Jeremy

50+ Guitarist playing for 35+ years, The best way to describe my playing style would be I like all kinds of music and I play from the heart not the head.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@AlboMP
Prime Minister, you're not "kidding" — you're spinning.
Elon Musk isn't "above Australian law" — he's a US citizen running a US company with zero obligation to let one country's regulator dictate global speech. X did geo-block the Wakeley church stabbing footage in Australia (complying with local rules). The eSafety Commissioner demanded worldwide removal and got smacked down in court. Australia ultimately dropped the case. Free speech prevailed.
Musk isn't "sowing division" by refusing to hide news of a terrorist attack on an Assyrian bishop (with Islamist slogans yelled during the livestream). The division comes from violent incidents and governments that downplay patterns or rush to censor rather than confront them.
You accuse a bloke on the "other side of the world" of being out of touch? Mate, look in the mirror. Australians are shaking their heads at skyrocketing cost of living, housing pressures, energy bills, and crime stats under your watch — while you lecture billionaires about "common decency" and "social licence."
Other companies rolled over. X fought for principle. That's not ego — that's resisting one nation trying to become the world's internet censor. Australians can handle seeing uncomfortable truths. What they can't handle is being treated like children who need protecting from reality.
The ego here is thinking Australian law reaches Elon Musk's boardroom in Texas. It doesn't. And pretending it should is exactly why trust in institutions is tanking.
#FreeSpeech

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

You do know that cracking the shits and ranting like that is not a good sign.

If you take a position on something and someone challenges that position then how well you defend your position using facts and arguing your case or position is a measure of your actual knowledge on the subject.

If you cant do that then one can only assume you dont know much and are just repeating things you have heard or you dont really care.

Because you got upset you obviously care so........

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Your a fool if you believe that.

We all got played, a fake panic was created and the fuel companies fleeced the nation by jacking up prices.

At the same time those verry same companies where organising alternative solutions to supply us with fuel.

Yes sure Albo talked big but he didn't convince fuel companies to send fuel here they where doing it anyway.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Lol you sound like you think it should have had a different result mate.

Greatest thing about a democracy is the Majority decide what direction we go on issues.

For you to imply that the majority who voted No where somehow misinformed or incorrect says more about you than it does about those who voted yes.

It failed because it was a bad idea and the majority of Aussies knew it, cant argue with the figures but you can complain.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@MarioNawfal That is pure poetry.
Right up to the landing the timing and execution is amazing. How little time there is after deployment of parachute to unzip and guide himself in to land. A few seconds too late and he would be struggling to get out out in time and slow up to land.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Was that a veiled threat by the PM at the start. Mentioning social cohesion.....
Considering the AFP NSI team has Established a dedicated team within its Counter Terrorist and Special Investigations Command to target groups and individuals causing "high levels of harm to Australia's social cohesion the PM referencing social cohesion could be interpreted as a warning to the member.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@Movie_Xtra1 Must be getting soft in my old age, last bit got me in the feel's

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@PaulRic56123559 @kmacraeplockton Great high IQ response.

The smart ones question the science, do research, and then counter.

I can steelman the climate crisis narrative using their own science.
Then strawman my own proposal and alternative plan..

Interested see link below.
https://t.co/ne9GSHqmyG

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Low cost - long term alternative climate action.

ONE-PAGE PITCH

200-Year Climate Self-Regulation Test
A Conservative, Low-Cost Experiment to Test Nature’s Thermostat
The Theory
Current warming of ~1.1 °C since pre-industrial times is largely a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, amplified modestly by human CO₂. CO₂ is not a pollutant — it is plant food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises, global vegetation responds with a 20–50 year lag: plants grow faster, biomass expands, and natural carbon sinks increase. This self-regulating mechanism, working together with natural cycles, should eventually stabilise or reduce warming even if emissions remain steady. The mainstream narrative overstates the crisis while understating nature’s built-in thermostat.
The Test
A 200-year, falsifiable experiment:
Years 1–100 (2025–2125): Modest, practical action to boost sinks and trim emissions slightly.
Years 101–200 (2125–2225): Complete stasis — no new policies, emissions held steady (coal remains viable).
Key Actions (conservative & realistic)
250 million hectares of high-productivity reforestation + natural regeneration + full deforestation halt by 2035.
Nuclear ramps to 3,000 GW by 2075 (retrofits on existing coal sites).
Solar reaches 2,000 GW.
Coal/gas taper slowly to ~5–6 GtC/yr total emissions (CCS on 40–50 % of fleet).
90 % of light-duty vehicles electric by 2055 (30-year natural rollout).
Total cost: $9–11 trillion over 100 years (~0.6–0.8 % of global GDP annually).
Monitoring
Fully transparent, low-cost protocol using existing NASA/ESA satellites (OCO-2, Copernicus, MODIS) and ground networks (NOAA, FLUXNET, ARGO). Annual public “200-Year Test Dashboard” with raw data, reviewed by an independent panel of mainstream and skeptical scientists. Clear, pre-published success criteria.
Projected Outcomes if Theory Holds
CO₂ peaks ~465–485 ppm by 2125 then falls to 370–430 ppm by 2225. Warming caps at 1.4–1.9 °C (possibly declining further as natural cycles align).
Advantages & Conservative Benefits
Extremely low cost compared with mainstream net-zero plans.
Keeps coal viable for decades and uses proven, reliable energy.
Relies on market-driven EV adoption and natural greening rather than mandates.
Fully falsifiable — if sinks do not respond with the expected lag, the theory is disproven.
Tests nature’s self-regulation without economic disruption or overstatement.
This is not another alarmist proposal. It is a conservative, practical experiment that respects natural cycles, leverages real greening data, and lets the planet show us what it can do.

