Mikko2 (cont'd),

Thanks for the articles you linked to. However, they are biased and misleading in many ways.

The article "Bisphenol A Pollution from Wind Turbines" exaggerates the toxicity of Bisphenol A (BPA), labelling it as the "most toxic substance we know," which is misleading. While BPA is a concern as an endocrine disruptor, regulatory bodies focus on safe exposure levels rather than outright bans. The claim that 15% of the EU's BPA production is used in wind turbine blades, resulting in over 12 tons of emissions annually, lacks solid backing and seems dubious. Properly maintained turbines show significantly lower emissions.

The article also claims that 1 kilogram of BPA can contaminate 10 billion litres of water, an alarmist statement that ignores environmental factors like dilution and degradation. The methodology relies on outdated data and speculative methods, inflating BPA emission statistics without considering recent advances in turbine materials and maintenance. Additionally, it oversimplifies the science by inaccurately linking microplastics to BPA leaching, failing to account for environmental conditions affecting leaching rates.

The article misinterprets the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) reduction in the tolerable daily intake (TDI) of BPA, which is a precautionary measure based on new research, not a sign of immediate health risks at previously accepted levels. Furthermore, it generalises the hormonal effects of BPA without considering the complexity of biological systems.

The second on wind turbine fires exaggerates the frequency and impact of such incidents without solid data. Most research indicates that fires are much less common than suggested. There is also a potential conflict of interest, as the author works for a fire protection company, raising questions about bias. The piece heavily promotes fire suppression systems without independent analysis of their cost-effectiveness.

The article overlooks numerous safety measures and technological advancements that prevent fires in modern turbines. A more balanced view, including independent research and current safety practices, would provide a more accurate picture of wind turbine operations.

I suggest you look to scholarly, peer-reviewed papers if it is reliable information that you seek.

And again, John D that's a bunch of opinions not facts which you claim to endorse. There are many prominent scientists including a Nobel Prize winner John Clauser who don't endorse the anthropogenic CO2 theory and who aren't dependent on government funding and who agree it is a lie based on faulty computer modelling which never has been proven in the real world and never will be. The claim that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists was debunked years ago. https://www.desmog.com/john-f-clauser/

Mr Daysh should read the article by Chris Uhlmann in the current Weekend Australian. It is fact based.
Here is the link for those who are subscribers to the Australian—
The Australian - Real cost of renewables is in your power bills
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=9f6d0ed7-342d-4fac-8a8a-e72087121143

Uhlmann quotes the latest data from the Statistical Review of World Energy, an authoritative source. He notes that notwithstanding some growth of renewables in the production and consumption mix, coal and oil consumption were at the highest levels on record in the latest year. Replacement of fossil fuels is just not happening.
The only thing changing is where the coal and oil are being consumed. Some countries may have reduced their usage, but various others have increased their usage, more than offsetting any reductions. It’s the same with emissions—still going up. China and India are clearly the biggest players in this regard.
Uhlmann goes on to refer to a current paper by Prof Stephen Wilson (UQ) titled ‘The Ruinous Cost of Free Energy’, noting that debates about power costs often focus on the wholesale level whereas the community generally is concerned with retail costs.
The NEM is critically important in this context. It may not be generally appreciated but at any given time slot (of 5 mins), it is the highest price which applies to all supplies, not the lowest. This is the ‘clearing price’ mechanism. All those theoretical low-cost prices from renewables can just disappear into the ether if the final component of demand can only be met by higher priced supplies.
It is also generally accepted as a rule of thumb that retail prices are 3-4 times the average wholesale price over a given period. This is overseen by regulators as an accepted system.
All of this means that claims of much lower prices from renewables and batteries are very doubtful. We need stable, reliable baseload supplies, and efforts to duck that conclusion are going to leave us with an economic mess.
By all means, let the debate run on but let’s be realistic in our arguments.

Mikko2,

Enough with the sock puppets, please. They do your position no favours.

While a few scientists, including Nobel laureate John Clauser, have expressed scepticism about human-caused climate change, the vast majority of climate experts agree that human activities, especially CO2 emissions, are major contributors to global warming. It’s important to note that Clauser is not a climate scientist; he is a physicist, and expertise in one field doesn’t automatically apply to another.

Studies confirming the 97% consensus specifically survey climate scientists or experts actively publishing in relevant fields, ensuring that the consensus reflects views from those with expertise in climate science (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002). Therefore, Clauser is rightfully excluded from this well-established statistic. I suspect this is the root of your confusion.

The idea that scientists support climate change theories just for government funding is misleading. Scientific consensus is built on rigorous, peer-reviewed research, not financial incentives. Scientists work in various settings, including universities and private research institutions, where transparency and peer review ensure the integrity of their work (http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2872).

As for the claim about faulty climate models, while these models are complex, they have successfully predicted many climate trends. They are based on solid physics and extensive data. Despite their complexity, they are crucial tools in understanding climate change, and their predictions have been validated against real-world observations (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0664-0).

The assertion that the 97% consensus among climate scientists has been debunked is also incorrect. Multiple studies have reinforced this consensus. For example, another review in Environmental Research Letters affirms that the vast majority of climate scientists support the view of human-caused global warming (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002). This consensus is endorsed by major scientific organisations worldwide, including the American Geophysical Union and the IPCC.

Basically, the claim dismisses the overwhelming scientific agreement on climate change by focusing on a small minority of dissenting scientists. While scepticism and debate are essential to scientific progress, the substantial evidence supporting human-caused climate change is robust and peer-reviewed, contradicting the notion that it’s based on faulty models or misinformation.

There is a list of highly qualified scientists longer than your arm who don't believe the anthropogenic CO2 climate change lies and YES the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement was thoroughly debunked years ago. If you still believe that very obvious lie it really shoots any of your other dubious claims down in flames, Jon D. Dream on.

Mikko2,

I certainly hope you're not referring to the long-debunked and intentionally deceptive "Oregon Petition," which serves more as a propaganda tool than a legitimate scientific document.

The Oregon Petition includes names of people with no relevant expertise, such as engineers and veterinarians, and even fictional characters. The verification process was virtually non-existent, allowing anyone to sign. Moreover, it presents itself as a scientific consensus but fails to provide any credible scientific backing.

In contrast, the 97% consensus on anthropogenic global warming is based on rigorous, peer-reviewed research. Multiple studies have confirmed this consensus by analysing thousands of scientific papers, underscoring that nearly all climate scientists agree on human-caused climate change.

Cook et al. (2013): http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Farnsworth and Lichter (2011): http://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/eint/15/1/2011ei386_1.xml
Anderegg et al. (2010): http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107
Doran and Zimmerman (2009): http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467609332708
Oreskes (2004): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

Still solid as a rock.

Even if you were right, though, that would not bring into question anything else I've said, and your attempt to make it seem as if it would us known as the fallacy of composition.