normal scientists’.

In the meantime I will still search in my files about those scientist and will share it with the forum. My niece who is in her last years at Uni studying Laws also raised that question with her professor only to be told to keep it to herself. Tell me why.
Now, dind't Greta Thunberg told us that we all were to die with 5 years of her silly comment/prediction.?
When was that comment made.?
Isn't the five year predicament well and truly over.?
When she was asked a short while ago about it what did she answer/do.?

Laugh and more laughs.
Oh Yes, she is an actress and a dramatic one too. But now she might be a millionaire too. Who Knows...NOT ME.

 

[Kelpie]

In the meantime I will still search in my files about those scientist and will share it with the forum. My niece who is in her last years at Uni studying Laws also raised that question with her professor only to be told to keep it to herself. Tell me why.
Now, dind't Greta Thunberg told us that we all were to die with 5 years of her silly comment/prediction.?
When was that comment made.?
Isn't the five year predicament well and truly over.?
When she was asked a short while ago about it what did she answer/do.?

Laugh and more laughs.
Oh Yes, she is an actress and a dramatic one too. But now she might be a millionaire too. Who Knows...NOT ME.

I found this one whcih was also saved not wth Google but in my homepage.

Read it and read what some of those professors and scientists are saying. Let me know.

As I said before someone is making billipons out of these with out Taxpayers money and it is not you nor I.

https://colloquydowneast.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/NIPCC.pdf

 

[Kelpie]

Sorry for the delay but here it is:

Someone is trying to discredit what these scientists are saying and that only about 12% of those scientist are actually climate scientist, if we are to believe that and not just an excuse.
Nevertheless 12% of them is far greater in number than the 200 who are telling us that the World is going to blow up. IS IT NOT.?

Read below:

""

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".​

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.​

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.​

To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.

Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.
Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.
Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate physics in sufficient depth, but rather how many of those that signed the petition work directly in the field of climate science.

Only 12% of those who signed...​

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

 

[Kelpie]

Sorry for the delay but here it is:

Someone is trying to discredit what these scientists are saying and that only about 12% of those scientist are actually climate scientist, if we are to believe that and not just an excuse.
Nevertheless 12% of them is far greater in number than the 200 who are telling us that the World is going to blow up. IS IT NOT.?

Read below:

""

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".​

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming
While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.
This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.​

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.​

To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.

Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned a degree.
Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.
Without formal training in climate science the level of understanding remains unknown among those that signed the petition. A key question is not how many of those that signed the petition know climate physics in sufficient depth, but rather how many of those that signed the petition work directly in the field of climate science.

Only 12% of those who signed...​

According to the data on the petition site, only 12% of those who signed the petition are indicated to have affiliation with atmosphere, earth, and environmental science. But there is no indication how many work in the field of climate science?

Obviously the ones trying to discredit what I posted above have this to say:

""(Do '31,000 scientists say global warming is not real'? Maybe. But more importantly what is the significance of these signatures? The majority of signatures are engineers (10,102). 3,046 are in medicine. 2,965 are in biology, biochemistry and agriculture. 4,822 in chemistry and chemical engineering.)""

Now, and if the mathematics aren't somehting that we should not follow, if you are to add up the totals of those people discretided will amount to what...(they say 10,102 but forget that part and obvioulsy aritmethic is definitely not their forte. But even if we were to add all of the rest of those figures and combine them together, you would come up with a total of 20935).

And if we are to take away the 20935 from the total of 31,000 what figure will we get.?? Well there are still 10,065 people unaccounted for which, belive it or not, it is far greater than the 12% they telling you/us...IS IT NOT.?

Like I said before, there certainly is someone out there pushing their own wheelbarrow full of personal agenda...... AT OUR COSTS.

Weren't we supposed to be all dead sometime around the 70's while all freezing to death.. BUT Guess what, we are still here arguing against each other.

 

[Jumping Jack Flash]

If only this useless woke Government would wake up and stop this nonsense re: renewables and revert back to fossil fuels, Australia would not be in the mess it is in currently.
Clearly Albanese, the Greens (and shortly, Xi) will all be in bed together!

