Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Midfielder

  • Rank
    Club Captain

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Supported Teams

  • AL Team
    Central Coast
  • Other Teams
    CentralCoast Mariners

Recent Profile Visitors

1,155 profile views
  1. Midfielder

    Left Brain V Right Brain

    More.... this is beyond good IMO
  2. Midfielder

    Left Brain V Right Brain

    Great discussion about brain function...
  3. Midfielder

    Climate Change & Alternative Energy

    https://www.australianethical.com.au/news/understanding-climate-change-denial/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=cpc Brilliant
  4. Midfielder

    Julian Assange arrested by UK police

    worth watching..
  5. Midfielder

    Climate Change & Alternative Energy

    sits behind a paywall so will copy... from Noel Pearson ... quite a detailed analysis of why environmental policy issues are failing... I could not agree more with one of his conclusion that linking with the left rather than the Conservative right has always been an issue... https://www.theaustralian.com.au/inquirer/the-environment-is-too-important-to-be-left-to-ecowarriors/news-story/f0e07fa43ae8965c0c96f3c8f2a27658 Can a cause for the right succeed in the long run if it is pursued through unrighteous means? Can causes for the good be selective in their adherence to science? Or do righteous ends justify unrighteous means? This is the crisis confronting environmentalism. It suffered a grievous loss at the federal election and the Adani red line is broken. This may be a crisis of legitimacy. The question is whether political environmentalism is turning off voters and hardening attitudes against the necessary effective policies to secure future sustainability. Are the means employed by political environmentalism destroying the possibility of Australia achieving the desired end of sustainability through consensus? Or is consensus unnecessary because the morally right end means the maxim “by any means necessary” applies? Political environmentalism is undermining the cause of sustainability because short-term expediency and tactical opportunism is trumping long-term strategic consensus-building. Environmentalism has degenerated into the binary of cultural war when it needs to transcend such wars. Its leaders have led the movement into a zero-sum game, where political victory in one battlefield is countered by loss in another. We should first explain what we mean by causes for the right. Political parties seeking power in government are not in the business of the right. Electoral politics are by definition ruthless, with few holds barred. Lies, half-truths, fake news, negative advertising and dirt files are part of the repertoire of power in politics. One party’s Mediscare is the other party’s retiree tax. Former Labor NSW state secretary and federal minister Graham Richardson captured the ethos of politics in his memoir Whatever It Takes. Noble and ignoble things are achieved by marshalling political power. While causes for power are amoral, there are causes for the right. Civil rights and the anti-apartheid movement are examples. Emancipation and antislavery are even older precedents. Such causes mobilise the political process and power for good ends. Conservation is such a cause. Few would dispute it is a moral duty of humankind regardless of political affiliation and preference. Causes for the truth must be ethical, otherwise they suffer damage. Moral integrity is the great currency of righteous movements, but the political environmentalists have jeopardised the cause of conservation by allowing it to descend into the hyper-partisan battlefield of culture and politics. It is exposed to the 51-49 per cent risk. When your party wins 51, then you may win tactical victories, but when it is 49 you have put your cause in peril. This is what has happened to Adani after the election. I want to allege five profound mistakes the political environmentalists are making in Australia: First, they are alienating the lower classes in their droves. This is the lesson of the 2019 election. The political environmentalists pushed climate policies that worked for the post-material middle class, but cared less about the economically precarious. More than the costs, it is the movement’s superior cultural attitude that pisses off the lower classes in such a visceral way. Second, they are alienating indigenous peoples by pushing the costs of conservation on to those who have not created the crisis. Indigenous leaders such as Marcia Langton and Warren Mundine have highlighted the green lockup of indigenous lands from development. These groups manipulate and exploit divisions within landowner communities. They divide and rule the same as mining companies do, setting up puppets that favour their agenda. We saw this in the campaign against the Kimberley Land Council. We see it in Cape York in relation to Wild Rivers and blanket World Heritage listing proposals. Traditional owners supported conservation goals and helped create by agreement new national parks and other conservation tenures. But the political environmentalists are never satisfied. They want everything locked up. They are making enemies of the country’s largest landowners because they use electoral leverage with governments to subjugate land rights. If they are alienating the land rights movement, which is more aligned to conservation than other sectors, what does that say about them? A third problem is they are at the forefront of deploying so-called “new power” in their public campaigns. Through the diffusion of social media and decentralised campaigning, green groups began to seriously challenge the “old power”. GetUp co-founder Jeremy Heimans and Henry Timms explain this development in their 2018 book New Power. Breaking the old power monopoly is welcome; however, the dilemmas of social media and its susceptibility to manipulation and its effects on civil society and democratic governance are troubling. Twitter and Facebook have just created online mob behaviour. Hardly platforms for moral causes. And the political environmentalists have used the new power to promote conservation and climate change action in as cynical a way as the forces against which they are pitted. Getup and Sleeping Giants use the same tools of manipulation as deliberately as Breitbart and Cambridge Analytica. A fourth problem is the political environmentalists are highly selective in their adherence to science, and in so doing bring science into disrepute in public policy debates. Who really believed the black-throated finch was the environmental issue of Adani? The poor critters were used as a proxy for opposition to coalmining. Why the charade? The Queensland Labor government should have been honest with the public and said: the policy question