Was interference in Lehrmann trial designed to swing election?

Brilliant forensics by Janet Albrechtsen: “There must be an inquiry into every aspect of this saga.”
This entry was posted in Federal politics, Legal affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Was interference in Lehrmann trial designed to swing election?

  1. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    but like CL provides no evidence only assertions.

    Pot, meet kettle. A commenter who never, ever, provides evidence criticises because he is too dopey to keep abreast of current affairs! ROFLMAO.

  2. Not Trampis says:

    Actually I always provide evidence. since you failed primary school you never can.

  3. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Actually I always provide evidence.

    So give me the link to where you provided the following:

    The percentage of redundancy built into the coal fired electricity generation system to provide redundancy in supply of an essential service, before intermittent ruinables entered the market.

    The percentage of redundancy that will be required in intermittent solar and wind generation systems to provide the reliable and continuous supply required by an essential service. Note that the capacity factor for solar is around 30%, and cannot get much higher without removal of all clouds from the sky, while that for wind is around 40%. In relation to wind generation, provide the meteorological data to prove that it is always windy enough somewhere in Australia to cover periods of the doldrums in another part.

    The evidence that the cost impact of new capital expenditure somewhere of between $80 billion (government estimate) and up to $500 billion (CSIRO estimate) will still leave solar and wind generation as the cheapest form of supply.

    The actual evidence (not bland statements to “ask anyone”) that solar and wind are actually the cheapest form of generation, taking all factors into account, including the above capital expenditure.

    The evidence that a price on carbon is essential, even though you claim (without much evidence) that fossil fuel generation is already the most expensive, and therefore should already be out of business.

    This shouldn’t take long, even for a pre-school failure, since you ” always provide evidence”.

  4. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    Nothing posted yet? If you have already provided your evidence, a link should be easy. Or was that another unsupported assertion?

  5. Boambee John says:

    Nothing from Non Mentis? Sad, low energy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *