green energy is a disgrace and a lie, page-119

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?