green energy is a disgrace and a lie

Originally posted by gumUnderfoot: ↑

My comments

The modelling is pretty good actually.
At 0.1 billion years or so margin of error.

were facetious

Can you see what kind of margin of error that is?

Essentially I'm saying although climate change is a worrying concern, it is insignificant as time goes on and the earth disappears with us humans long before that time.

We have a reasonable understanding of that "nature" as I said.
Modelling on AGW is pretty good, hey!

It's within the 0.1 billion years or so margin of error.

Do you know how many models there have been over the years?

No, but the NASA data is relatively accurate within the 0.1 billion years or so margin of error.

Do you recall a bloke called Michael E Mann and his case against Dr Ball and the outcome?

Kind of. Mann was denied his defamation case. His science was probably outside the 0.1 billion years or so margin of error.

Do you recall the failed predictions of the IPCC - based on modelling. At least they apologised for them. They are what we call "classics"!!

More outside the 0.1 billion years or so margin of error, I suppose?

Etc Etc Etc Etc Etc!!

Anyway, to each his own I guess. Good luck!

So, your own is humans do or do not contribute much to climate change?

Expand

Wrong and a very poor attempt to explain my later comments. You are putting a nice positive spin on them all. I will address just one as any idiot can research the others. Michael E Mann was ORDERED by the Court to pay the expenses of the Court and Dr Ball. Michael E Mann paid the Court costs but not Dr Ball's expenses. Again this is simple research but up to you if you wish to go down the path of deflection.

Now, this is what I wrote in my original post:

"Green energy is based on the premise that we need to reduce CO2 emissions and get to net zero by various dates - ATM 2070.

"Be careful of what you wish for" applies to this, IMO.

It is entirely possible that we are intruding on nature without any proper understanding of "nature".

What if 'nature" reacts adversely with unintended consequences that we will find out some time down the track - this is a long run scenario and that is why we use modelling - poorly IMO."

What part of that do you have issue with?