"Thanks for your analysis, madam, I always find your presentations brain cells stretching .....even if I don't always subscribe to them!"
Well, you don't subscribe to them, until you do.
For example, when I was pointing out the unaffordability of your deluded 10% dividend yield wishful thinking when the stock was $25 (heck, the DY yield isn't even 10% today when the stock price is only $15), and when I provided the scientific basis to counter your "Twiggy-knows-all" position concerning hydrogen.
And today I'll state the same for green iron, the latest ideological kite the be flown:
It's little more than another virtuous concept and it will be a very long time before "green" steel becomes a commercially viable thing.
But let me ask you the same question I asked fellow poster - on two separate occasions; neither time has there been a response) - MichaelIrish,
"If the FMG directors and shareholders like you who are true believers in green steel think it is a great business idea that is going to revolutionise the global steel industry, why doesn't the FMG Board simply suspend the dividend indefinitely to fund the construction of a full-scale green iron plant?
Presumably you'd vote in favour of that strategy, right?"
Alternatively, given your fawning adoration of Andrew Forrest, let me ask you this:
He's worth several tens of billions of dollars; if he believes in the green steel dream as much as he claims and wishes to play a crucial leading role in preventing the Pilbara becoming an ...uh.... "economic waste land", why doesn't he walk the talk and direct one of his private investment entities commit $4bn or $5bn, matched with several more billions from his fans who will surely follow his lead, to build a new full-scale green steel plant?
"However, for simplicity let's work on the assumption of a dichotomy, (as opposed to a more nuanced continuum analysis) of your climate change denial vs specialist climate scientists' conclusions of anthropogenic carbon-induced planetary warming."
To show that you aren't just another duplicitous gaslighter of those who have views that don't accord with yours, can you please point out where I have denied, or even inferred denial, of Earth's changing climate?
As for "specialist scientists' conclusions of anthropogenic carbon-induced planetary warming", as has been stated by me without any ensuing dispute, planetary climate is an outworking of the multiplex interactions between indeterminate numbers of complex, chaotic, open, non-linear and multi-variate chemical and physical systems.
Hence, true-to-label scientists will deem the influence on a planet's climate being due to just a single factor - viz., human activity - to the exclusion of all the other many variables (some which are still unknown) with the conclusion of definitive causality, to be totally un-scientific.
By way of just one example, the first principles source of planetary heat in any solar system, is that system's sun. And suns, including our own, are continually-changing entities, in ways that we haven't even begun to understand.
So on what basis are suns' physical and chemical variability excluded as being the overarching factor behind changing climate of planets? Do you really think our Sun's luminosity, and hence the irradiance flux at Earth, is constant over solar cycles?
[Hint: it isn't]
That's just one example of an indeterminate number of variables that impact planetary climate, including Earth. And some people try to claim that the "Science is Settled" on human activity being the cause?
Expand
(20min delay)