Appendix.1
https://t.co/nJNfnrLkVd
Appendix.2 (grok link so table is readable)
https://t.co/SrBu3pNAc9

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@archer_rs Apparently if you paint a map red and point to high temperatures people will panic like chicken little.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

This is disgusting, let's play devils advocate for a minute and say he did say something racist (although I dont think he did) that still doesnt explain or excuse the police not arresting the person who stabbed him.

Racism is not an excuse for violence nor a defence for trying to kill someone. Or so you would think.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@ChloeCharlie180 @AshPolitik Exactly.....

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Gotta say it. Your filming yourself while driving and you keep looking at the device filming. Your attention would be better on rhe road. I bet 100% your one of those people when driving and talking to the passenger you turn and look at them during the conversation.

Your I charge of a vehicle your attention should 100% be on the road, its bad enough your filming yourself and talking while driving but then you add to the distraction snd start diverting your attention from looking where your going and keep looking at the camera

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Exactly, you don't have to agree with the message but we all should agree the right to voice an opinion form a pollitical party is for all. You cant pick and choose who gets to exercise rights. This is true here and in many other areas. As a society we already started down the slippery slope post 911, and its continued with hate speech laws and special laws to protect specific groups already protected under existing laws. This is those laws in motion it may not be you and it may be a group who have views most find undesirable (to say the least) but its a Democracy just dont vote for them.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Yes, changes in ocean currents and global temperatures are real concerns worth serious study. But we don’t need the most drastic or costly measures to respond.
My practical 200-year low-cost self-regulation proposal works with nature’s own mechanisms — CO₂-driven greening, modest reforestation, and steady emissions — to let the planet’s thermostat do more of the heavy lifting. Full one-pager with sources here:
https://t.co/gbHoHUf3a3
If you have a moment, read the proposal and let me know what you think — any feedback or suggested improvements would be appreciated

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Low cost - long term alternative climate action.

ONE-PAGE PITCH

200-Year Climate Self-Regulation Test
A Conservative, Low-Cost Experiment to Test Nature’s Thermostat
The Theory
Current warming of ~1.1 °C since pre-industrial times is largely a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, amplified modestly by human CO₂. CO₂ is not a pollutant — it is plant food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises, global vegetation responds with a 20–50 year lag: plants grow faster, biomass expands, and natural carbon sinks increase. This self-regulating mechanism, working together with natural cycles, should eventually stabilise or reduce warming even if emissions remain steady. The mainstream narrative overstates the crisis while understating nature’s built-in thermostat.
The Test
A 200-year, falsifiable experiment:
Years 1–100 (2025–2125): Modest, practical action to boost sinks and trim emissions slightly.
Years 101–200 (2125–2225): Complete stasis — no new policies, emissions held steady (coal remains viable).
Key Actions (conservative & realistic)
250 million hectares of high-productivity reforestation + natural regeneration + full deforestation halt by 2035.
Nuclear ramps to 3,000 GW by 2075 (retrofits on existing coal sites).
Solar reaches 2,000 GW.
Coal/gas taper slowly to ~5–6 GtC/yr total emissions (CCS on 40–50 % of fleet).
90 % of light-duty vehicles electric by 2055 (30-year natural rollout).
Total cost: $9–11 trillion over 100 years (~0.6–0.8 % of global GDP annually).
Monitoring
Fully transparent, low-cost protocol using existing NASA/ESA satellites (OCO-2, Copernicus, MODIS) and ground networks (NOAA, FLUXNET, ARGO). Annual public “200-Year Test Dashboard” with raw data, reviewed by an independent panel of mainstream and skeptical scientists. Clear, pre-published success criteria.
Projected Outcomes if Theory Holds
CO₂ peaks ~465–485 ppm by 2125 then falls to 370–430 ppm by 2225. Warming caps at 1.4–1.9 °C (possibly declining further as natural cycles align).
Advantages & Conservative Benefits
Extremely low cost compared with mainstream net-zero plans.
Keeps coal viable for decades and uses proven, reliable energy.
Relies on market-driven EV adoption and natural greening rather than mandates.
Fully falsifiable — if sinks do not respond with the expected lag, the theory is disproven.
Tests nature’s self-regulation without economic disruption or overstatement.
This is not another alarmist proposal. It is a conservative, practical experiment that respects natural cycles, leverages real greening data, and lets the planet show us what it can do.

