New chief scientist - in favor of nuclear and fracking!

Solar power comes up a lot in any discussion, yet nobody has asked why are our Governments putting citizen money into technology that cannot compete with coal!

All political parties are extremely careful not to mention there is technology now in existence that eclipses solar, out competes coal and is cheaper than both.

Liberals Greg Hunt is especially careful not mention he personally holds from release Australian technology reducing by three the coal burn in electricity.

PM Malcolm refuses to shift from "coal is good for humankind" and Sovereign Risk to any challenge carries his party's full weight!

 

Sorry, but it is YOU who continued your attack on the appointed person once you were found to be lacking. Obviously, when you were found to be ignorant you wanted to shift your focus of hatred to something more popular with the rest of your ilk.

Here is the very person who advocates exactly what you demand from any governance with one exception, they have thought about others less fortunate than yourself. BUT NO, you are concerned that they will not support renewables... Actually let us get the exact wording

I noted and commented on the fact you did not apologise for your original demeaning of this person, you apologised for your justification of YOUR ignorance for this person appointed and attempted to blame the Government for such ignorance. You might want to pretend that is not the case, but it is obvious of your bigoted view is simply party politics…
You want to play the victim here by pretending it is we who are trying to make you look bad here, but my point of your ignorance of the person YOU attacked while knowing they cannot defend themselves for your own political point scoring shows, you’re no victim.

The fact is, it is YOU who is far worse than what you attempt to blame me for, I offer you the opportunity to educate yourself or defend your statement. You attack people you know will not and post your lies to support it. Caught out run and hide… Sorry but when you pretend to be such innocent poster; we all know the truth…

 

LOL, well what do you expect when you don't read the post for the post's point, instead you often look for crumbs to invent your own point that you use to argue against the person or some association to a particular party. Your accusations to me in this thread are great examples... I'm an avid clean energy junkie who doesn't support nuclear, but your too twisted in your hatred to see past yourself. If it helps you, try imagining the people posting are acting as devils advocates and try to argue their points instead of some stereotype 'enemy' that you seem to invent. Clinging to emotion is very limiting when delving into complexity, so its no wonder the left of politics incites hatred and division as it appeals to the lower educated parts of societies..... like the 16 year olds

Good one Bill Shortstack

 

I'm hearing it has the properties to make a bomb, which opposes the myth apparently. I think it's probably the case that it won't make money go around due to its readily availability on land.

At the end of the day, we have to sacrifice something, whether it be aesthetics, land or parts of the environment.....with strict regulation that is. Maybe if labors carbon pricing/ ETS was allowed to continue we'd be looking at cost effective solar energy.

 

BULLSH1T

Monetary and environmental gain is no sacrifice!

 

I stand for what I said,
our new chief scientist was chosen wisely, he will advocate (as he stated himself) fracking and nuc power over renewable energy. That doesn't mean he can not like solar/wind/etc., as those energies won't be allowed to gain some competitive ground anyway. You will see hardly any new investments under Liberals for alternatives.
In 10 years time Australia will be the dumping ground for all the nuclear waste this world has to offer, and both Turnbull and him have to take responsibilty, when things go wrong. And we know there is no safe heaven for this waste and no safe operation (Chernobyl - Fukushima).
But of course you are always right.......
Have a great Sunday

 

Liberals are all p1ss and wind, as always when incapable of governing they trot out a worn political piece and do their dance again.

Lets all pretend no nuclear power ever has gone boom and their grounds are infested by free loving hippies, not to mention electricity could not be made more expensive if Malcolm and his intellectuals were locked away for six months to come up with it!.

God Malcolm and his Liberals know how to give the voters the squirts!

 

So you apology was nothing of the sort, YOU simply wanted everybody to think you were being picked on...

I am sorry, but what is your assumption that this person promotes anything over renewables??? Oh that is right, it is by your own bigotry over the party appointment and not what the person himself states and believes.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-...el-touts-vision-for-coal-free-economy/6887578

Mmm... Sounds to me like somebody has hung their hat on demeaning anything that sounds like it came from the Coalition so it must be bad... You obviously put little thought into what this person has been appointed to and would rather demean them for your bigoted ideal.

Realistically if you want to stop using Coal in the next decade (as you seem to be saying) you will need alternative base load supply. As stated by many which you have in no way refuted, your ideal of being totally self-sufficient by renewables is still a lot further away than your time frame to reach it.

Do you have any idea what Finkel is being appointed too???

www.chiefscientist.gov.au

You do know what "Independent advice” means, don't you???

So when you attempt to denigrate this man for your own personal agenda, one has to ask, just what do you have against this man??? Is it that he is a realistic observer of necessities to meet future needs of the world, Unlike the Greens???

Just WHY would anybody want to denigrate people who actually know more about the subject than YOU???

