octave

I would love the climate change doubters to present a case against this, but I don't believe they can

Hopefully, you folks who think climate science is airy-fairy bullshit will man up and watch this video. I will take a pretty dim view of you if you criticise this video, and it is clear you did not even watch it. The maker of this video, "Christina Hoffensfelder," is not a soft touch. She is pretty savage about "renewable optimism" and is savage about the likes of Greta Thunberg. Sorry, but (and I regret this because on other matters I think you are right) If you guys have solid rebuttals of this video, please provide them. Sabine is quite happy to answer questions, and I have in the past

Not exactly a bog standard Viva, but even as a non-car enthusiast,t I found this interesting. My son, who lives in New Zealand hasd a game development company, and their flagship game involves designing cars and engines and running car companies. Their engine and car build software is quite accurate in the real world. Anyhow, about 10 years ago, for advertising, they paid for and organised and paid for the US YouTube channel "smoking tyre" to come to NZ and film interesting local cars. My son organised all of this and also did some of the camera work. I am not sure if anyone will find this interesting, but I, although not a car nut justr love to see ordinary people innovating.

True story. I joined the RAAF in 1979. My now wife moved in with me in 1980. The Air Force at this time chose to recognise De facto relationships. This meant we were entitled to married accommodation. At the time, they did not have enough Air Force accommodation. This meant that they subsidised our private rental. Every 3 months I would go to the pay section and be given thousands of dollars in cash. Then, temporarily, the crusty old conservatives gained power (f**k I hate conservatives) and suddenly they did not recognise our relationship. we of course, being rational people, got married.

I guess the same evaluation applies. Between 1900 and 2011, I lived on a beautifull 44acre bush block, although up until this point I had lived on grid power. This block was several KMs from the nearest power. I had three choices: pay around $30000 to extend the power poles, install a diesel or petrol generator or install a solar battery system, which at the time was in its infancy. We took the rational choice and installed solar. One of the things I like was energy-wise, we were standing on our own two feet. One of my crusty old conservative neighbours actually said that solar was "gay", they were the ones "cuckolded" by the power company with monthly bills. Now I am on the grid. Although I am now on the grid, I have solar that generates more than twice what I need. Of course, when it is cloudy or at night, I rely on the grid, which is either wind, grid sized battery or failing those 2 sources, filthy brown coal. Only an idiot would think the brown coal is preferable to the other two. If I had a home battery, I think I could once again. The economic case for a battery is just dubious at the moment but the price of this tech is falling all the time. Even the most ardent coal/gas/nuclear fans must admit that harvesting the more than ample energy that the sun provides us (solar wind, tidal and wave) is the holy grail. So we are not there yet, but only an idiot would think that digging for energy is somehow superior.

I don't have any philosophical objections to nuclear, where it is found to be the most practical solution. I think, in fact, the solution will not be just one method. Every generation source has its pros and cons. My scepticism over nuclear in the short term is a matter of time and cost. Sure, start planning and building nuclear where it will be most appropriate. In the meantime, keep building the lower-cost, quicker solutions until nuclear can be built.

yep https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

The theory of anthropomorphic climate change precedes the IPCC (Svante Arrhenius 1896). Whether the temperature is increasing or not is best measured with hard science rather than our gut feeling. My question OT would be is NASA is fabricating these measurements? Is there a conspiracy between NASA and all the other scientific organisations? Are the acidity measurements of sea water also fabricated? NASA knows the climate is warming through comprehensive, multi-decadal data from satellites, ground-based weather stations, sea buoys, and atmospheric sensors. These tools, analyzed by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISTEMP), show a clear, sustained rise in global surface temperatures of roughly 1.8°F (C) since 1880. NASA Science (.gov) +3 NASA's evidence for climate warming comes from several key sources and findings: Satellite Observations: NASA operates over two dozen satellites that monitor Earth's atmosphere, land, and ice, allowing scientists to track changes in real-time and over long periods. Surface Temperature Records: Millions of data points from stations, ships, and buoys indicate consistent warming. Melting Ice and Rising Sea Levels: Satellite measurements of the cryosphere show shrinking ice sheets and glaciers. Additionally, ocean temperature sensors and satellites confirm that heat-trapping greenhouse gases are causing oceans to absorb heat and expand, resulting in rising sea levels. Atmospheric Data: Instruments monitor atmospheric composition, tracking the increase in heat-trapping gases. Natural Records: Data from ice cores, tree rings, and rocks are used to compare current temperatures with historical, long-term trends. NASA Science (.gov) +8 Independent data from other agencies like NOAA and universities worldwide confirm NASA's findings of significant and rapid warming

Yes, I was missing something. Tolls now apply to trucks (not cars) on the Westgate Bridge and on parts of the Westgate Freeway. The news is so poor at presenting facts and data prefering outrage. Whether expensive infrastructure should be paid for only by the users or spread out across all taxpayers, or a little of both, is something I dont have a strong opinion on.

