Steven Mosher, thanks for explaining:
If you’re refering to Zeke’s paper, then you are wrong.
I’ll have to try to remember this approach in the future. Whenever someone suggests the equations I use to model something have substantial uncertainties in them, I’ll just say, “You’re wrong.” I’ll also try developing telepathy so I can be like you:
To recap. Those who want to kill gas as a bridge fuel want to focus on the next 20 years. we think the literature suggests that the damges 100 years out are more important.
apparently Brandon disagrees.. on some un known and un cited basis.
I haven’t said anything to suggest this. Claiming someone overstates the certainty of their analysis in no way indicates you think the opposite position is true. The only way this could be “apparently” true is if you could read my mind.
Then again, you say:
As for his ham fisted handling of the damages argument.. he just doesnt get it.
But don’t actually quote or reference anything I say to indicate what I got wrong. I don’t think telepathy could explain that one. Maybe I’m wrong though. I could just be underestimating the supernatural forces you have at hand.
That, or you could just be hand-waving away things you don’t want to actually address, like you’ve done time and time again.