Exclusive - U.S. envoys told to be coy on re-engaging in Paris climate deal: cable

[KunMatt]

Really, is that the sum of what I said? Clearly you are the one trying to make it personal.
I did imply that you are mathematically inept. But anybody with even a rudimentary grasp of high school math could see how your carbon burning argument is faulty. I even gave you an example to show why it's obviously  faulty. I don't need to cite a source for that. You made an assertion about carbon burning but provided no proof. Show me how that is wrong. Show me how it is valid that burning carbon to reduce carbon burning makes no sense. You've got nothing.
 
 

And again, uou dodged every question I asked you and you never provide sources for anything you argue, exactly what you accuse me of doing every time.

You really don't see how you do exactly what you say you are against every time?

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, KunMatt said:

 

And again, uou dodged every question I asked you and you never provide sources for anything you argue, exactly what you accuse me of doing every time.

You really don't see how you do exactly what you say you are against every time?

It was you who raised the carbon burning issue. Not me. And I pointed out how your assertion was defective. How much more direct could I have been?

You cited some isolated piece of research and I provided a link showing how dubious that research is. Then you say that there are "several studies" supporing your claims. That's vs. the thousands and thousands that don't.

You claimed that ACG research is a scam and I pointed out that means that there would have to be a huge conspiracy involving virtually all climate scientists.

I've pointed out the defects in most of the points you've raised. The nonsense about ACG models being wrong or alarmist I did ignore because that's obviously nonsense and you provided no evidence to support your claims.

Your assertions about Al Gore being in it for the money I guess must come from the fact that he doesn't wear a tinfoil hat so he's not protected from you reading his thoughts. Otherwise how would you know his motives.

This is about science. Clearly you don't have the math chops at all to wade into this topic. I'm sure you have many talents. You may be a great artist or craftsperson or god knows what. But you don't have a great gift for rigorous thinking.

 

[pegman]

On August 24, 2017 at 2:04 AM, KunMatt said:

So this new study claims that the climate would be pretty much the same as it is now without human activities;

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214242817300426#!

 

So if it is indeed natural then why are we giving trillions of dollars to foundations and schemes that claim they can "pause the climate"?

 

Rhetorical question. :)

 

 

Better send this ASAP to Trump because he seems to be about to cancel his cancelation of Paris.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-wont-withdraw-from-paris-climate-deal-1505593922

[tomwct]

Trump has officially cancelled Obama Era Paris Agreement. Trump is willing to sign an agreement where America isn't required to pay for the Paris Agreement by itself. Climate Change is happening, but it's been happening for the past 3000+

years. Probably natural changes with a little man-made change. Go Trump. Making America Great Again one day at a time. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, tomwct said:

Trump has officially cancelled Obama Era Paris Agreement. Trump is willing to sign an agreement where America isn't required to pay for the Paris Agreement by itself. Climate Change is happening, but it's been happening for the past 3000+

years. Probably natural changes with a little man-made change. Go Trump. Making America Great Again one day at a time. 

Since there are no mandatory terms in the Paris Agreement, how exactly did you come  "Trump is willing to sign an agreement where America isn't required to pay for the Paris Agreement by itself." Unless of course that's a lie and there really are secret mandatory requirement. Don't keep this information to yourself. Please, the world is waiting to read your exposé

 

[ilostmypassword]

British Press Watchdog Says Climate Change Article Was Faulty

A self-policing group within the British news industry has forced the tabloid The Mail on Sunday to acknowledge that an article it published asserting that climate researchers in the United States had manipulated data was inaccurate and misleading.

A statement saying the news organization “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” was posted on The Mail on Sunday’s website early Sunday and was to appear in the print edition as well.

Publication of the statement was required after the self-regulating group, the Independent Press Standards Organization, ruled in favor of a complaint that the article, which was published on Feb. 5, had misrepresented the comments of a former scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration about a 2015 climate change paper by a leading NOAA climate researcher, Thomas R. Karl, and others.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/climate/british-press-watchdog-climate-change.html