Correct, offshore wind energy is far more expensive than onshore wind, although it does have a slightly higher capacity factor. Floating offshore wind is a factor of two (at least) more expensive again.
Fancy having to check and sign off someone else's work?
We throw the spaghetti on the floor. We select 3 strands of spaghetti that emphasise the trend we wish to promote. We ignore the rest. We call 10 years of a trend climate. If a 10 year trend is climate then the Pause (of great entertainment) was climate.
The spaghetti method is similar to Mann's method with proxies for the hockey stick, select those which strengthen the desired outcome, ignore the rest.
I think you won the Internet with that post.
Dansgaard-Oeschger “D–O signals [10-16C warming events within decades to centuries] are not just seen in Greenland – they are registered globally.” – Liu et al., 2026
From 57,000 to 29,000 years ago, with Last Glacial atmospheric CO2 concentrations flatlining at ~200 ppm, there were 11 instances when Greenland abruptly warmed by 10-16C within a span of just 50 to 200 years
Yes, that seems reasonable. It seems a pity the latest version isn't directly hosted anywhere.
By killing the slow unobservant kids Waymo is improving the human race, ready for the war against AI.
For some reason some people throw the sunk cost phrase around as if it is garlic to a vampire. I was discussing whether it was worth spending another $12B to finish the Snowy 2 hydro project. Two nitwits claimed I had fallen for the sunk cost fallacy, which since I was ignoring the 12B spent to date merely demonstrated that they didn't know what SCF is.
The Speccie often has interesting writers, Germaine Greer and Auberon Waugh for example
Minimum wage is USD 16.5 per hour, but most service bots will also get penalty rates (50-100% typically) for working evenings, public holidays or weekends. It is not unusual for cafes and the like to have higher prices at weekends and public holidays.
My 2.2 tonnne Ford 4wd gets 25 mpg. My 1 tonne Ford Escort (1973) got
Your mate is wrong.
When I first got a company car it did 12 l/100km. 25 years later the same model of car was grtiing less than 9, despite 25% more par, and meeting tighter emissions regs.
Your mate is wrong.
Except it is publicly funded
The South Koreans built a 5 GW nuclear plant in UAE for $32B. Australia needs about 24 GW, say $200B
As the last graph shows successive estimates have improved the reduction from LULUCF back in time -how convenient. I agree, deforestation was (and is)a blight but Labor have their hands tied by CFMEU and the Coalition doesn't care. Perhaps the new EPA regs will help.
Australia claims to have reduced CO2 emissions by 30% since 2006. If you exclude Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) it has fallen by just 4%, mostly electrical generation. Other sources have increased. LULUCF is a very flaky bookkeeping exercise, easily manipulated.
A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God.