we face is whether the Galilee Basin should be opened up to coalmining in the context of its contribution to the crisis of global warming. But because they wanted to walk two sides of the street at once — intimating to greenies they did not support Adani while intimating to regional workers that they supported coalmining — they did not bring the crux policy question to a head and provide their answer to it. They lacked the courage of their convictions and simply did not have the leadership to untie the Gordian knot that expanded coalmining in the Galilee Basin represents. And now the May 18 loss sees them stampeding over the poor birds and anything else standing in the way of their electoral prospects next year. The stances environmental groups take in relation to any number of issues — nuclear energy and aquaculture, for example — evince a selective adherence to science. Does not environmental science tell us about the interconnectivity of the planet, and if nuclear power is used in Europe, Asia and the Americas, and contributes to lower carbon emissions, why is the debate on nuclear power not on the basis of science and the mitigation of risks associated with nuclear energy, instead of a green version of obscurantism? The proponents of safer nuclear waste disposal in Australia (which included the late Bob Hawke) have got a point that is worth subjecting to science rather than outright prohibition. While the case for domestic nuclear power may not be strong, it is a substantial source of energy throughout the world, and as a uranium producer we are obliged to consider our role in the management of its waste. There are strong geopolitical arguments in favour of Australia assuming this responsibility and mitigating the large risks involved, which we are better placed to carry than most other countries. After all, it is the green­ies who tell us the planet is one and national boundaries are environmentally meaningless. The fifth and most fundamental problem is the political environmentalists have aligned environmentalism with socialism rather than conservatism. Another way of saying this is they have aligned environmentalism with progressivism rather than conservatism. There is a fundamental philosophical problem at the heart of contemporary environmentalism. I do not mean in respect of the appreciation of the natural environment. I mean in respect of where our motive must come from in order to conserve the good things we have been bequeathed from our ancestors for the benefit of our future unborn. This is the motive that is unanswered by the utilitarian calculations of liberals and socialists. Not everything is about price. Conservatives understand that some things are valuable because they are priceless. English conservative philosopher Roger Scruton’s 2012 book Green Philosophy is the starting point for a new conservative approach to conservation. The approach is old — about stewardship and our responsibility to bequeath to future generations the gifts we received from our ancestors — but its application to the environmental crises facing our homelands, including global warming, is new. The climate obscurantists who are in the same binary as the political environmentalists and who think themselves conservatives should read Scruton. They should be the first to understand the conservation in conservatism but, alas, ­cultural war has caused a degeneration on all sides. Progressive socialists don’t know what Scruton is referring to: oikophilia, the love of home that speaks to people’s connection with their environment, which animates their responsibilities. Instead, they propose large schemes, imposed from above by state diktat, while doing violence to the most important engine of conservation: the local connection of communities with their environment, and their concern to leave their descendants what their ancestors left for them. Progressives are more concerned with environmental posturing, cutting the correct moral gesture, being seen to be more enlightened and selfless, in contrast to the deplorables and knuckle-draggers. The green leaders all want to be the next Bob Brown, renowned for their own Franklin Dam or Wet Tropics. They trample over politically weaker communities such as Queensland property owners uncompensated for tree-clearing restrictions that underwrote our Kyoto target in the 2000s. It was John Howard’s federal government and Peter Beattie’s state government that dispossessed these landowners without proper compensation. Indigenous landowners are another politically weaker community that are ridden roughshod over by political environmentalists. The folly of all of this is now surely clear. What can be done? Ever since Richardson alighted on the strategy of garnering the environmental vote, Labor began outsourcing its environmental policy integrity to the political environmentalists. This yielded electoral returns in 1987 and 1990 but ultimately led to Labor bleeding market share to the Greens and being held hostage to political environmentalism. Labor’s environmental credibility came from environmental group endorsements after adopting their policies and acquiescing to their demands. Rather than undertaking the principal responsibility of government, coming up with policies that balance development with environmental sustainability, it did preference deals with the political environmentalists. Environmental groups became experts at marginal seat politics, turning 2 to 3 per cent of the environment vote to win 51 per cent victories for their pet campaigns. The hook-up with GetUp is the apotheosis of Labor’s dalliance with political environmentalism. What electorate is not going to be suspicious of the next bunch of out-of-towners hectoring them about how to vote next time? GetUp was Bill Shorten’s long game at mobilising AstroTurf activism and it has all ended in tears. Labor must define its own environmental credentials in its own right, not as an alliance with the Greens or as the lapdog of a certain environmental milieu. Watching Jackie Trad squirm as Queensland Environment Minister Leeanne Enoch approved the Adani mine this week told the whole sorry story. Labor can no longer walk two sides of the street at once. It worked for Annastacia Palaszczuk in 2017 but not for Shorten in 2019. Voters might be fooled once, but not all the time. To develop environmental policies free from deal-making with the political environmentalists, Labor must balance human society and environmental sustainability. The last thing the environment portfolio needs is a progressive from an inner-city seat, surrounded by a milieu of political environmentalists. Labor needs to take environment policy back to first principles and get its philosophy right first. The environment is too important to be left to the political environmentalists.
  6. Midfielder

