​Lighten up, you guys

Lighten up, you guys

20/8/2025

By Catherine Watson

I WASN’T paying much attention to Paul Cross’s comments on the Post’s Facebook page. Facebook is a bear pit. But when his comments started appearing on the Post website, I took notice.

What prompted them was a discussion on wind energy following a story about how Wonthaggi’s wind turbines are reaching their use-by date. There were commentators for and against wind power, but the discussion was amiable and courteous - until Paul jumped into the conversation, Facebook style.

The insults were so gratuitous and random that I was intrigued. They reminded me of a four-year-old yelling “Watch me, Mummy. Watch!” I messaged Paul and asked if I could interview him for the Post.

“It seems odd that you want to interview a person with RW views for a LW publication,” he responded. “But it’s heartening to see like minded people like me disliking renewables.
Should I agree to your request I would want to view your questions first.”

While it was true that most of the Post's readers and writers are left leaning and greenish, I replied, the Post itself is neither left wing nor right wing. “All views are welcome.” I sent him a list of questions, which he thought were reasonable.

Paul Cross Q&A

Post: Have you always been grumpy?
Paul: No, not at all. I was known as the clown of the class and in the family ...
Read more

A few days later we met in the RACV resort lounge. Paul Cross turned out to be bespectacled and mild-mannered, quite unlike the keyboard warrior. He was also funnier in person than on the page, self-deprecating at times, though also with a clear sense that he’s the most intelligent person in the room.

Our conversation was wide-ranging and predictable:
Wind farms? Inefficient, costly blight on the landscape.
Nuclear power? Emission free and incredibly safe.
Fossil fuels? Best of all.
Man-made climate change? Bullshit. “Now we have probably the best climate the world has ever seen.”
Coastal erosion? Sea levels rise and fall. They always have done.
Welcome to country? We’re meant to be equal in Australia.
Transgender rights? Men dressing up as women are still men.
National service? Yes please.

It wasn’t his political views that interested me, however, but the keyboard warrior. I learned that he thinks of social media as theatre, or a game. “It's rather like people enjoy playing Suduko. I like Facebook. It's my version of Suduko, or doing a jigsaw puzzle if you like.”

And he isn’t actually trying to change people’s minds. “No, no, no, you never change people’s minds. There's always stupid people out there. They'll always be stupid, you know.“

I asked him whether he had ever regretted anything he’d posted and the answer was no. Nor does he believe he’s aggressive or abusive online.

As expected, we disagreed about most things but amicably. I thought some of his ideas were daft but he wasn’t aggressive or abusive towards me, even when I challenged him. His most offensive comment came when he called me “a nice lady”, but I knew he meant it kindly.

We shook hands, and I got someone to take a photo of us. I stood to the left, of course, and Paul to the right.

As I headed out, Paul surprised me again by telling me to let him know if he ever stepped over the line. That was the last thing I expected. A moment of self-reflection?

If it was, Paul must have regretted that moment of weakness because by the next day he'd returned to do battle with the woke folk.

I emailed him: “As we parted ways you said something like ‘Let me know if I step over the line’. I have to tell you that you do, frequently and repeatedly. Your comments present me with a real dilemma. I really welcome your conservative point of view but I don’t want the personal abuse in the Post …

“Do you think you can discuss without the insults … or is it now too engrained in your online persona?”

Cross responded:
“Regarding the terrorist comment, In context I recall mentioning that one of the commenters was very left wing, I assumed he is a greenie and as such their political standing has shifted from environmental to supporting extreme political ideologies. The Pro Palastine mob are Greens and Communists.

“Hamas is recognised by the UN as terrorists. That chap Peter or Rob didn’t correct me, so I assumed I was right.

“I think I did tell you to let me know if I over step the mark, as I like to understand if others know the term freedom of speech … To be told what I should say and how I say it is totally up to me, unless of course I lived in a communist dictatorship and fortunately we don’t.”

"The Bass Coast Post is certainly different, more like a Parish newsletter that attracts elderly soft spoken folk."
Paul Cross

And he suggested I join Inverloch Community Voice “which has over 11,000 members and 3 admin - not to participate necessarily but to have some insight into the real world with the banter and argy bargy that goes with it.”