 

[Kelpie]

And for the ones interested on this subject I can share some more information which I found very interesting. Hence why I saved them for future cases.
Now you can assuke as to why I am against those principles/concepts shoved down our necks by someone only interested to rip the rewards and becoming extremely rich while still flying in their private Jets.

Oh yes, it is all happening to save the planet, AS IF...... Let's see if this is allowed to go through. Fingers crossed.

Warning as this post will be a very long one. So get yourself a cuppa and enjoy it while reading.

RE-COBALT

What are the causes of child Labour in DRC?

Extreme poverty means that working in the mines is a necessity for some Congolese families, who are left with no choice but to send their children to work in mines without oversight. Other children work there in order to be able to buy food and clothes or simply to pay for school

Why is cobalt so toxic?

* Cobalt may affect the heart, thyroid, liver and kidneys. * Repeated exposure to Cobalt dust can cause scarring of the lungs (fibrosis) even if no symptoms are noticed. This can be disabling or fatal. * Finely divided Cobalt is FLAMMABLE and may ignite spontaneously.

It can harm the eyes, skin, heart, and lungs. Exposure to cobalt may cause cancer. Workers may be harmed from exposure to cobalt and cobalt-containing products. The level of harm depends upon the dose, duration, and work being done.

*It can harm the eyes, skin, heart, and lungs. Exposure to cobalt may cause cancer. Workers may be harmed from exposure to cobalt and cobalt-containing products. The level of harm depends upon the dose, duration, and work being done.

Its radioactive isotope is used in imaging and food irradiation. Some examples of workers at risk of being exposed to cobalt include the following:

• Workers who work in industries processing cobalt-alloys​
• Miners who work in the metal mining industries​
• Workers involved in the production or use of cutting or grinding tools​
• Employees who work at nuclear or irradiation facilities​

(So, it is okay to ban nuclear energy but it is okay to continue using Cobalt and the death of children mining the product)

Basis for original (SCP) IDLH: Browning [1969] made the statement that “metallic cobalt by inhalation and soluble salts by intratracheal injection act as acute lung irritants, producing oedema, and hemorrhage with a considerable outpouring of fluid from the capillaries in the peritoneal cavity. Many of the animals subjected to intratracheal injection of a suspension of cobalt metal dust developed acute pneumonia, often rapidly fatal as an initial reaction.” Because no data on acute inhalation toxicity are available on which to base an IDLH for cobalt metal fume and dust, the chosen IDLH is based on the statement by Patty [1963] that animals chronically exposed to a cobalt-metal blend at a concentration of 20 mg Co/m3 developed lesions in the lungs.

**Children as young as four are being forced to slave for 12 hours a day in Congo ‘horror mines, extracting cobalt for the manufacture of mobile phones. For this they receive just ten cents per day and are constantly threatened with violence. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is the world's largest cobalt producer, supplying over 60% of the world market. This precious mineral, which is supplied by the Chinese Huayou company, is used for the manufacture of Apple iPhones and iPads. Cobalt is essential for the functioning of lithium batteries used in both mobile phones and computers. Following the publication of these images, Apple announced that it had ceased purchasing cobalt from Congo. The tech giant has undertaken to adhere to this new policy until cobalt suppliers can provide the necessary assurances regarding worker protection standards and abstention from using child labour.

**The rich natural resources of the DRC, including diamonds, have been exploited for centuries, particularly while the Congo was a Belgian colony from 1908 to 1960. In the past few decades, however, the resource in the spotlight has been cobalt, an element that has risen from relative obscurity to global necessity as a vital component of lithium-ion batteries, which today power devices as small as smartphones and as large as electric cars.

**China is exploiting children in the Democratic Republic of Congo, forcing them to work under hazardous conditions to mine the cobalt that powers electronic devices and electric cars, witnesses at a congressional hearing on human rights violations testified this week.

“On the backs of trafficked workers and child laborers, China exploits the vast cobalt resources of the DRC to fuel its economy and global agenda,” said Rep. Christopher Smith, R-New Jersey, who chaired the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing July 14.

The hearing was entitled “Child Labor and Human Rights Violations in the Mining Industry of the Democratic Republic of Congo.”