Sometimes you come across a comedy sketch that is not necessarily laugh-out-loud, but does trigger a smirk of recognition. We fly to Adelaide 4 times a year to visit my mother in aged care. This means 8 trips through airport security, plus a few more for other trips. It has been frustrating (a lot better lately, though) that there has never seemed to be a standard procedure, and the staff are often under pressure and grumpy (again, I note a recent improvement). In the past, we have had the conversation that goes "Is it Melbourne or Adelaide where you have to take out your laptop?" Last week, one situation in this video actually occurred. My wife and I found this quite amusing - Trayyyyy

I genuinely don't understand this. Perhaps I am missing something. The news stories seem to assert that the completion of the tunnel has increased truck traffic through these suburbs. Weren't these trucks driving through these suburbs before the completion of the tunnel? Surely the worst-case scenario is that it has not improved the truck situation. Again, perhaps I am missing something, but the tunnel surely has not increased the traffic to a level greater than before the completion of the tunnel. Happy to be corrected.

I used the example of Glenbrook because, to me at least, it seems pretty clear-cut. Glenbrook during my time always seemed to be being refurbished. I think the most recent was in 2022 to the tune of $7.6 Million. My first-hand experience is 35 years old, but at that time, it was much more like a gentleman's club. This is a building that, for the most part, the public is not able to visit. My point is not that there should be a fire sale of just about everything, but that these things should be rationally weighed up, and yes, emotion can be part of that equation. Staged refurbishment of a prized heritage building in a live operational environment

I don't really think the plan is to bulldoze heritage properties. I spent 12 years in the RAAF as a musician. We would travel extensively and visit most of these facilities. Many of these buildings, I think, would not be fit for purpose. It is more difficult these days to justify holding onto many of these properties. Some of these properties could be considered poor value for money from the point of view of the taxpayer. As an example that I have in the past had first-hand knowledge of, I would cite RAAF Glenbrook. This is the headquarters of Air Command. This property was a Luxury hotel until I think 1949. When I was in the band, we used to go there (from Richmond) to perform a few times a month for Officer dining in nights and garden parties, etc. It was more of a country club for elite officers, in my opinion. In the Google Earth picture, you see the swimming pool, tennis courts, manicured gardens, etc. The main building (formerly a luxury hotel) is amazingly decadent inside. This facility always seemed to me more of a "country club" I think it is entirely reasonable to question whether this is the best use of the taxpayers' money. The building is protected by a heritage listing and should be preserved and perhaps given a use beyond a small number of elite officers. There is nothing critical about this location in terms of defence. In my opinion, selling off many of these assets is a good idea AS LONG as historic and heritage buildings and sites are preserved. Public access to these historic locations must be assured. It should also be done slowly and carefully. I think people are jumping to conclusions and believing that this means bulldozing historic buildings to build brick veneer houses.

The clever thing about this study is that it was able to analyse NO2 levels on a suburban basis. "The researchers also confirmed that neighborhoods that added more gas-powered cars saw the expected rise in pollution. Finally, they replicated their results using updated data from ground-level monitors from 2012 to 2023. “We tested our analysis in many different ways, and the results consistently support our main finding,” Whilst improved emission standards feed into the overall results they do not account for local differences. "

Yes, diesel plus AdBlue still produces more NO2 than comparable petrol engines. The point of what I posted was that the introduction of EVs has made a measurable difference in NO2 pollution. I thought this was interesting....isnt it?