Having told me several times that he didn’t give a damn what anyone thought of him, he then asked to see the interview and took out some of the funniest bits. He also put back the boring bits, which I’ve taken out again because ... they’re boring.

I’ve been wanting a conservative commentator for the Post for some time and I briefly considered … but no, I was after an Amanda Vanstone rather than an Andrew Bolt.

But Paul deserves the last word. “The Bass Coast Post is certainly different, more like a Parish newsletter that attracts elderly soft spoken folk,” he wrote.

Now that really did make me laugh.

Brian Carr link

21/8/2025 10:31:40 am

Who really cares what caused the nuclear power station problems, the fact is that they occurred, and the results are quite serious, Chernobyl is still not resolved, putting a temporary 'lid' over it is like taking a panadol for a brain tumor, Fukushima, is still not resolved, masses of radioactive material still sitting around with no solution to it's disposal, radioactive water drifting around the Pacific Ocean. As for nuclear power having 'the smallest footprint', obviously the uranium mines and disposal of radioactive waste with its associated dangers and timelines have not been considered. Renewables.....wind, solar, hydro, thermal, tidal and those still being developed are the cheapest forms of energy on the planet, at times rendering fossil fuel generated power uncommercial to produce. As for being a 'blight on the landscape,' compared to an unsightly building belching toxic fumes with it's associated coal mines and transport requirements, obviously indicates an undeveloped sense of aesthetics.
Man made climate change being 'bullshit' ? I'd much prefer to heed evidence provided by the entire body of the world's scientific establishments, than the opinion of an individual who thinks he's ' the most intelligent person in the room,' (even if he is mild mannered and self deprecating), perhaps if he provided empirical evidence of this 'bullshit' he may be considered seriously, instead of giving the appearance of being just another right wing culture warrior employed by the fossil fuel barons.

Tony Edwards

23/8/2025 09:43:29 pm

Great expose of a vicious nutcase troll. Relevance deprivation syndrome is the phrase that comes to mind. They all think they’re the smartest guy in the room, no matter how dumb they are. They’re of an age and they know everything. I’m reminded of T S Eliot’s line: “One of the low on whom assurance sits. As a silk hat on a Bradford millionaire.”
I’m a bloke of that age too but we don’t all get smugger and stupider as we age.

Althea Thomas

25/8/2025 07:42:50 am

A fearless piece of journalism Catherine, researched and written with your trademark wit and dry humour. You provide a role model for dealing productively with dissent/different points of view, without descending to a level of personal abuse, that your subject could indeed learn from. The Post and hopefully its readers are better than that.

John Gascoigne

24/8/2025 08:44:47 am

Ah, so this foul-mouthed creep thinks he’s funny. Ties in with the description of him as a four-year-old screaming for mummy’s attention. Four is the age where kids love the “naughty words”. Cross is clearly stuck developmentally. I wonder if counselling would help at this late stage? Might leave the rest of us in peace.

Amy Lowell

24/8/2025 08:47:17 am

Hook, line and sinker … the joke’s on Paul Cross but don’t expect him to get it.

Andrew Shaw

24/8/2025 11:28:26 am

Thanks for an interesting insight into what motivates this malevolent human. Internet trolls always believe they’re the smartest person in the room. Unfortunately you’re wasting your time trying to deal with him on a civilised level.

Hamish Watson

24/8/2025 04:23:29 pm

So the misogynistic, racist crap that spews out of Cross is meant to be funny? Totally agree with Andrew. Spare yourself and your readers more of his idiocy and block this creep now.

Rob Parsons

21/8/2025 02:23:55 pm

Facts Still Matter – Even in the Bass Coast Post.
It’s disappointing to see serious issues like energy policy reduced to personality and theatre, as in the recent Post profile of Paul Cross and the ensuing comment by Brian Carr.

Let’s be clear: while Paul can be provocative, the concerns he raises about wind energy, nuclear, and climate policy are shared by serious thinkers and global institutions — including the International Energy Agency, the IPCC, and countless engineers, scientists and economists around the world.