Appendix.1
https://t.co/nJNfnrLkVd
Appendix.2 (grok link so table is readable)
https://t.co/SrBu3pNAc9

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

I’ve always respected Sir David Attenborough. He states the facts calmly without the emotional alarmism, and I think he’d actually applaud a practical, low-cost alternative like mine.
Yes the climate is changing — but we don’t need the most drastic and expensive measures. My 200-year self-regulation proposal works with nature’s own thermostat (CO₂ greening, modest reforestation, steady emissions). Full one-pager with sources here: https://t.co/gbHoHUf3a3
What do you think — does this approach make sense, or how would you improve it? Open to honest feedback.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Low cost - long term alternative climate action.

ONE-PAGE PITCH

200-Year Climate Self-Regulation Test
A Conservative, Low-Cost Experiment to Test Nature’s Thermostat
The Theory
Current warming of ~1.1 °C since pre-industrial times is largely a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, amplified modestly by human CO₂. CO₂ is not a pollutant — it is plant food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises, global vegetation responds with a 20–50 year lag: plants grow faster, biomass expands, and natural carbon sinks increase. This self-regulating mechanism, working together with natural cycles, should eventually stabilise or reduce warming even if emissions remain steady. The mainstream narrative overstates the crisis while understating nature’s built-in thermostat.
The Test
A 200-year, falsifiable experiment:
Years 1–100 (2025–2125): Modest, practical action to boost sinks and trim emissions slightly.
Years 101–200 (2125–2225): Complete stasis — no new policies, emissions held steady (coal remains viable).
Key Actions (conservative & realistic)
250 million hectares of high-productivity reforestation + natural regeneration + full deforestation halt by 2035.
Nuclear ramps to 3,000 GW by 2075 (retrofits on existing coal sites).
Solar reaches 2,000 GW.
Coal/gas taper slowly to ~5–6 GtC/yr total emissions (CCS on 40–50 % of fleet).
90 % of light-duty vehicles electric by 2055 (30-year natural rollout).
Total cost: $9–11 trillion over 100 years (~0.6–0.8 % of global GDP annually).
Monitoring
Fully transparent, low-cost protocol using existing NASA/ESA satellites (OCO-2, Copernicus, MODIS) and ground networks (NOAA, FLUXNET, ARGO). Annual public “200-Year Test Dashboard” with raw data, reviewed by an independent panel of mainstream and skeptical scientists. Clear, pre-published success criteria.
Projected Outcomes if Theory Holds
CO₂ peaks ~465–485 ppm by 2125 then falls to 370–430 ppm by 2225. Warming caps at 1.4–1.9 °C (possibly declining further as natural cycles align).
Advantages & Conservative Benefits
Extremely low cost compared with mainstream net-zero plans.
Keeps coal viable for decades and uses proven, reliable energy.
Relies on market-driven EV adoption and natural greening rather than mandates.
Fully falsifiable — if sinks do not respond with the expected lag, the theory is disproven.
Tests nature’s self-regulation without economic disruption or overstatement.
This is not another alarmist proposal. It is a conservative, practical experiment that respects natural cycles, leverages real greening data, and lets the planet show us what it can do.

Appendix.1
https://t.co/nJNfnrLkVd
Appendix.2 (grok link so table is readable)
https://t.co/SrBu3pNAc9

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

These failed predictions keep piling up. What if we tested nature’s own self-regulation mechanisms instead? My practical 200-year low-cost experiment builds on CO₂ greening, reforestation and steady emissions as a thermostat. Full one-pager with sources here: https://t.co/gbHoHUf3a3

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Low cost - long term alternative climate action.

