Comments on: Why is the US Government turning back to petroleum when clean energy means JOBS JOBS JOBS?

By: passengershipsanconapatras.wordpress.com

passengershipsanconapatras.wordpress.com — Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:05:02 +0000

Hey there fantastic blog! Does running a blog similar to this
require a reat deal of work? I have very little understanding off coding but I had been hoping to start my ownn blog in the near
future. Anyhow, should you have any suggestions or tip forr new blog owners please share.
I understand this is off subject but I just hhad to ask.
Kudos!

By: dean

dean — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 21:16:46 +0000

“They used a computer model?!?!?!”

Wow, that’s one of the new lines used by denialists in a few areas: “alternative medicine” quacks are pushing their bad studies as being “analyzed by computer”, and so are anti-vaccination groups.

Computer use is bad when scientists do it, good when the quacks do it. As rickA demonstrates here.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:58:00 +0000

“you would know that Otto and L&C’s methodology”

They used a computer model?!?!?!

When did deniers start saying computer models proved reality? They used to say only measurements proved reality.

Measurements say that TCR is 2.4C per doubling. Right now we have the data for that. dT & dF both known. 1.2 and 0.5. 1.2/0.5=2.4

Simple maths dick can, and has, done, but he’s lying for consumption.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:55:36 +0000

And if it’s TCR, it’s 2.4C per doubling, we KNOW that at the moment.

ECS we won’t know until we’ve held CO2 levels stable for probably 50-100 years

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:54:17 +0000

“They also don’t agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists.”

So they are wrong.

“I am looking forward to finding out who is right.”

We already know.

“What a pity that we don’t know the answer yet.”

What a pity you’re lying. We already know.

“Oh well – we will have to wait and see.”

Oh, no, we can see now.

It’s at least 2.4C per doubling.

I can see you don’t really fear Greg at all, do you, dick. No worries about him at all.

By: BBD

BBD — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:30:59 +0000

If you bothered to read the references I provided upthread, you would know that Otto and L&C’s methodology has been shown to be biased low. You would understand that we already know that ECS is (as long suspected) close to 3C.

You can pretend otherwise, but not honestly.

By: RickA

RickA — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:20:28 +0000

BBD #122:

I know.

They also don’t agree with Lewis and Curry or Otto or a few other scientists.

I am looking forward to finding out who is right.

What a pity that we don’t know the answer yet.

Oh well – we will have to wait and see.

By: BBD

BBD — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:09:24 +0000

I know that lots of science conflicts on what ECS is.

But it doesn't. That is a false claim. There is a solid consensus that ECS is about 3C. Sure there are outliers, but they are outliers.

My guess (pure speculation) is that ECS will turn out to be 2.0C or lower.

Your opinion is irrelevant. This is a scientific issue. Why you cannot grasp this simple *fact* is a mystery to me. Unless of course it is the dishonest foundation for your very presence here - year after year - peddling misinformation. Anyway, shall we canvass the expert view of pre-eminent climate scientists with specific domain expertise? Let's do that. They don't agree with you.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:08:15 +0000

Greg, if you don’t tell the stupid son of a bitch to cut it out and admit his claim is bollocks there, you’re just making this blog a worthless screed of lies being ignored and people getting pissed off at the fuckwit.

By: Wow

Wow — Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:06:51 +0000

“I am not going to prejudge what the answer will be when we measure delta T whenever we hit 560 ppm.”

We know it now.

Over 2.4C per doubling.