Take nuclear energy. Brian Carr dismisses it with sweeping statements — “Chernobyl is still not resolved,” “radioactive water drifting around the Pacific” — but the facts tell a different story:
Claim Reality
Chernobyl - A Soviet-era disaster with no Western containment dome. Now sealed and stable.
Fukushima - Hit by a once-in-a-thousand-year tsunami. No radiation deaths. Decommissioning is underway, water is treated and released under IAEA supervision.
Nuclear waste - Managed and stored securely. Volume is tiny compared to solar panel and wind blade waste, which often ends up in landfill.

Meanwhile, renewables — while useful — are intermittent. They require large-scale land use, transmission corridors, backup batteries or gas, and rely on mining for rare materials. Their headline “cheap” costs are for generation only — not the total system cost required to keep the lights on.

And wind turbine blade disposal is a real and growing issue, with composite materials that don't break down for 1,000 years and contribute to microplastic contamination. That’s not a talking point. That’s from Harvard Business Review and the IEA.

If we truly care about climate, cost, and future generations, we need all energy options on the table — including nuclear — not ideological cherry-picking or ridicule of those who ask hard questions.

The Post says it wants conservative voices. Well, here’s one — fact-based, civil, and unapologetically committed to balance, transparency, and energy realism.

Brian Carr link

21/8/2025 03:16:57 pm

Well yes I do dismiss nuclear with sweeping statements, why ? because it's just too expensive compared to renewables, it takes too long to commission new reactors...we need the power now, AI demands are huge, and they're not going to abate, neither is domestic use of electricity. Chernobyl is still not habitable and will not be in the immediate future, Fukushima hit by a 1 in a thousand year tsunami ? yes but it did happen, who's to say another 1 in a thousand year catastrophe won't hit other nuclear power sites (think Russia/Ukraine war, Iran/Israel war).
As for solar /wind 'waste, solar panels are constructed mostly from aluminium and glass, both eminently recyclable, turbine blades are being recycled (although it is not easy, but far easier than storing nuclear waste) As for transmission corridors, reactors need them even more than renewable sources, wind/solar/hydro/tidal can be established to scale according to needs, think remote settlements, smaller townships, local attributes, outback solar, Tasmanian Hydro, NZ thermal, Scotlands tidal, without the need for transmission corridors or lines. The only positive attribute nuclear has is the reliability and smaller (although quite dangerous) waste.
The struggle to contain the global warming to 1.5° of pre industrial revolution temperature has been lost, we are in uncharted waters, and whilst we are stuffing around quibbling about paying a few extra dollars for our power bills, the oceans are rising, the tundra is thawing, the antarctic ice sheet is on track to break up, the ocean is becoming more acidic, weather patterns have altered, our children and their children will pay the price for our 'fiddling while Rome burns'. Nuclear solves a lot of the issues, but we can neither wait, nor afford the cost of relying on it.

Rob Parsons

21/8/2025 03:53:53 pm

Brian Carr has raised a number of points, but many of them are broad assertions rather than evidence-based. A few clarifications may help readers form their own views:

Cost – Recent OECD and IEA reports show that once firming, storage, and transmission costs are included, nuclear’s system costs are comparable to — and in some cases lower than — renewables. Wind and solar are cheap per megawatt to build, but require backup generation and extensive new transmission, which add significantly to total costs.

Timing – Large nuclear projects can take time. But Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are designed to be deployed within 3–5 years and scaled incrementally as demand grows. Canada, the US, and the UK are already advancing these technologies.

Safety – Chernobyl was a Soviet-era design with no containment vessel and poor safety culture. Fukushima was built in the 1970s and was struck by an extreme natural disaster. Modern reactors use passive safety systems — they shut down automatically without human intervention. Australia would only consider these modern designs.

Waste – Nuclear waste is small in volume and carefully managed. All the high-level waste from 60 years of global operations could fit on a single football field stacked a few metres high. By comparison, Australia alone will face millions of tonnes of used solar panels, wind turbine blades, and batteries in coming decades — and there is not yet a full recycling solution in place.

Transmission – Nuclear plants can be located on existing coal plant sites, re-using the transmission corridors already built. Renewables often require thousands of kilometres of new high-voltage lines through farmland and bushland — something that is already meeting community resistance.