AdBlue is only used in diesel vehicles. The main source of NO2 is petrol vehicles. Replacing petrol vehicles that produce NO2 with EVs that don't is beneficial to public health. Yes, CO2 is a bigger problem, but NO2 is also a significant health problem, especially in cities. The article does discuss this. "While the shift to electric vehicles is largely aimed at curbing climate change in the future, it is also expected to improve air quality and benefit public health in the near term." My point was that reducing CO2 is not the only benefit of EVs "Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) primarily harms the respiratory system, causing airway inflammation, coughing, wheezing, and increased asthma attacks, especially in children, the elderly, and those with existing heart/lung conditions. Both short-term and long-term exposure can worsen asthma, increase susceptibility to infections like bronchitis, and potentially contribute to developing asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and other cardiovascular/neurological issues. NO2 also forms secondary pollutants like ozone and fine particulate matter, which add to overall air pollution risks."

I guess it is lucky for you that you don't live in a country where you can be bailed up by thugs who demand you produce proof of citizenship.

Adoption of electric vehicles tied to real-world reductions in air pollution, study finds "Using satellite data, Keck School of Medicine of USC researchers reported the first statistically significant decrease in nitrogen dioxide linked to zero-emissions vehicles."

I thought I would have a look at what rare earth minerals are used for. Lanthanum (La) Camera and telescope lenses (high refractive index glass) Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries (hybrid vehicles) Oil refining catalysts Hydrogen storage alloys Cerium (Ce) Glass polishing (phones, screens, optics) Catalytic converters Self-cleaning ovens UV-blocking glass Praseodymium (Pr) Permanent magnets (with neodymium) Aircraft engines (high-strength alloys) Yellow pigments for glass and ceramics Neodymium (Nd) High-strength permanent magnets (NdFeB) Electric vehicle motors Wind turbine generators Headphones, speakers, hard drives Promethium (Pm) (very rare & radioactive) Nuclear batteries (limited use) Thickness gauges Research applications only Samarium (Sm) Samarium-cobalt magnets (high-temperature, defence) Nuclear reactor control rods Microwave devices ⚙️ Medium / Heavy Rare Earth Elements (HREEs) Europium (Eu) Red phosphors in TV and LED screens Anti-counterfeiting inks (banknotes) Fluorescent lighting Gadolinium (Gd) MRI contrast agents Neutron shielding Magnetic refrigeration research Terbium (Tb) Green phosphors (displays) Strengthens neodymium magnets for high heat Sonar and sensors Dysprosium (Dy) High-temperature permanent magnets Electric vehicles and wind turbines Nuclear reactor components Holmium (Ho) Medical lasers Nuclear control rods Precision magnetic devices Erbium (Er) Fibre-optic signal amplifiers Laser technology Pink colouring for glass Thulium (Tm) Portable X-ray machines Medical lasers Radiation sources (very niche) Ytterbium (Yb) Stainless steel strengthening Fibre lasers Atomic clocks Lutetium (Lu) PET scan detectors Cancer treatment catalysts Oil refinery catalysts ➕ Related Rare Earths (Not Lanthanides) Scandium (Sc) Aluminium-scandium alloys (aerospace, sports gear) Solid oxide fuel cells High-intensity lamps Yttrium (Y) LEDs and display phosphors Thermal barrier coatings (jet engines) Superconductors Cancer treatments (Y-90)

Yep, like the motor I installed on my inflatable kayak - serious engineering required😁

Generally, I favour speech being as free as possible. Obviously inciting someone to violent acts or impuning someones reputation with falsehoods needs some limits on it. I am not necessarily an enthusiastic supporter or detractor of the new bill. My point is that these are not new restrictions; they have been tweaked as far as I can see. It is hard to argue that all of a sudden, we are all going to be highly regulated. The things you could say are not really so different from before. There will always be controversial edge cases. "Is it likely to incite violence or not?" I would suggest that for most of us, we are unlikely to ever stray into that territory since we obviously haven't previously.

We already have laws that place some restrictions on speech. Free speech has never been absolute. These are things you could have problems with threaten people incite violence harass or intimidate defame others. These restrictions have been around for many years. Why are you not all nervous about these restrictions? Have you actually read any of the bill? The Bill would introduce a new aggravated offence for religious or other leaders who advocate or threaten force or violence against groups, members of groups, their close associates, or their property, in contravention of sections 80.2A to 80.2BE of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The offence applies if a person, in their capacity as a religious or other leader, advocates or threatens force or violence in the course of providing religious instruction, or religious or secular pastoral care.

This is short summary https://www.ag.gov.au/crime/publications/fact-sheet-combatting-antisemitism-hate-and-extremism-bill-2026

Just wondering in what way it will curtail your speech. What is it you want to say but think you will no longer be able to say?