Explosion damages newly opened hydrogen fuelling station in Germany

[NNadir]

6. Well, there are cases, including in the scientific literature, where numbers are deliberately fraudulent, I concede...

...but usually it's not about ideology so much as about career advancement, and in the case of seeking grants especially, money.

That said, I am fully aware that it is possible to audit the source of electricity, and I often refer to these figures from reputable sources, in which I include the EIA, IEA, and reputable journals, based on consensus. If one spends a lot of time in the literature, and I do, consensus is easily identifiable.

I'm not going to credit that the numbers from the EIA and IEA are lies told for purposes of supporting ideology.

However, if the point you are making is that the wind is always blowing when the sun isn't shining, and their really are people paying for "100% renewable energy" and getting it without accounting tricks, I am not likely to believe you. Fossil fuels are burned to keep their lights on reliably and all the time; that is undeniable.

I think, in particular, to look at the results one might look at the concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste in the atmosphere, which is available at the Mauna Loa CO₂ Observatory. There's a wonderful description on the site detailing the rigor of the analytical chemistry involved in it. As a scientist involved in analytical chemistry, I find it beautiful, and undeniably accurate. I note that the work always includes error bars as it should, but the numbers there surely don't lie.