This story is unavailable.

In my opinion, its a lousy deal. It is only directed (CO2/GHGs) at one of the contributors to global warming/climate change, and a minor one at that. I have looked at the experimentation supporting CO2/GHGs and find it lacking insofar as it was directed at the intended targets, did not examine other potential contributors, used manipulated temperature data, did not fully consider the effects of translating laboratory experimental data to the atmosphere and made liberal use of correlation rather than proof. If the Paris climate agreement were modified to look at all the contributors to it, terrestrial, extraterrestrial and other human-related contributors besides CO2 GHGs, it would be worth supporting. Otherwise it would be costly in money and effort and negatively affect economies and life cycles without significantly modifying the intended target. I support Trump in canceling our support of it unless it is modified as indicated abouv.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.