Much of this debate has detracted from the original questions -...

Much of this debate has detracted from the original questions - Is the Climate changing? Is it changing at an unprecedented rate than in the past? What are the mechanisms causing that change? and so forth. These are the areas that I am familiar with and can confidently debate, correct, identify errors etc etc.

Again, I will underline your comments.
I totally disagree, cheap reliable energy is causative forbecoming wealthier.The wealthier a person is the better they are able to adapt.For example for the billions of people who cook inside on wood and dung, and the three million that die prematurely because of it, a gas fire (fossil fuel) would immediatelky improve their life and life expectancy. I agree, being wealthy allows one to adapt and improve their lives. I haven't made the alternate argument. I said, and I quote

"...probably not a drastic issue for us rich Westerners with the ability to adapt, but there are plenty of people around the world that would not be able to adapt like we can for many reasons."You can put a gas stove in replacement to burning dung or wood. However, if, for example, you live in a coastal area and the sea level is rising (obviously many decades in the future) then what good is that gas stove anyway? Again, you and I being in a wealth country, we can move (relatively easy).
I also dont grow my own crops, and even if there is a severe drought, I'll still be able to buy food, maybe it will be more expensive, but I certainly wont starve to death. The same cannot be said for plenty of less fortunate nations.

The solution in this example also requires someone to have to continually purchase gas (or oil, or coal, or whatever fuel source is required). Then you also need to transport the fuels, you're also condemning that person to price fluctuations - remember when coal was 400USD/t. Is that considered cheap?
Alternatively. one could instal a solar panel (a higher initial cost, sure) but requires little ongoing costs. I am not suggesting that this is the best and only solution, merely that the idea that fossil fuels are the only answer is equally incorrect.

I often cite this youtuber that does a way better job than myself when it comes to explaining climate science and the social science part of climate science.

This video does a very good job (even though it is 2 years old) at explaining the politics and social aspect. If you are genuinely interested, you might enjoy the video.

Your argument is that the best technology should win.I agree, wind and solar are not the best and the proof is that we need subsidies to make them work.They also don’t work reliably as I demonstrated with a real life example of the grid in NSW over the past 48 hours. No matter how much wind and solar you add, you will have virtually no power available during the red box periods. That ain't great if your having emergency heart surgery

The best technology should win when stacked up against all criteria. So whilst coal/oil/gas might be the best in terms of current costs because we already have all of the infrastructure, it is also the most harming to our environment. Not only that, when it comes to replacement, it is far far far better to replace with renewables than with coal/gas infrastructure.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/coal-vs-solar-mining/



These figures take into account all aspects of the process. AISC if you will.

Furthermore, I haven't advocated for 100% renewable energy, rather a safe, reliable, transition.

That is absurd. I have run both IT companies in Australia and a manufacturing business in China doing energy intensive hammer forging, squeeze casting die casting and anodising.. We cannot compete because 1) our energy is ridiculously expensive 2) China is the market leader in Rare Earths, lithium, spherical graphite, anode, cathode and magnet production. We have a repressive Union movement that requires firms with 15 or more people to have a union trained delegate in every company by the 4th quarter of 24.(https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/legislation-changes/closing-loopholes/unions-and-registered-organisations-changes) As a consequence of these facts, we become less competitive every year. Last year our productivity fell 3.7%! (https://www.pc.gov.au/ongoing/productivity-insights/bulletins/bulletin-2024/productivity-bulletin-2024.pdf) We tried all the BS with the car industry and the unions killed it. We don’t stand a chance and all the bluster that comes from politicians about being a renewable superpower is all BS coming from people who have NEVER run a business or employed staff in their life. I spoke with an elected MP recently and they believed that Lithium was the largest component of a lithium battery (it's graphite and the stuff that comes from China is a by product of fossil fuels and is extremely energy intensive to make).

My argument was that we have the resources to do it ourselves. Last I checked, we mine rare earths. We have the workforce. We use coal as our major energy source, so why on one hand is it expensive, but also cheap?

0.6 – 1.3 degrees depending on who you listen to isnothing over a 175 years. In that period deaths from natural disasters hasplummeted. We have 5 times as many people, we live 130% longer, gdp is 7 timeshigher, andwe consume 34% more calories per day per person. If we hadn’t used fossil fuels we’d all be living in poverty, cures to diseases wouldn’t have been found and we wouldn’t be having this conservation.Yuo and I probably wouldn't be alive.All discussions always refer to some perceived risk in the future, but always ignore the powerful real life benefits we enjoy today form this reliable energy source.

The graph is rising exponentially, so its not like we are looking at another ~1C rise in the next 175 years. It is estimated much quicker than that.
I already addressed your argument regarding deaths from natural disasters - this is likely due to better warnings, stronger infrastructure, and better health care. But I do agree with you, fossil fuels certainly have made life much better for most of the population since the industrial revolution.

You didn’t answer any of the following which are summarised below

1)why don’t you lead the way, chuck as many starfish back into the ocean, and disconnect from the power grid. Spend the money you want the government to spend on your behalf and get your tesla power wall, source some solar not made on slave labor, get a battery powered bicycle, walk places, grow your vegetable sand disconnect.

2)Are you happy to promote slave labor solar panels, do you think this is an acceptable cost of the rooftop solar penetration we have in Australia

3) I have shown you the links to the research (Simon Michaux) that proves that there are not enough minerals to build out the current green revolution, so what's your answer?

1. - Like I mentioned in the last comment, I try and reduce my consumption as much as I can. I have solar panels, a more fuel efficient car than I previously had. I ride/walk where I can. I buy local fruit and vege produce. I accept that I still have a net consumption on the environment, but like I said previously, just because I haven't reduced my impact to zero, doesnt mean that I shouldn't bother try and reduce my impact at all. We cant stop all deaths from car crashes, so does that mean we shouldn't bother try stopping them at all?

2. - Of course not, and I agree with your earlier comment "I find it deplorable no Australian government has ever discussed this or stop market leading Chinese firms from selling these into Australia"
3. - Can you link the paper so I dont have to go sifting through all the comments, I'll happily read it.