Climate urgency – If the situation is as urgent as suggested, dismissing nuclear entirely makes little sense. France, Sweden, and Ontario decarbonised much of their electricity grids with nuclear. If climate change is the emergency, then every zero-emissions technology should be on the table, not ruled out prematurely.

We all want reliable and affordable low-emissions power. The real debate should be about how best to deliver it — with facts and evidence, not by ruling out proven technologies before they’re even considered.

Janice Orchard

21/8/2025 02:33:42 pm

An interesting interview. I have seen some of Paul Cross's posts on FB and it is good to now put a face to the name. Unlike some keyboard warriors hiding their faces, this character is not afraid to be seen. Interesting to know he does his research as it is not always obvious to the reader that he is being sarcastic/joking or using satire. In future I will read his comments and responses in a different light.

Brian Carr link

21/8/2025 04:39:03 pm

I don't want to be seen as harping on, but the points Rob Parsons made really do need clarification.
I'll just answer a few of the most obvious misconceptions.

Cost - according to C.S.I.R.O. Australia's peak scientific body - Long development lead times mean nuclear won’t be able to make a significant contribution to achieving net zero emissions by 2050.
While nuclear technologies have a long operational life, this factor provides no unique cost advantage over shorter-lived technologies.
SME's whilst cheaper to build are not in commercial operation anywhere yet, so cannot be relied upon.
The legal hurdles against nuclear energy alone would take decades to unravel.

Waste - where on earth the 'millions of tonnes of used solar panels, wind turbine blades, and batteries' figuire comes from is downright mystifying, as I said, aluminium and glass (solar panels) are currently re-usable, turbine steel poles are re-usable, carbon fibre blades are being ground up and separated into re-usable components.

Transmission - new grids will need to be established, and is meeting community opposition, as is construction of nuclear power plants on former coal fired power plant sites (NIMBY principle)

Climate urgency - France, Sweden, and Ontario do not have anywhere near the solar and wind resources that Australia has access to.

Rob Parson's arguments formed the pillar of the LNP's power policy which was soundly thrashed by the electorate.

Rob Parsons

21/8/2025 04:58:04 pm

Brian raises some familiar concerns about nuclear, but some of the claims are less clear-cut than presented. For example, the CSIRO’s GenCost report is often cited to rule out nuclear, yet engineers, energy economists, and international agencies have criticised its assumptions for underestimating nuclear’s potential role and overstating the full system costs of renewables. Meanwhile, small modular reactors are not hypothetical — they are already under construction in countries like Canada, the US, and the UK, with regulatory approvals progressing.

On waste, it is true that aluminium and steel from solar and wind infrastructure can be reused, but large-scale recycling systems for panels and blades are not yet in place, and Australia is facing a steep increase in end-of-life renewable waste over the next decade. That challenge is very real, and comparing it to nuclear waste management deserves a more balanced discussion than slogans allow.

Transmission is another area where the comparison matters. Both renewables and nuclear need upgraded grids, but dispersed renewable generation requires a much larger and more expensive build-out of high-voltage transmission. Placing advanced nuclear at existing coal sites, by contrast, makes use of current grid connections and avoids some of the disruption that is already creating community opposition.

Finally, while it is true that Australia has better solar and wind resources than Europe, the issue is reliability, not just abundance. France and Sweden relied on nuclear precisely to achieve reliable, low-emission baseload power. That is why a serious discussion about Australia’s energy future should keep all options on the table, rather than dismissing nuclear out of hand.

As for the suggestion that these views were the “pillar” of a past election campaign, that misrepresents both history and policy. Nuclear was not legislated or central to the LNP platform, and reducing an election result to one issue oversimplifies what was in fact a complex outcome. Leadership, internal dynamics, and broader cost-of-living pressures all played a role.

I’m happy to clarify these points for the record, but I don’t intend to keep trading blows. Our community deserves a fact-based discussion about energy, not a personal slanging match, and I will not be responding any further.

Brian Carr

21/8/2025 05:35:38 pm

Well I'm not making any more statements about this either (although I don't see it as trading blows, merely putting forth points) we obviously disagree about the cost effectiveness of nuclear, and to be frank neither of us is going to influence the final outcome, (apart from 2 opposing votes if it comes to that) we will just have to observe how it plays out.