“The Chinese Communist Party’s quest for cobalt for batteries and lithium for solar panels to power the so-called Green Economy motivates human rapacity as an estimated 40,000 children in Congo toil in non-regulated artisanal mines under hazardous conditions,” Smith said.

**On the danger of collapse in artisanal mines​

The writer is writing

**I spoke with many families whose children, husbands, spouses, had suffered horrific injuries. Oftentimes, digging in these larger open-air pits, there are pit wall collapses. Imagine a mountain of gravel and stone just avalanching down on people, crushing legs and arms, spines. I met people whose legs had been amputated, who had metal bars in where their legs used to be. And then the worst of all is what happens in tunnel digging. There are probably 10,000 to 15,000 tunnels that are dug by hand by artisanal miners. None of them have supports, ventilation shafts, rock bolts, anything like that. And these tunnels collapse all the time, burying alive everyone who is down there, including children. It's a demise that is almost impossibly horrific to imagine. And yet I met mothers pounding their chests in grief, talking about their children who had been buried alive in a tunnel collapse. And these stories never get out of the Congo. People just don't know what's happening down there.


In closing just open and read the following link. You will be surprised. But, why not much, if anything has been advertised or circulated aorund about this shocking treatment of children just for the sake of someone pushing their own barrow full of personal agenda and becoming extremely rich?? I WONDER!

https://www.humanium.org/en/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-child-labour-in-cobalt-mines-in-the-drc/#:~:text=Extreme poverty means that working,simply to pay for school.

And let it be clear that I don’t follow the Guardian but while searching I found it very interesting to find this article as well.

Apple and Google named in US lawsuit over Congolese child cobalt mining deaths

Dell, Microsoft and Tesla also among tech firms named in case brought by families of children killed or injured while mining in DRC

www.theguardian.com

Cheers
Kelpie

If only this useless woke Government would wake up and stop this nonsense re: renewables and revert back to fossil fuels, Australia would not be in the mess it is in currently.
Clearly Albanese, the Greens (and shortly, Xi) will all be in bed together!

So true mate. I couldn't have put it into any better ways myself.

As for the greens we all know what they are like. THEY ARE CALLED THE "WATERMELONS" BECAUSE THEY ARE GREEN ON THE OUTSIDE AND RED ON THE INSIDE.

Think about it.

 

[Kelpie]

If only this useless woke Government would wake up and stop this nonsense re: renewables and revert back to fossil fuels, Australia would not be in the mess it is in currently.
Clearly Albanese, the Greens (and shortly, Xi) will all be in bed together!

Well mate I have this to tell you.

Who is the minister in charge of Energy.????????

Who was the idiot that during the previous campaign he stated that if we don't like his policy of Taxing self funded retiree by introducing an element where the Franking Credits were to be abolished which would have resulted in a double taxation NOT TO VOTE FOR THEM.?? And what did the Electorate do.? Drums rolling.....They voted for the Libs/National instead and they had to sit on the opposition benches for another term.

But wait for it. Albanese now, of all the people availableto him after the election, put him in charge of Energy........................???????

Say no more.

 

[ElleHenry]

I'm new on this forum, so I wanted to share my 2 cents. It's great to hear that Australia has the power to take control of its energy costs, and it's about time we did something about it. I totally agree that our east coast gas producers need to step up and supply the domestic market for less than $10 a gigajoule. And those retail electricity and gas price hikes are ridiculous! We need to do something to combat those increases ASAP. Have you considered installing some ground mounted solar panels? They're a great way to save on energy costs and reduce your carbon footprint. Let's work together to find some solutions and make energy more affordable for everyone in Australia.

 

[mylittletibbies]

I'm new on this forum, so I wanted to share my 2 cents. It's great to hear that Australia has the power to take control of its energy costs, and it's about time we did something about it. I totally agree that our east coast gas producers need to step up and supply the domestic market for less than $10 a gigajoule.

Welcome to the forum

 

[Kelpie]

I'm new on this forum, so I wanted to share my 2 cents. It's great to hear that Australia has the power to take control of its energy costs, and it's about time we did something about it. I totally agree that our east coast gas producers need to step up and supply the domestic market for less than $10 a gigajoule.

