Re: Reputation system
Your language reflects your own bias, or conditioning.
Having been involved in the climate 'debate' for a couple of decades, the style becomes familiar. Once, we were climate 'sceptics'. That changed, because scientists are supposed to be sceptics. So 'denier' entered the lexicon, with obvious connotations with holocaust denial. Again that's an MSM thing with lobbying groups like the Bbc & Grauniad pushing climate denial hard.
It's a huge part of the problem because AFAIK, none of their climate 'experts' have any training or background in science or engineering, so they're easily confused, and unlikey to be sceptical. Especially when there are consequences for defying the 'consensus'.
The IPCC is also part of that problem. It's basically a literature review where a small minority cherry pick papers to include, or exclude. That can obviously be a problem, if those involved are biased. There's also simple human nature given some well-known climate 'scientists' have made a very lucrative career from climate activism.
One recent curiosity is the way the narrative has shifted from preventing 2C warming to 1.5C. IPCC reports have said >2C warming is the potential danger point, otherwise warming and higher CO2 levels are beneficial. Yet reality deniers can't accept that, and we must waste trillions to lower CO2. That would reduce crop yields, and increase food poverty & starvation.
But the reduction to 1.5C, and claims of time pressure are used to force governments to act faster, which means lobbyists can extract more cash for their clients. Reality is we were extremely unlikely to hit 2C anyway. The important science is all about ECS, or Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. That's basically the relationship between CO2 concentration and temperature. If ECS is low, temperature increase will be low.
Good news is CO2 is a well characterised molecule. ECS and CO2 dogma is based on it's absorption and emission spectra. That's basically 4 bands, 3 overlapping with H2O leaving a narrow 'atmospheric window' where water isn't dominant. That's why the IPCC gave CO2 a GWP (Global Warming Potential) of 1. Hydrogen by contrast is 11.
Because CO2 is a weak GHG, reality deniers had to find a way to upsell it. So the IPCC came up with the idea of forcings and feedbacks. So various ways by which small increases in CO2 might lead to large increases in temperature. These theories were dutifully tested in climate models, and results published by the MSM. Funniest was by Mark Lynas, who came up with an 11C prediction, and has been trying to deny that ever since.
But being predictions, climate models can be compared with reality. So reanalysis projects compare predictions against observations. Generally they show models running too hot, so either the model is wrong, or reality is. So the assumptions wrt CO2 ECS, forcings and feedbacks were wrong in those models. The lack of correlation between models and reality strongly suggest ECS is low, and CO2 isn't actually a problem.
On energy storage, that's just throwing good money after bad. We know wind is expensive, intermittent and unreliable. We know this because we replaced wind with steam in the past. Reality deniers ignore history and think building larger windmills will make the wind blow on demand. So rather than ditching windmills (again), useful idiots come up with batteries. So make 'renewable' energy even more expensive by adding massive battery arrays.
That's Green logic for you. Rather than solving the root cause, just add a lot more cost, complexity and risk. Like what happens when those battery farms catch fire, and belch out clouds of hydrogen flouride and hydrogen cyanide.
Regarding the socket, I'm afraid it's you that's demonstrating your ignorance. My grid supply gives me 240V, which will be a blended supply depending on the generating mix feeding the grid at the time. So it'll be some combination of nuclear, gas, coal, forest or even a bit of wind, if the weather's right. There is no way the socket can determine origin. So all it does is use it's modem to query a server, and change the LED based on whatever rule the vendor's decided.
I do however think origin determination would be a good thing. Then people who want 'Green' tariffs can pay an appropriate premium, and be the first disconnected when wind speeds drop.
As for references, you might find this site interesting
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/
Or you may choose to simply deny anything that challenges your own biases and beliefs. Lysenko after all was a scientist, and one should always have absolute faith in 'the science'.