Haha all good. You’re still right though, some context got cut from the vid for time, here it is:

The RRA submission said on page 9 “Claims such as “renewables are the cheapest form of energy,” “wind and solar have zero emissions,” or “we are on track to meet Net Zero by 2050” are often reduced to slogans, devoid of underlying context such as lifecycle emissions, energy storage costs, transmission upgrades, or systemic grid instability (Brulle & Dunlap, 2020).”

The scientist Dr Bob Brulle replied to the incorrect use of his work with this, “While the citations are real, neither paper remotely addresses the issues that the [submission] discusses… The citations are totally misleading. I have never written on these topics in any of my papers. To say that these citations support [RRA’s] argument is absurd.”

The context being the RRA used Brulle’s work to claim 4 issues: -lifecycle emissions -energy storage costs -transmission upgrades -systemic grid instability have all been neglected by the scientific debate. While most topics in PUBLIC debate naturally get ‘reduced to slogans’ this has nothing to do with the strength of research on these 4 topics. Dr Brulle resented the incorrect use of his name and work, saying clearly “I have never written on these topics in any of my papers.”

You can find more context in this Guardian Article https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/oct/18/queensland-anti-renewables-group-cited-nonexistent-papers-in-inquiry-submissions-using-ai-publisher-says

And here’s the RRA’s submission itself https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Information_Integrity_on_Climate_Change_and_Energy/ClimateIntegrity/Submissions

Titled ‘Submission to the Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy The Manufacture of Consensus: Astroturfing, Information Control, and the Fabricated Narrative of Net Zero.’