Heat Pump.

Aivar Usk: 
 

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
….. my Californian pals who are worried about the state burning up regularly….. my German colleagues trying to clean up after the more-than-thousand-year floods,…….

Here we go again ;)
I thought that we had those sorted out - I did not see any response from you to that quote from CAMS:

……

“Sorted out”? What is “sorted out” here?

Besides, that is not a quote from CAMS. That is apparently a quote from someone claiming to be quoting CAMS. 

And yet another link to yet another video of someone saying…… to add to your SEPPS links and your Heartland links and so on. 

If you want to make assertions in climate science which we can discuss, go ahead. In more than a month, you have made three. For two of those, you have declined to give any reasons for why you promote them. For the third, given a clear refutation, you deprecated the source; you didn't actually address the issue. 

Just to make clear to the audience you are addressing – as with most bots, you are good at giving links to videos/people/WWW sites claiming “alternative facts”. As with most bots, you are incapable of any reasoning in the science on which you are commenting. 

Sorry, folks, I understand I am repeating myself. But so is the bot, and the purpose of the bot is to “refute” any post which doubts its message. There is a solution to this, well known for decades.

Aivar Usk: 
 

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
….. my Californian pals who are worried about the state burning up regularly….. my German colleagues trying to clean up after the more-than-thousand-year floods,…….

Here we go again ;)
I thought that we had those sorted out - I did not see any response from you to that quote from CAMS:

……

“Sorted out”? What is “sorted out” here?

Besides, that is not a quote from CAMS. That is apparently a quote from someone claiming to be quoting CAMS. 

And yet another link to yet another video of someone saying…… to add to your SEPPS links and your Heartland links and so on. 

If you want to make assertions in climate science which we can discuss, go ahead. In more than a month, you have made three. For two of those, you have declined to give any reasons for why you promote them. For the third, given a clear refutation, you deprecated the source; you didn't actually address the issue. 

Just to make clear to the audience you are addressing – as with most bots, you are good at giving links to videos/people/WWW sites claiming “alternative facts”. As with most bots, you are incapable of any reasoning in the science on which you are commenting. 

Sorry, folks, I understand I am repeating myself. But so is the bot, and the purpose of the bot is to “refute” any post which doubts its message. There is a solution to this, well known for decades.