thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 9:51pm:


You haven't shown what you reported to be true.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 9:51pm:


So now not ruled out is evidence of a cancer causing agent? thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 9:51pm:

You would have to show that others have found NOx emissions to cause cancer.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2022 at 9:51pm:



White flag accepted.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 4^th, 2022 at 10:01pm:


There is not enough energy in unreliables to power the current grid let alone a grid with many EV's.

California is asking EV owners in its state not to charge them after 4pm.

http://www.caiso.com/Documents/california-iso-issues-flex-alert-for-today-aug-31...

They also want to put solar panels over water canals.  Too bad about lead and other toxic elements in the panels.

https://www.theregister.com/2022/08/31/california_solar_power_canals/

What a bitch it must be to have to still bang the denial drum.

Maybe you should get a new gig.

Or is the Lee account just a click farming troll.  Has to be, no one is that dumb.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 9:55am:


Then why is Germany suffering it has shedloads of solar and wind. The answer is they can't get it when needed.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 9:55am:


Then why are they talking about putting them over canals?

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 9:55am:


You haven't even shown it causes cancer.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 9:55am:



Consensus is not science. I prefer the science.

Poor randy doesn't have two brain cells to rub together for synapse.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 3:04pm:



Germany already has enough energy potential. As I have said before. Their average use is 57GW peak use is about 100GW. There is 54GW of Solar and 62GW of wind. So why would Germany need Sahara?

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 3:04pm:


or the loony left.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 3:04pm:

Seeing as you have CO2(pollution) you don't agree it is a pollutant? Well done you.

At what concentrations are these particles causing "negative health effects"?

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 5^th, 2022 at 3:04pm:


Do you have facts to back that up? EG what are the total number of climate scientists in the world? What is the number that believes overwhelingly?

I know the IPCC says that all their scientists are "climate scientists'^TM; but it appears not.

"n an April 25, 2022 Chemical and Engineering News article, Holly Jean Buck, a “development sociologist,” expresses some peculiar views about fossil fuels that go beyond climate change. It is surprising to find them purveyed in a journal not of sociology or politics but of chemistry and engineering.

For starters, Buck maintains, “achieving net-zero emissions won’t ensure that the planet is buffered from the environmental and health impacts of fossil fuel extraction and use.”

Buck is a professor of environment and sustainability at the University at Buffalo. Her Ph.D. is in development sociology. She is also a contributing author to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is a good reminder that, contrary to popular perception, not only climate scientists but also plenty of social scientists contribute to the IPCC’s “scientific” reports. "

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/03/when-a-chemistry-journal-publishes-a-soci...

Wow a sociologist? Knows not only climate change but chemistry.

Poor old TGD tires himself to poor old randy's  knowledge lack.

Ah the limit of randy's expertise. The finger.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:



But the Germans are leaders in technology.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:


Consensus is politics not science. You have been told many times. You just keep coming back to "consensus" like a dog to its vomit.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:

Consensus again.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:


She's a "Sociologist" so she just knows.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:


The IPCC disagrees with you.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 6^th, 2022 at 10:40am:



So to get "free" eelectricity Government would have to fund all the unreliables and not charge for maintenance, replacement, the required landfill from toxic PV panels and fibres from wind turbine blades. And of course all on the back of government employees who would I assume work for wages maintaining the "free" dream.

And you would be wrong. Poor old randy has been trying for years.

Sceptical scientists from around the world are flocking to sign the World Climate Declaration (WCD) that states there is no climate emergency. The WCD notes that climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound, self-critical science. Over 100 scientists and professionals have signed the Declaration since August 18th, when the Daily Sceptic highlighted the project and interest soared across social media.

The WCD is particularly critical of climate models that provide the ‘evidence’ for most of the Net Zero agenda. “We should free ourselves from the naïve belief in immature climate models,” says the WCD. Models have many shortcomings and “are not remotely plausible as global policy tools”, it adds. The WCD started with 500 signatories and has now grown to over 1,200. The lead author is the Norwegian physics Nobel Prize winner Professor Ivar Giaever.