Rob Parsons

21/8/2025 05:19:25 pm

Hi Catherine,
This exchange illustrates why you often struggle to attract conservative voices to the Post. I was quite happy to continue debating the issues with Peter Hogg — he disagreed with me, but he did so respectfully and with the courtesy of a gentleman. That kind of exchange is worthwhile.
When discussion slips into misrepresentation and personal digs, however, people with a different perspective will simply stay silent rather than contribute. That isn’t healthy for the Post, and it isn’t healthy for the broader community conversation.
Kind regards,
Rob Parsons

Marjorie Scott

23/8/2025 06:48:12 am

Years ago the Borough of Wonthaggi was declared a nuclear free zone.
I fully supported this and would encourage the Bass Coast Council to adopt this stance if a nuclear power station was considered for our area.

Brian Carr link

23/8/2025 12:38:44 pm

Yes, the Borough of Wonthaggi and in general, the rest of the country is anti nuclear, and to be hoped stays that way. Nuclear is generally seen as an impediment and obfuscation to the implementation of reliable, safe, and cost effective introduction of a nationwide renewable energy grid (the more astute observers realise that it is merely a method of prolonging the toxic fossil fuel industry with it's environmental impacts and massive profits to the operators)
Solar panel uptake in Australia is the largest in the world (with our solar potential, it's a no-brainer) 1 in 3 Australian homes and businesses have them, and with the installation of complementary batteries (186,000) shows the direction our country is headed. At this rate, the domestic load on centralised power stations is declining.
There are smaller co-operative groups (like The South Melbourne Market) that utilise solar panels on the carpark rooftop (in conjunction with a wind farm) to power most of the market's electrical needs. A model that can be adopted by many other small towns and regional councils.
Nuclear is considered the most expensive form of power generation in the world, with the longest lead time to operation, as the UK's Hinkley Point amply demonstrates...the idea of siting one of these white elephants on the site of Yallourn's coal fired location shows the wooly thinking of the nuclear proponents, nuclear requires massive amounts of water to cool the reactors, the Latrobe Valley doesn't have nearly enough to supply a power station as well as the surrounding farming enterprises.
The Borough of Wonthaggi was prescient by declaring itself a nuclear free zone, we just can't afford the cost or the risk associated with it.

Rob Parsons

23/8/2025 10:54:27 am

Marjorie, I respect your position — many years ago when the Borough of Wonthaggi declared itself a nuclear-free zone, I too understood why people felt strongly about it. At the time, the debate was framed around fear of accidents, waste, and a strong anti-nuclear sentiment in the community.

But times have changed. Today, our greatest energy challenge is not ideological, it’s practical: how do we keep the lights on, keep costs down, and keep our economy competitive while reducing emissions?

This week’s Herald Sun (23/8/25) highlighted something that rarely gets airtime in outlets like the Bass Coast Post: there is now a major backlash against renewables across regional Victoria. A new survey shows green energy is more unpopular here than anywhere else in Australia, because people are waking up to the cost burden being forced onto households, farmers, and businesses.

Professor Bruce Mountain of the Victoria Energy Policy Centre has put the cost of the government’s renewable grid blueprint at $28 billion — and that translates directly into electricity bills jumping by 50% for households and between 250–350% for large power users. Danny Price, a respected energy economist, was even blunter: the claim that renewables are the cheapest form of energy is a “bald-faced lie.” Consumers and taxpayers are footing the bill, and they’re not being told the truth.

That’s the real issue here. Our Energy Minister Lily D’Ambrosio has repeatedly claimed renewables are “cheap” — yet families and businesses are staring down bill shock on a scale that will crush household budgets and shut down industries.

So yes, it may be popular in this forum to declare Bass Coast a “nuclear-free zone.” But if we’re honest, the nuclear debate isn’t about slogans from the 1980s anymore. It’s about whether we want reliable, low-emissions, affordable energy — or whether we keep swallowing a plan that independent experts now say is neither credible nor affordable.

I don’t expect to convince 99% of Bass Coast Post readers, but I do think we owe it to our community to start asking hard questions. The old arguments against nuclear don’t answer the new problems we face.

Comments are closed.

​Lighten up, you guys

Lighten up, you guys