Doomsday: New Energy Minister – Angus Taylor Declares War On Subsidises for Wind & Solar

Posted: September 1, 2018 by oldbrew in Critique, Energy, government, ideology
Tags: , , ,

New Australian energy minister Taylor: ‘Something has gone terribly wrong’. Can’t argue with that.

[Note re. heading: ‘subsidises’ should read ‘subsidies’]


Angus Taylor’s elevation to Energy Minister is the beginning of the end for subsidised wind and solar in Australia. And the merry mix of zealots and profiteers that people the anti-carbon dioxide industrial complex, surely know it.

As every history buff knows, the French Revolution kicked into gear when an angry mob overran the Bastille on 14 July 1789. But the fun and games didn’t really commence until Maximilian Robespierre launched his Reign of Terror. ‘The Terror’ was clearly a nervous time for those who had fallen out of favour with Robespierre and his revolutionaries. Old certainties and aristocratic manners gave way to the brutal efficiency of the guillotine, and the public squares in Paris were quickly filled with the panicked screams of condemned ‘aristos’ and anyone else deemed to be an apologist for the Bourbon King’s slights and tyrannies.

Sure, things got out of hand and way too bloody…

View original post 5,510 more words

  1. tallbloke says:

    Angus Taylor’s speech as new energy minister.

  2. stpaulchuck says:

    a British wag called them subsidy farms and truer words were never spoken.

  3. tallbloke says:

  4. oldbrew says:

    If renewables are so cheap, marvellous and loved by everyone – why are they said to be collapsing in Australia? Unless of course their publicity machine is full of wind.

  5. Graeme No.3 says:

    That article in The Australian has attracted 377 comments as of this morning with more coming. The vast majority of commentators are against renewables, but the believers have come out swinging (and missing). It is always the same with articles by Judith Sloan (a Professor of Economics by the way) as they try to stop the tide.
    It is almost a village where the eccentrics stand out. Let’s see…
    There’s Peter..the one who makes up his ‘facts’ about how China is rapidly going to renewables, and how cheap the electricity is from overseas installations, except when you check they haven’t been built. There are at least 3 other Peters, all of whom disagree with him.
    There’s Patricia..her monologue always talks the Great Barrier Reef dying (because of CO2). She has not obviously been there and hasn’t yet absorbed a recent paper showing that ‘bleaching’ has been occurring on the reef for 400 years (or perhaps she just doesn’t want to know).
    There’s Jane..we have to have renewables because the climate has already changed so much.
    There’s Stan..who claims to be an engineer although the Stan commenting must be someone else in this case as the comments are reasonable. It might be another Stan stirring. absent for some reason although not missed. Mind you the name is misleading as she admits to being over 60 and Silly is quite inadequate as a description.
    There are several others who appear, not knowing anything about electricity but quite convinced that Judith Sloan must be wrong because someone on Facebook say so.
    Oh! And I am one of approx. 4 Graemes all of whom don’t think much of renewables, and read the article before commenting (which most of the dissenters don’t).

  6. BoyfromTottenham says:

    With our new PM now having separated the ‘climate’ and energy portfolios, there is sure to be a tug of war between these two, because their aims are irreconcilable as far as I can see. Maybe this was intentional on ScMo’s part – to see who can win the battle of ideas about what is more important – ‘saving the planet’ or ‘saving Australia’! In fact that might be a great slogan for the Energy minister.

  7. Graeme No3 I do read some of your comments on other sites.but it seems you have only been around a few years. You mention SillyFilly, I think it is a male person (at least born with a dangle between the legs). I am sure he commented on Dr Jennifer Marohasy’s earlier blog around 2010 when I was thinking of posting. This post was actually first posted by Jennifer. I think SillyFilly was a minor public servant and supporter of the Labor party and the public sector union.. He may have been a technician but has no qualifications in engineering, geology, or science. Most of the so-called climate scientists and their alarmist supporter including all politicians have no qualifications which could allow them to make an assessment of climate and changes which occur in cycles. Subjects like heat transfer (radiation, convection, conduction, phase change), Fluid dynamics (jet streams, ocean current, river flows etc), reaction kinetics (ozone reactions, CO2 reactions biochemistry) etc are chemical engineering subjects. Any properly qualified Chemical engineer knows the oceans are not acidifying.
    By the way Jennifer’s blog is She has published a number of papers with Prof John Abbot (her husband) on forecasting rain with artificial neural networks. She has been very critical of BOM
    I hope visitors to Tallbloke’s site look at Jen’s blog

  8. Forgive me Tallbloke and Old Brew I thought too many links may lead to a block. Here is Jennifer’s list of peer reviewed articles about rainfall forecasting which requires some other data such as temperature history which she has also published.

  9. Graeme No.3 says:

    I was going by her own claim of age and sex when lamenting the imminent death of the Great Barrier Reef. She was backing Patricia (the partridge brain, if I am not being too insulting towards any partridges reading this). I guessed that she was a paying believer of Al Gore. I completely agree with your statement that she (and a lot of similar believers) has/have no qualifications that would allow them to assess the climate physics or chemistry.
    And as I am properly qualified in Chemistry I too know that CO2 cannot acidify the oceans. I like to point to the White Cliffs of Dover as proof that the seas weren’t acidic in the Cretaceous when the CO2 level was between 1650 and 1900 ppm. One picture is as good as hundreds of words. I shall be using that picture later this week in a talk to the University of the Third Age.

  10. Phoenix44 says:

    Amazing how delusion and lies always gets kicked up the arse by reality eventually. Everybody wants to save the planet until they see the cost – it’s just a shame so many were willing to lie about the cost for so long.

  11. nickreality65 says:

    For the Radiative Green House Effect to function as advertised, i.e. warming the surface of the earth by 33 C, that surface must radiate as an ideal black body.

    But non-radiative heat transfer processes, i.e. conduction, convection, advection, latent/evaporation/condensation, of the contiguous atmospheric molecules render such ideal BB emission impossible.

    Trenberth says the ocean’s emissivity is 0.97. The turbulent non-radiative heat transfer processes are responsible for most of the heat movement from ocean to air and LWIR emissivity is more like 0.16.

    Without the ideal 396 W/m^2 upwelling BB radiation the 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” GHG LWIR energy loop does not exist (TFK_bams09)

    and carbon dioxide does no warming

    and mankind does no climate changing.

    Got science? Well, BRING IT!!

  12. oldbrew says:

    Big find…

    Date: 05/09/18 Australian Associated Press

    The Northern Territory holds enough natural gas to supply Australia for 200 years-plus and is comparable to the shale resources that have revolutionised the US energy sector, Resources and Northern Australia Minister Matt Canavan says.
    . . .
    Such abundant gas should enable Australia to reduce its current high energy prices, which were the fault of southern states preventing development, Senator Canavan told an NT Resources Week conference in Darwin.

    Somebody must have known about this before the recent political ‘coup’?