thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 12:32pm:



No they prove pollution. They don't prove death.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 12:32pm:



And yet you can't cite one paper that says PM2.5 causes poor health.

Edit: https://junkscience.com/2021/09/milloy-lectures-national-academy-of-sciences-pan...

Presentation to the NAS. They couldn't refute a single thing he said.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:


You haven't even been able to prove that claim. If that is true why do the Chinese have a long lifespan?

Shangahi for instance one of the most polluted.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1081645/china-life-expectancy-of-registered-...



thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:


Oh dear. Lead was added to petrol so it wasn't fossil fuels caused anything. You just can't help lying can you?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:



They couldn't show he was wrong. And that doesn't make you think?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:


There was no expense in de-leading fuel. It was an additive. Additives add costs.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 1:50pm:


Because there were pollutants. BUT they haven't been shown to cause ill-health.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:



So not PM2.5 then.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:


So still no PM2.5.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:



Yes but your argument was that it cost to remove it, which it clearly did not. Don't keep changing your argument you are getting confused.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:


And still no pweer0-reviewed paper on PM2.5.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:



Nope. It was never a cost to remove it.    Oh only may not will? Oh dear.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 3:15pm:



The policy was mandated. VW were guilty but you still have not mounted a case for PM2.5.

BTW - I was pointed to a more trecent paper than Cook Et al supposedly supporting a 99% consensus view. So I had a look

Results Table 3 -

Table 3. Results of rating and categorization of 3000 abstracts.
Rating/categorization      # of abstracts
1—Explicit endorsement with quantification      19
Impacts      7
Methods      9
Mitigation      3
2—Explicit endorsement without quantification      413
Impacts      204
Methods      78
Mitigation      124
Not climate-related      4
Opinion      1
Paleoclimate      2
3—Implicit endorsement      460
Impacts      95
Methods      119
Mitigation      199
Not climate-related      43
Paleoclimate      4
4a—No position      2104
Impacts      915
Methods      790
Mitigation      60
Not climate-related      235
Opinion      3
Paleoclimate      101
5—Implicit rejection      2
Methods      2
6—Explicit rejection without quantification      1
Paleoclimate      1
7—Explicit rejection with quantification      1
Methods      1
Grand Total      3000

"Our estimate of the proportion of consensus papers was 1 − (4/2718) = 99.85%."

So 892 papers supported AGW  either explicitly or implicitly although how a paper can support implicitly is beyond me.

And then of course they used only the 4 that explicitly rejected. That meant that the 2104 that took no position were included those that supported AGW. The real result, according to the maths is 32.6%.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


You have given no evidence otherwise. Until then my conclusion stands.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


And? PM2.5? NO?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


So you finally got something right.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:



But not in Broken Hill?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:



"Not surprisingly, approximately 50% of children under five years of age have a blood lead above five micrograms per decilitre. These levels are comparable with children from lower-income, rapidly industrialising countries. "

"However, in a six-year cohort of US children, those who have a blood lead concentration above five micrograms per decilitre account for fewer than three million (around 18%) of the 23 million IQ points lost due to lead toxicity. "

https://theconversation.com/the-verdicts-in-we-must-better-protect-kids-from-tox...


Perhaps it something other than lead. 18% is too low.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


Your the one bitching about particular matter.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


And they never have proven it either.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


And they did.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


32.6% is a lot less than probable. Probable extends from outliers over about 42%. but more in the 60% to 80% range.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 4:56pm:


And I have a bridge for sale.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:



Oh dear. Another cop out.

.thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:


And yet they provide no evidence.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:



It is like radiation. The UN has no safe level policy on that too. And yet people live with marble and other radiation emitters.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:



You mean like Maduro taking over the oil and losing the capacity to export?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:


If lead is the causative factor it either has to be at higher concentrations or something else.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:


And renewables will fix that?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 5:56pm:


And yet you haven't shown one peer-reviewed paper that says so.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 11:46pm:



And yet you can't point to one scientific paper that shows what you think it shows. So really just an appeal to authority.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 26^th, 2022 at 11:46pm:



And who will take their place? Nature abhors a vacuum. The sunlight and wind may be free- when it shines or it blows- but there is a cost in maintenance and you studiously avoid that. "MMT will fix it". Which means everybody will be on the government tit.

Form a circle - Kumbaya.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 28^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:



And yet you never do.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 28^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:



If everybody is on the government tit then the energy sector cannot make money. It becomes a drain. So from the installation through to maintenance through to eventual removal. All costs.

.thegreatdivide wrote on May 28^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:



So we haven't had wars? Poverty? And where is this ecological collapse? Perhaps Germany where their Greens party wanted to bulldoze forest for more wind turbines?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 28^th, 2022 at 4:27pm:



Me what?

So so far you have lied about Bushfires, lied about floods and lied about droughts... but somehow we should believe you?