angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 18, 2023 at 12:34 am

“New Scientist has a recent article about [t]he worst-case climate scenarios are no longer plausible today.”

A bit late but better late than never.
Even better would be “the BAU case climate scenarios are no longer plausible today.”
Though they may have confused the two due to conflating RCP8 with BAU.

Even better are the 143 comments allowing some moderate voices in.
Re the ECS estimate and the ECS range we have 10 very vocal years of ATTP records where many people here have advocated for an estimate of 4.0 or higher.
Now all quiet?

Though I feel the jury is still out mounting evidence points to levels much lower than the luckwarmer 3.0.
I would like to congratulate Fuller and Mosher on being proved not even wrong so conclusively.
After all the years of rubbish they have had to put up with they are in part vindicated.

“the need for vindication is insatiable. ”
much less the need for concession .

I know my comments to be almost ethereal in their lack of accuracy, insight, whatever. not even managing to to construct complete sentences.
Perhaps irony will save this one?
angech | September 30, 2022 at 1:49 am |
Joshua | September 29, 2022 at 8:52 pm |
angech – Why no response? Someone who doesn’t know you might think you’re hiding. –
Joshua I gave you a response at the right site.

Angech September 28, 2022 at 4:52 pm
“Oh ” The point isn’t that I was right and you were wrong.”
The point is you were wrong.”

Two points.
I doubt very much that ATTP wants this post sidetracked by your tactics of changing subjects and then making personal attacks.
Particularly when you are wrong.

You asked me for an opinion so that you could get a response and then attack that response.
I gave a response.
You attacked that response.
All fine and good.
Somehow in your insistence at trying to be so clever you missed a couple of salient points.
You were wrong.
The statement in question was correct at the time it was made based on the premises it was made on and the data available at that time.

A few months later you claim I said that it was certain that he was correct.
I repeat
The statement in question was correct at the time it was made based on the premises it was made on and the data available at that time.
You also claim you said “there was too much uncertainty to draw such a conclusion.”
Obviously at the time the statement was made there was no such uncertainty. The infection rate dropped and stayed low for some time.
Any reasonable commentator, at that time, was certainly able to make such a claim based on his argument at the time.
Which was what he did.

In hindsight, the best vision of all, one can always muster an argument about uncertainties. Perhaps you remember the USA losing a certain basketball match?
I remember an Aussie ice skater winning a gold.
At the time when the events were being held you would have been laughed out of the court and off the rink to suggest uncertainty.
I hope that explains it.
Have another go if you want.
But try and get it right this time