I am not the person who set out an entire thread about an appointment you clearly know nothing about. I am not the person who made distinctive qualifications on what this person's roll and outcomes would be without actually knowing what they actually are. NOW you proclaim his appointment is correct but still attempt to lay blame upon him for future actions of a government that may or may not occur. Decisions of a government, NOT that of the chief scientist. His only roll in government decision is to advise government of the science around the policy. You’re the person who wrongly assumes the chief scientist makes policy...

Or are you going to attempt to demean Finkel over the job he has been appointed too??? If so, I would assume you actually wait until he does something you can criticise and not simply make it up... So of course, I am right in this instance because I did not run out of the mouth assuming what this appointment actually was (like you) and I listen to what this man is actually saying. Sure I have objections to him, but that is of professional nature, NOT by his own beliefs and standards (which is obviously far higher than your gutter politics).

Again yes, it is obvious I am right again because I did not create a thread in attempt to denigrate and demean a person over policy and actions that are not his to make, unlike YOU.

 

Do you actually believe what you say?
Independent advice by someone chosen to play the party fiddle - I know you stand for this party, but I don't and this has a reason:

Favoring the coal/nuc/fracking industries - no real meant incentives for renewables!!!!
Stopping the boats and strengthening racism/terrorism!!!!
Not advancing my country for a better future!!!!!

just to name a few.....
Reg.

 

As stated you denigrate somebody simply due to who appoints them to position. You make no effort into actually discovering if the person is right for the job.

Important to remember what you ridicule, If you want to accuse somebody for not being independent, your entire premise of AGW is based upon supposed independent science... little hypocritical and completely discredits anything you have to say about the subject...

Did you even read links provided??? Or are you simply determined to stand by your bigotry???

Perhaps you could explain how the appointment of Finkel to Chief scientist has anything to do with these points. Obviously you wish to support your bigotry by attempting to link policy with this appointment. Unfortunately, you simply further show how pathetic your Green ideals are.

SO, this entire thread was based upon your hatred of the Coalition, Clearly NOT the appointment of Finkel to the position. So you would post your ignorance and vile hatred of the Coalition by attempting to assassinate a person of distinguished achievement. I really wonder how you believe this makes your comments credible, not just the whining bleats of bigotry from the ignorant.

 

Do you read my posts,
or do you only pick what suits your creed best? I pointed three things out, things I dislike about the Liberal Party. Two of those three reasons had absolutely nothing to do with Finkel. Do you read my posts at all? I think we are done for today....
Reg.

 

Just watched the news,
Turnbull stated he run a business style government. All said for today.............
My deepest worries are chicken (*)(*)(*)(*) of what will happen under him, seen it too often in the past!!!
Reg.

 

We already know your bigotry to anything Coalition, so when you create a thread to accuse people of corruptly manipulating their positions just to support one party over another, NOTHING you have to offer is worth reading. HOWEVER, unlike you I do provide the curtesy of reading all of peoples posts and respond directly to their points. As NOTED so far you have not responded to anything asked of you and provided NOTHING to support your bigoted attack on the appointment of Finkel to the position of Chief scientist which is the premise of the thread YOU created...

Now I did address each and every point so your question of how much of your posts are read is simply strawman effort in attempt to throw blame away from your ignorance.

I know we won’t get an answer but one must at least try… All we seem to get is your ignorance and bigotry. So what more vile attacks are you going to try, or is it time to run and hide???

 

Science is not a democracy. Obviously, chief scientific advisor should be in favor of nuclear energy because it is scientifically proven to be clean, effective and safe. Scientists and educated people tend to support nuclear energy for a reason.

 

Mr. Finkel clearly said that he favors fracking and nuc power.
What more do you want?
Where the Liberals stand on the subject of renewables even a 98 year old brain dead would know. As I said, I don't regard his nomination as a mere chance, at the end its all politics.
Jes, some people play stupid here.....
Regards

 

Lost me dude

 

Monetary! and environmental gain!------------- is no sacrifice!

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Nuclear energy has the lowest number of deaths per energy produced, even lower than renewables. Uninformed people are afraid when the hear about big nuclear accident such as Chernobyl in the media, but they forget that such accidents are extremely rare and that a nuclear reactor produces huge amounts of energy due to having both large megawatt rating and large capacity factors.

 

The dead from Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi are still being wheeled in!

The nuclear fall out cloud from each reached Australia!

 

Oh, no! The nuclear fallout cloud reached the whole planet! PANIC!!

What the fearmongers wont tell you is that at that point it is well below the level of natural background radiation. Even the most pessimistic linear no threshold models predict no more than a thousand excess deaths from Fukushima. With around a hundred being the most probable number. This is comparable to what a single large coal plant kills during normal operational life merely due to air pollution. It is a testament to the safety of nuclear power that even a plant in meltdown is about as dangerous as a coal plant in normal operation, lol.

 

Dream on!

 

I have heard you can grab some real bargains at Chernobyl, selling cheap land/blocks. You should invest there, can't go wrong mate.....
Regards

 

Wait, there's a CHIEF scientist?

 

No, only a chief scientific advisor,