    Music Thread 3

    Vid and lyrics... brilliant ...
  7. You gotta have good reasons for going to war, and many people will not be fooled again... Issue is people like Trump see war as a way of increasing their chance at the next elections... while many are being totally turned off governments. The WMD turned out to be untrue... But the FFFFFF>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>GGGGGGGGGGGGGGG answer is so simple yes beyond simple.... do away with the need for fossil fuels the west could do it within 15 years and it would be many times nay many many many times cheaper than a war ... I sometimes wonder whats happened to our systems and I look at our our last election and see how beyond hopeless the ALP was that they could not get rid of a government most did not want...
  8. Midfielder

    Climate Change & Alternative Energy

    Must read must share I will be beyond disappointed if this article nay story is not shared on left learning sites and on the ABC.... tis an article hidden on ""'The Australian"" [right wing rag] in their business section and its about a """Coal Fired Power Station """and not just any but Australia's largest... Essentially the coal part if all goes to plan will at best operate for at best only half the day.... BUT BUT its a major company trying to maximise from its profits ... that is the most telling part of the article... this is renewables being shown to be way way way cheaper than coal... Further their plans for other coal fired power station they own.. IMO a must read and must share and sent to ""One Nation"""who are wanting to build a coal fired power station. I have copied the article as it sits behind a paywall..... please read... and share... https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/cheap-renewables-put-old-coal-plants-to-test/news-story/112b4ebe22b8598e9ef5d7b168e7346d Renewables put old coal to test Australia’s largest coal plant is facing its biggest test yet: cheap renewable energy. Australia’s largest coal plant is facing its biggest test yet: cheap renewable energy. The Eraring power station on the shores of NSW’s Lake Macquarie supplies 20 per cent of the state’s daily consumption, helping to keep the lights on after ageing coal facilities like Victoria’s Hazelwood were mothballed in 2017. But nearly four decades into its life, owner Origin Energy is contemplating a radical rethink of the way Eraring feeds electricity into the east coast’s grid, including shutting the facility down during the day when huge slabs of solar often beat coal on price. Traditionally the country’s big coal generators run round the clock, reflecting both market demand for the fuel but also the difficulty in tweaking output from huge pieces of machinery that can take hours to properly synchronise with the grid. But the relentless surge of cheap and plentiful renewables — solar, wind and hydro and battery storage — is sparking a shift among the big baseload coal producers that supply 70 per cent of the grid’s needs. Origin estimates 2800 megawatts of clean energy made its way into the grid in 2018, representing the same annual capacity Eraring can produce. But whereas once Origin may have ploughed on running the plant through the day and night, the ability of solar to cut wholesale prices during the day means Eraring may make a better return ramping its output up and down to meet peak demand. “Solar is now the lowest cost form of generation and it will create an oversupply situation during the day,” Origin’s Eraring operations manager Tony Phillips told The Weekend Australian on a tour of the plant. “That surplus energy will mean that we may likely back off and it could even mean that we shut down for periods during the day. It’s a commercial decision — if the price gets to a point where it’s sensible to do — we will make that decision.” Making that call may come sooner than originally thought for Origin and rivals AGL Energy, EnergyAustralia and Alinta. A likely tipping point for Eraring to pare output is when wholesale power prices fall below $50 a megawatt hour during the day on a consistent basis. Origin already estimates solar can supply into the grid for between $40-$50/MWh, albeit on an intermittent basis, with costs higher once storage options like batteries or hydro are baked into the equation. “There’s still a lot of uncertainty, but