Apols, some misspelling in the above. But the sense is hopefully course. In truth, I think there’s little between us.

The first is a restatement of the above. The second is an argument about the role of RE. Sure. If cdr draws so much RE that it undermines decarbonisation, then we’re agreed (like most people). But it’s simplistic to assume that that’s the case. And most daccs researchers with on those alternatives

It wasn’t name calling. It was a slight surprise at your poor argumentation. Not since you have now started your points properly…1) agreed that decarbonisation has to be prioritised (never known any scholar in the field to disagree) and 2) well, your serving point is a conflation of two arguments.

That’s hilarious. So instead of engaging with my argument, you shift the debate to your own ground. A fine Trumpian move. He’d be proud.

Yes. I literally read it. My argument doesn’t rely on any temporal distinction.

You are being disingenuous. Both things need to happen, with the priority being on decarbonisation. Doesn’t help to be manichaean. (I’m assuming you were a literate 10y.o.)

Agree with everything you say George. But let’s not pretend that the PA made any meaningful contribution to decarbonisation, or ever would. It was a poor treaty, agreed in advance between China and the US. It would never disrupt BAU. Sadly.

You can withdraw from political compacts, which is what they are.

Given the fatuity of those accords, pacts etc at the time of assent, I suspect the State Dept will not think it necessary to waste the key strokes in withdrawing from them.

That's a more subtle point so I can give them a pass on that. wrt reporting obligations under FCCC - yep.