So you’ve quoted an article that complains about the cost of SH 2.0 and another that complains that it’s delayed (name an infrastructure project that isn’t delayed or over budget {No1 says: Yo, that's an ad hominem}). But neither of those refute the projects long term benefit as a renewable energy source. Moving on, you’ve made moot points, congrats.

Umm, you've quoted nothing. Does that make your 'points' less than nothing? Nobody is stopping you from providing evidence, articles or scientific studies.

Also, does just saying something make it your own? Or does talking about something make it a great idea and a fabulous achievement, but if it's rubbish idea and goes tits up, it's somebody else's fault?

At least you admit he was working on a positive climate policy and lost his job because of it.

Wait, what? Where did I say that?

Both sides of the debate now agree he was doing what he could.

Evidence?

You’ve obviously come from /r/Australia because they certainly had a penchant

Yep, that is an ad hominem. You attribute my motives/actions for something without entirely any evidence.

for slinging the word “whataboutism” around as if it was a good argument. It’s more of a trumpism where you just say a slogan so you don’t have to address the point. Well done.

Whoa! And you just ad hominem'd your ad hominem. And throwing the 'trumpism' in is arguably a whataboutism.

C'mon bro, you can address the point:

TURNBULL + ENVIRONMENT + EVIDENCE = POSITIVE RESULTS

Show me the way!