Fine and I agree woth you but, first and foremost, you have to make some of the States, (I.e. Victoria and NSW) do pull their fingers out and allow some exploration to be done on their own lands, NOT JUST SITTING ON THE BANDWAGON WAITING FOR OTHER STATES TO SUPPLY THEM WITH THE MUCH NEEDED GAS THEY URGENTLY NEED.

I don't want to use my gas but I want to use yours and at a very cheap rates too. Does that makes sense.?? Of course not.

As I wrote a while ago, I owned a fair amount of shares in a Oil & Gas company which drilled and discovered huge amounts of gas which could supply the domenstic market in NSW and other States as well. But then the lefties and the Greenies, let alone the Knitting Nannies, (God Bless Them, NOT) started jumping up and down by promising that they were going to vote the local Member of Parliament out and guess what.................The Government shut that operation down, the gas has remained in the ground and now everybody is jumping up and down because there is not gas to supply the domestic market.

And what is the economic response of it all.??

Well economics 101 clearly states that the prices of any goods, GAS INCULDED, is based on supply and demand. IS IT NOT.???

Now, what is the result if the demand is greater than the supply.? YOU WILL PAY MORE.....PERIOD.!

 

[Kelpie]

I'm new on this forum, so I wanted to share my 2 cents. It's great to hear that Australia has the power to take control of its energy costs, and it's about time we did something about it. I totally agree that our east coast gas producers need to step up and supply the domestic market for less than $10 a gigajoule.

Oh, one more thing, why don't you get the Government (Talk to your Member of Parliament) and put pressure on them to stop spending Billions (With a "B") upon Billion of dollars to subsidies these ridiculous save the plane ideas and those widmills generators monstrosities (MONEY OF WHICH ALL GO TO CHINA, NOT AUSTRALIA. Imagine what all that money would do to make life easier to everyone battling and finding it harder and harder to make hands meet and put a meal on the table, and even defaulting on their mortgages.

They keep on telling us that the power is cheaper but did you notice how much cheaper it is.??

In closing....DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS TO REPAIR A WINDMILL GENERATOR WHEN IT FAILS. SHOCK HORROR.

 

[Jumping Jack Flash]

I'm new on this forum, so I wanted to share my 2 cents. It's great to hear that Australia has the power to take control of its energy costs, and it's about time we did something about it. I totally agree that our east coast gas producers need to step up and supply the domestic market for less than $10 a gigajoule. And those retail electricity and gas price hikes are ridiculous! We need to do something to combat those increases ASAP. Have you considered installing some ground mounted solar panels? They're a great way to save on energy costs and reduce your carbon footprint. Let's work together to find some solutions and make energy more affordable for everyone in Australia.

If this moron of a woke Prime Minister was not so intent on renewables, Australia would not be in this mess!

 

[Kelpie]

If this moron of a woke Prime Minister was not so intent on renewables, Australia would not be in this mess!

Hear hear.

Little someone here in this forum is saying where the solar panels and the windmill generators come from and where all of our money is going to. China of course, none of it is staying here.

Like you said, Jumping Jack Flash, our PM and his Energy Ministers have NOT Australia on their minds.

 

[Jumping Jack Flash]

Hear hear.

Little someone here in this forum is saying where the solar panels and the windmill generators come from and where all of our money is going to. China of course, none of it is staying here.

Like you said, Jumping Jack Flash, our PM and his Energy Ministers have NOT Australia on their minds.

Your last sentence says it all - neither Albo nor his mob care about Australia or Australians; they couldn't give a shit about this country! Useless and dumb, that is what they are.......

 

[Kelpie]

Your last sentence says it all - neither Albo nor his mob care about Australia or Australians; they couldn't give a shit about this country! Useless and dumb, that is what they are.......

You might be right. The Dumber you are and the biggest the lies you can tell, the highest you will climb in the Political ladder.
Look at what he was doing when interviewed during the elction campaign where he did what Biden was doing. When he couldn't answer the question he quickly pass it to someone else for him/her to answer.
God help us all and God Help Australia.