it’s possible we change the way we operate Eraring within two years,” Phillips says. “It may be much longer. But for us, it’s about being ready when it happens.” Origin has just completed a trial shutting down one of its four Eraring generators after meeting morning demand and firing it back up to meet evening peaks. Still, after running the mega plant much the same way since it opened in 1982, running a coal generator more flexibly is no small feat. Unlike quick-start gas plants which are designed to fill gaps in the grid, the complex interplay between coal boilers, pipes, cooling towers and turbines pose a challenge for Eraring. “It’s a totally different operating model,” Phillips says. “If you look at the valves and dampers and equipment out there, that traditionally sits in one spot and never moves. Now we’re asking it to move up and down and this sort of equipment can jam, get stuck, doesn’t operate, gets fatigued and generally wears out. “The tests were designed to look at reliability issues to ensure that when the time comes we can do this day, in day out or, if needed, a few times a week.” The retooled strategy for Eraring reflects a pragmatic response to a renewables transition which shows no sign of slowing down, according to expert Tony Wood, energy program director at the Grattan Institute. “It reflects the way these coal plants are going to be running. They’re soon going to be operating in a different world if they’re not already and they need to adapt to that.” To be sure, attempting to apply that level of flexibility may be out of reach for less modern plants already grappling with debilitating breakdowns. During the January heatwave the lost output from three ageing coal plants contributed to rolling outages in Victoria. Moving Australia’s coal plant fleet to so-called “two shift” operations that Eraring is considering poses a raft of challenges, Wood says. “One of the potential problems is, if you do this with older plants it can actually make them worse in that they can become less stable and less efficient in burning coal, which can mean they produce even more emissions.” Despite the huge strides made by renewables, clean energy still only accounts for 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation and mapping the future generation mix of the country’s energy grid over the next few years remains highly uncertain. The next big jolt to the grid could be when AGL’s Liddell coal plant exits in 2022, stripping 1800MW of supply and potentially creating another Hazelwood-type shock to the market if not handled with care. AGL is planning a raft of replacement generation through gas and renewables but for Origin, it means being prepared to step in and run near full capacity if required while at the same time preparing for a reduced role during the day in the long run. “Coal will obviously be important through the transition. No one argues that renewables is a better solution. So it’s really about getting there in the right time frame and making sure we don’t go too quick and end up with reliability issues,” Phillips says. The Eraring chief doesn’t yet count the exit of Liddell as a foregone conclusion, but says if it does happen the NSW plant will have plenty of grunt left ahead of its own eventual retirement in 2032. The exit of Liddell “is likely to reset the National Electricity Market, so other generators will pick up some of that gap depending on how much renewables comes into the market. That’s likely to be picked up by remaining coal fired generators in the short term but could also be picked up by gas. That’s part of the challenge,” he says. In the meantime, Eraring will concentrate on its job as the biggest power station in the country. “We understand the journey to renewables and everyone wants to get there,” Phillips says. “It’s just about it doing it sensibly and responsibly and we just have to work out our role in that transition. In the meantime, we’ll focus on Eraring continuing to be a big generator in the market and keeping the lights on for a long time to come.” PERRY WILLIAMS SENIOR BUSINESS WRITER Perry Williams joined The Australian in 2018. Previously he was Asia energy reporter for Bloomberg News and prior to that held senior roles at the Australian Financial Review including resources editor and dep... Read more Share this article
  9. Midfielder

