Thread: Climate change? what climate change?

Originally Posted by Mick_Marsh

Ah, yes. Yet another think tank headed by ex politicians.
Now, convince me they don't have a political agenda.

I'm beginning to understand where you get your opinions from.

Now, tell me where else we can harvest water taking into account environmental flows, accessibility and water quality.
I am only talking about Victoria. That's where I live. I'm not real concerned about the other states.
I've worked in the water, mining, petrochem and other industries which has involved desal and RO plants here and around the world. Desal isn't as dirty as you make out. Desal is an acceptable method of water supply augmentation here and around the world.

The IPA is a conservative think tank. It helped form the Liberal Party of Australia. Full of Climate Action denialists. Hardly an open minded group with the benefit of mankind at it's core. Not meaning to politise the thread, but Climate Action is more important than party politics.


Tom

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

I wasn't praising Abbott, who I think could be the worst PM we've ever had, and I agree with your criticism of him, but I was trying to stay out of party politics.

Sent from my D1 using overweight hamsters.

when you are discussing this important subject it's very near impossible to stay out of politics.....or opinions , certainly educated ones.

yes , stay out of party politics as much as possible.....but with this guy his opinions are not party but personal and he should not be bringing personal opinion to the the international forum

Originally Posted by BathurstTom

The IPA is a conservative think tank. It helped form the Liberal Party of Australia. Full of Climate Action denialists. Hardly an open minded group with the benefit of mankind at it's core. Not meaning to politise the thread, but Climate Action is more important than party politics.


Tom

Now what was the STATE liberal position on the Mitchell dam? In Qld they opposed the dam on the Mary ?
Hmm 10 sec google half in favour while others oppose.
In Qld Bligh in favour state liberal opposed. Canned by federal labor.

Now here's an idea that will stretch your brain, instead of a desal plant that costs 3+ billion , build a dam for 1.4 billion and drop the 1.6 billion into renewables. Now the current desal in Sydney paid for a wind farm, another 370 million, to supply the 260gwh per year. Do this in Victoria and the renewables will be 4-5 times larger.
Mitchell dam 1.4 billion, 1.6 billion in wind and solar, suddenly you reduce coal burning by 1000-1500gwh per year. You may have reduced the numbers of an endangered frog, but done a far greater action in saving the entire ecosystem. This translates to between 55,000- 75,000 tons of coal not burnt, more if your using the brown mud.

Originally Posted by frantic

Now what was the STATE liberal position on the Mitchell dam? In Qld they opposed the dam on the Mary ?
Hmm 10 sec google half in favour while others oppose.
In Qld Bligh in favour state liberal opposed. Canned by federal labor.

Now here's an idea that will stretch your brain, instead of a desal plant that costs 3+ billion , build a dam for 1.4 billion and drop the 1.6 billion into renewables. Now the current desal in Sydney paid for a wind farm, another 370 million, to supply the 260gwh per year. Do this in Victoria and the renewables will be 4-5 times larger.
Mitchell dam 1.4 billion, 1.6 billion in wind and solar, suddenly you reduce coal burning by 1000-1500gwh per year. You may have reduced the numbers of an endangered frog, but done a far greater action in saving the entire ecosystem. This translates to between 55,000- 75,000 tons of coal not burnt, more if your using the brown mud.

Frantic, I take your "this will stretch your brain" connotation as rather pathetic, arrogant and simplistic. I pointed out that the IPA had a political agenda. Obviously you cannot handle that simple truth and you choose to try and talk down to people with what to you may seem, to you, amazing knowledge. I am sure most people on this forum have a good understanding of these factors as I do. I have my masters qualification in my field as well as doing some teaching at University level. And I am sure there are many others like me on this forum that take issue your "this will stretch your brain" piffle as a childish insult.

Tom.

It have been proved many times before, topics like this finish with political arguments and it is not the fault of anyone

Originally Posted by BathurstTom

Frantic, I take your "this will stretch your brain" connotation as rather pathetic, arrogant and simplistic. I pointed out that the IPA had a political agenda. Obviously you cannot handle that simple truth and you choose to try and talk down to people with what to you may seem, to you, amazing knowledge. I am sure most people on this forum have a good understanding of these factors as I do. I have my masters qualification in my field as well as doing some teaching at University level. And I am sure there are many others like me on this forum that take issue your "this will stretch your brain" piffle as a childish insult.

Tom.

Astounded you manage to throw three insults, cannot accept both sides of politics have supported and opposed the idea of a dam, depending upon their level, and as a uni " teacher" cannot comprehend my main point!
The main point being this is not a political discussion and your attempt to label it one was like Swiss cheese and contrary to forum rules. Further to enlighten you I would be the last person to vote Abbott , but your rather ignorant to ignore both sides of the fence when their saying similar things. The liberal ,according to professor Tom, IPA and the former labor govt of Qld with Bligh both saying the "DAM same thing"
As to childish how about playing the ball not the man and posting some info, links or evidence to refute their study, Qld labors position, costings, carbon output, water flows etc etc.?
I hope if a student presents something that is not "amazing knowledge "but common knowledge with several different studies giving the same outcome ,and it challenges a theory of yours you don't insult and degrade them in front of their peers?

Originally Posted by BathurstTom

The IPA is a conservative think tank. It helped form the Liberal Party of Australia. Full of Climate Action denialists. Hardly an open minded group with the benefit of mankind at it's core. Not meaning to politise the thread, but Climate Action is more important than party politics.


Tom

Absolutely right there Tom. Just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean it's true. You have to look at who are making the statements and evaluate whether they are divulging verifiable facts or pushing an agenda.

Originally Posted by frantic

Now here's an idea that will stretch your brain, instead of a desal plant that costs 3+ billion , build a dam for 1.4 billion and drop the 1.6 billion into renewables. Now the current desal in Sydney paid for a wind farm, another 370 million, to supply the 260gwh per year. Do this in Victoria and the renewables will be 4-5 times larger.
Mitchell dam 1.4 billion, 1.6 billion in wind and solar, suddenly you reduce coal burning by 1000-1500gwh per year. You may have reduced the numbers of an endangered frog, but done a far greater action in saving the entire ecosystem. This translates to between 55,000- 75,000 tons of coal not burnt, more if your using the brown mud.

Interesting concept. I don't know about Queensland an New South Wales but, where do you propose to build this drought proofing dam in Victoria?
You can't build it in the west. Too flat. To get a usable volume, the reservoir would have to be large in area and shallow. In the east, all that's damable has been damed. In the far east of the state any water stored there would have to be pumped in a pipe using several pumping stations requiring electrical supply. Back to burning mud.
Besides, dams are useless unless they have adequate inflow. How do you propose to fill this new dam? With a desal plant?