ONE-PAGE PITCH

200-Year Climate Self-Regulation Test
A Conservative, Low-Cost Experiment to Test Nature’s Thermostat
The Theory
Current warming of ~1.1 °C since pre-industrial times is largely a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age, amplified modestly by human CO₂. CO₂ is not a pollutant — it is plant food. When atmospheric CO₂ rises, global vegetation responds with a 20–50 year lag: plants grow faster, biomass expands, and natural carbon sinks increase. This self-regulating mechanism, working together with natural cycles, should eventually stabilise or reduce warming even if emissions remain steady. The mainstream narrative overstates the crisis while understating nature’s built-in thermostat.
The Test
A 200-year, falsifiable experiment:
Years 1–100 (2025–2125): Modest, practical action to boost sinks and trim emissions slightly.
Years 101–200 (2125–2225): Complete stasis — no new policies, emissions held steady (coal remains viable).
Key Actions (conservative & realistic)
250 million hectares of high-productivity reforestation + natural regeneration + full deforestation halt by 2035.
Nuclear ramps to 3,000 GW by 2075 (retrofits on existing coal sites).
Solar reaches 2,000 GW.
Coal/gas taper slowly to ~5–6 GtC/yr total emissions (CCS on 40–50 % of fleet).
90 % of light-duty vehicles electric by 2055 (30-year natural rollout).
Total cost: $9–11 trillion over 100 years (~0.6–0.8 % of global GDP annually).
Monitoring
Fully transparent, low-cost protocol using existing NASA/ESA satellites (OCO-2, Copernicus, MODIS) and ground networks (NOAA, FLUXNET, ARGO). Annual public “200-Year Test Dashboard” with raw data, reviewed by an independent panel of mainstream and skeptical scientists. Clear, pre-published success criteria.
Projected Outcomes if Theory Holds
CO₂ peaks ~465–485 ppm by 2125 then falls to 370–430 ppm by 2225. Warming caps at 1.4–1.9 °C (possibly declining further as natural cycles align).
Advantages & Conservative Benefits
Extremely low cost compared with mainstream net-zero plans.
Keeps coal viable for decades and uses proven, reliable energy.
Relies on market-driven EV adoption and natural greening rather than mandates.
Fully falsifiable — if sinks do not respond with the expected lag, the theory is disproven.
Tests nature’s self-regulation without economic disruption or overstatement.
This is not another alarmist proposal. It is a conservative, practical experiment that respects natural cycles, leverages real greening data, and lets the planet show us what it can do.

Appendix.1
https://t.co/nJNfnrLkVd
Appendix.2 (grok link so table is readable)
https://t.co/SrBu3pNAc9

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@DrNeilStone

The worst part wasn’t “20 million died.”
That’s ~0.25% of the global population (~7.9 billion in 2020-21).

As a share of the billions actually infected (~5–5.6 billion by late 2022), it’s an IFR of ~0.35–0.4% — several times a bad flu season (0.13–0.16%), but nowhere near the apocalyptic justification for erasing freedoms.

Pre-COVID pandemic plans (CDC 2017, WHO 2019) for respiratory viruses like this were crystal clear: once community spread starts, you mitigate, not contain. Containment doesn’t work — the virus always breaks through, and delaying spread just gives it more time to hit a population with uneven immunity, favouring variants.
The best defence was always what medicine has taught for centuries: let low-risk people get it, survive, and build natural immunity.

That’s how populations “season” to new pathogens.

Instead we got blanket lockdowns, school closures, and mandates that ignored age-stratified risk, wrecked economies, destroyed a generation’s mental health, and trashed basic rights — all while the pre-existing literature said this exact approach would fail and cause more net harm.

20 million dead is tragic.

But so is pretending the response was “following the science” when it directly contradicted decades of pandemic planning.

History won’t be kind to the panic.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

#Referendum
#Corruption
#change
https://t.co/1Gvl0MOJHi

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@RitaPanahi You cant put brains in stupid but you can put a hand up its arse and make it talk.

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

@Ryandally08 @JEChalmers Might be just what we need.
Hard to say it like this but when enough have nothing to loose the system can be challenged buy a withdrawal of compliance.

No tax payed, no work done, shut it all down and force them out of Canberra.
Every last one of those grtifters

[Jeremy @Dangerous_Jezza]

Lol your going to have to come up with something better than that mate, IDGAF what labels you put on me, nor do IGAF about some bullshit about making billionaire or millionairs richer. Lol you say that like 1. Its not going to happen anyway, and 2. Like the major parties dont have mates who they do favours for.
If I had to count the number of people who actually argued a good point on why ON is bad and after fact checking their claims I didnt find out they where twisting the truth or just talking shite I would need any fingers or toes I could just use my dick.

1 person in the whole internet has made a decent argument on not voting ON and made me think hmmmmm maybe I'll vote INDEPENDANT instead.

The harder you idiots whine, the more you talk up the same parrot like talking points the more I think "nah! F it I'll vote ON still" because you all sound like a bunch of bots, payed actors or sheep/parrots and brainwashed muppets.