    Climate Change & Alternative Energy

    That was a good pick up...
  10. Midfielder

    Climate Change & Alternative Energy

    I am a huge fan of Elon Musk and he is despised by the fossil fuel industry and they advertise a lot on traditional media in the US.... anywho CNBC a right wing channel on one of their leading investment shows wanted to put out another negative Tesla story.... they did not run this vid ... Its beyond funny seeing the guy doing the interviewing trying to get negative comments from the investor.
  11. Midfielder

    Nostalgia Thread

    This vid captures perfectly the then more carefree and innocent era. You could argue and maybe rose coloured glasses, This was Australia, 1970's, no MacDonald's, no fat kids. The clothes, the hair, making fun out of a bit of a road with a Hill. I see myself or my youth in this vid and a great Aussie song as well. This Skateboarding was held in the Winter of 1975 near the Coca Cola Factory at Rodborough Rd., Frenchs Forest on the Northern Beaches of Sydney. A gotta watch.
  12. Midfielder

    Nostalgia Thread

    I wonder how these people like those who charged out of the trenches in WW1, did what they did. This same group of people set about changing the world and there has been no world war since...
  13. Midfielder

    Julian Assange arrested by UK police

    Mate, chill, we have discussed this before this thread is not about the character of Julian... opinion is divided on whether he is a journalist or not, my take is its about 75 to 25 with 75% of journalist saying he is... but he did not publish as a journalist he released doc's via a publishing / media company ... called Wikileaks... so when another media company does the same we can jail people involved... The bigger picture is we can jail the head of the ABC if this keeps going. I have no idea how Dutton got into the conversation as to the best of my knowledge no one in the Libs phoned the Feds and said go arrest people... As for charming those who voted for the Libs ... why ... Labour lost the election, it was a beyond poor campaign they ran and thats why they lost ... I voted labour on climate change alone... Are you not the least bid concerned the ABC has been raided with huge power given to the Feds to delete and alter ABC docs .... a senior and well respected News journalist [ yes they do have some] has her house turned over and is facing arrest... Ben Fordham from Ch 9 and 2GB is the subject of an investigation ... a former employee of the ATO is facing 99 years in jail for releasing some ATO internal procedures ... like for F sake he did not give out details or tax file numbers ... he simply said what an internal ATO policy was. Whether Julian is the worst character on the plant or not it was his media company who published stuff and as a media company they are no different to the ABC, Fairfax, SBS, Ch 7 etc... If Julian is jailed for what his media company published then it opens up any media company and its officers to being jailed for what the government does not want you to hear... a corner stone of our democracy is press freedom... finally whether he is classified as a journalist or not is not the issue it whether his media company can publish and its being framed around his journalist credentials and he is of poor character...