environMENTAL

Author environMENTAL Substack. Environmental industry professionals with 200 yrs. applied experience. The planet is going to be fine. Worry about the people.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

PSA: This is what they do.

When confronted, cornered and unable to justify, they take the easy way out.

One last word and then they simply block you. @e_philalethes - thank you for adding another example to the record.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose Lots of people with working brains and more than a basic grasp, including some climate scientists with whom you disagree, are laughing at that statement right now.

Keep calling her a “fraud for hire.” Keep disingenuously trying to justify why RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 are still legit. 🤦‍♂️

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose We’ll let others judge your authenticity and conclusions, Buckwheat.

I do not launch ad homs until you losers behave the way you did. And once yo do, you ask for it and I’m gonna give it to you.

You start, I don’t. I make you eat your own medicine.

You own that.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose You “already told” me zero about what she predicted, genius.

Sure pal.. there’s nothing materially different between ~78 Gt/year GHG emissions/yr in 2100 (CMIP7 High) and the ~128 Gt’s projected by RCP8.5. Change goal post from 2100 by 50-200 yrs. “Dimwits won’t notice”.

🤣

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose So petty little disingenuous, name-calling pricks like you are in a position to determine when another scientist is honestly inquiring.

Do we have that correct, Skipper??

“Reject” all “scientific answers”? OK, Catholic Church… you’re sure showing Copernicus and Galileo. 🤣

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose You disinformed people with RCP8.5. And then stood by idly while the media used that to do the same. You knew Earth would never reach 15 billion in population based on birth rates, or coal use incr by 6X. 🤔

Period.

Be specific about which of her predictions failed miserably,

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose Scientific conclusions with which you disagree aren’t incessant information,” as such have caused no “pain and suffering,” and the ~200 papers in the peer reviewed literature and 20,000+ citations are more accomplishments than you’ll ever have.

And you know it, loser.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@e_philalethes @CColose Sorry hayseed. The 20,000+ citations associated with those 200 papers are not from “deniers.”

And people who use the ad hominem attacks you do are in no damn position to judge relevance given your lack of integrity relevant to a core tenet of the scientific method: skepticism.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose Specify your grounds.

Or prepare to wear your baseless allegation in ways you won't like, Doc.

And before you walk away bothered, check the string for who/what started this.

You are about the become the centerpiece of a Substack post. And I won't be kind.

Last chance ....

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose Oh you're making it so much better!

Gonna run away ... and do anything to avoid laying out the basis of your "fraud for hire" claim.

You understand the implications of using such a term and then failing to specify the basis for it, right?

You sure you wanna do that?

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

We're a mostly dormant account. We publish on Substack.

Dormant, that is, until govt. funded climate scientists like @CColose starts behaving like this.

Shameful @NASA and @Columbia ....

#scientistsbehavingbadly

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose OK, little buddy. We're a lurker acct but you crossed a line. Did Gavin put you up to this? Or approve it?

Let's get started...

According to your NASA bio, you are lead author on exactly four (4) relevant papers in the scientific literature, with a 5th "submitted/in review".

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose Well I do.

How about you tell us the basis of your "fraud for hire" allegation? The specifics. Back it up.

I'll analyze the veracity of your claim/evidence. Then finish with a more fitting analogue you, Gavin, Michael, etal won't like.

You poked a hungry bear, elk calf...

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose You're more than welcome creepy govt. scientist in possession of a fraction of her experience and having accomplished a fraction of what she has who accuses scientists with whom he disagrees of fraud.

She's still a respected scientist more accomplished than you. Wanna continue?

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@curryja Wow. What a body of work.

Repeating what I predicted at the Starbucks across from campus in 2016:

"Future historians will treat you (and a few others) as a hero of scientific objectivism. & the name callers as the opposite."

Huge gratitude for your staying true.

Go CFAN!

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose Here's your chance:

Delete that post.

Do the latter and I'll delete mine. Don't and invite more.

Prediction: Future historians will likely record her (and some others I won't name) as true to the tenets of scientific objectivism. And dou#$ebags like you as the Church ~1633.

[environMENTAL @envMENTALsubstk]

@CColose Have you or "Autonomic Integra" invented anything of value in the climate space? Something for which people willingly part with large sums of money and rely on for major operational or strategic decision-making?

Just a govt. funded mediocrity shouting "fraud" at your betters?