President Donald Trump

[cardboardbox]

seriously? you made a claim (.2 degrees), and then posted a link to a document to support it but it turns out it contradicted your claim ... someone else points this out & you don't think that's on you??? SAD!!!

the smiley was for the trumpism at the end, not the main point ...

WRONG!!!

I posted the link to the MIT research because dslaw said I got .2 C from Trump when I had not read or heard what Trump said. The article does say .2 C but does not say 1 C and that's why I wanted to know where to find 1 C.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Should have sticked to drilling in your backyard, if you sell your land because you know--they paid you, but you love your neighbors and the environment, if you don;t live next to them of somewhere they're drilling after you move.........

[cardboardbox]

CBB -

OK stepping back a second

Dslaw introduced the .2 degrees discussion via Yahoo column link.

No, I think I did. Dslaw said I got it from Trump and I wanted to show him that I didnt.

As a counter you linked to a source document claiming it is not outdated, apparently as an indication that it supports Trump. But you didn’t apparently read the whole document to see if it actually supports Trumps contention.

Could you read the entire document without falling asleep? This is assuming you had the time to read the whole thing. I read some, found the .2 C stuff and stopped there. I have no interest in whether it supports Trump.

RF called you on it, stating that he read the document that the 0.2 degrees citing is in fact out of context.

Thats fine, all I asked was where to find it so I could read it.

You asked which page this is on.

RF responded that “you need to read the whole paper. That’s where the context part comes in”

You then claim foul because he wont tell where you can find it. When in fact he has stated “you need to read the whole paper. That’s where the context part comes in”.

if Lucky read the whole thing, he can show me where to read in the document that supports what he's saying. He claimed 1 C. I'm interested in reading about that.

You have argued that the document supports Trump. RF has stated if you read the whole thing and not some point taken out of context (an old lawyers trick he called it) – that you would understand that the document itself is supporting 1 degree.

I have never argued that anything in this document supports Trump. There is no way someone has to read the whole thing to get to 1 C. Why would the authors hide that? Makes no sense at all.

In order for you to make the argument that the document does not indeed support that claim, due the contextual nature of the document – You sir are going to have to read it, and then use the information in the document to support your contention that it indeed supports Trump and the .2 degrees

At some point you have to do the work.

Again, I've made no argument. I've only asked where in the document to find the info backing up 1 C.

[baldgriff]

Again, I've made no argument. I've only asked where in the document to find the info backing up 1 C.

You asked which page this is on.

RF responded that “you need to read the whole paper. That’s where the context part comes in”

There is no actual page that it is on - it is the entire document if I understand RF/Lucky.

[cardboardbox]

You asked which page this is on.

RF responded that “you need to read the whole paper. That’s where the context part comes in”

There is no actual page that it is on - it is the entire document if I understand RF/Lucky.

So its like a Da Vinci Code puzzle?

Just wanted to add, you answered very directly to revo when he asked something very similar of you:

Do you have a link for this? I haven't seen this anywhere.

[baldgriff]

So its like a Da Vinci Code puzzle?

Just wanted to add, you answered very directly to revo when he asked something very similar of you:

Yes because he wanted to know my source for my understanding. So I provided it.

No one is arguing if the document is "outdated" which was your original contention.

You may not be endorsing Trumps .2 degrees specifically. However, if someone calls into question the document you linked to (with an actual argument about the document) it becomes incumbent on you to offer the counter-point to his argument. Unless of course you would prefer to just agree that the document Trump is pointing to actually states an overall 1% - rather than the .2

[cardboardbox]

Yes because he wanted to know my source for my understanding. So I provided it.

kind of like how I'd like to know the source for Lucky's understanding. You didnt link to 24 pages and tell revo to read the whole thing.

No one is arguing if the document is "outdated" which was your original contention.

no, dslaw posted this:
"The co-founder of the MIT program on climate change says the administration is citing an outdated report" and I said that I didnt think 2015 was old enough to be outdated.

You may not be endorsing Trumps .2 degrees specifically. However, if someone calls into question the document you linked to (with an actual argument about the document) it becomes incumbent on you to offer the counter-point to his argument. Unless of course you would prefer to just agree that the document Trump is pointing to actually states an overall 1% - rather than the .2

I wasnt participating in an argument. I just asked where I can read in the document about 1 C. I dont agree that the document states 1 C because as far as I can tell it doesnt. If its a scavenger hunt then no, I didnt find the trail leading to 1 C.

[baldgriff]

I wasnt participating in an argument. I just asked where I can read in the document about 1 C. I dont agree that the document states 1 C because as far as I can tell it doesnt. If its an scavenger hunt then no, I didnt find the trail leading to 1 C.

Ok - so based on this comment I will assume that you read the whole thing and come to a different conclusion. So options now are:

agree to disagree with Lucky

or

engage in a conversation with Lucky using the document to support why you dont believe "the trail leading to 1 C."

[cardboardbox]

Ok - so based on this comment I will assume that you read the whole thing and come to a different conclusion.

I read what I had time for, skimmed some more, and then did a find for 1C, 1 C, 1°C, 1° C, and 1 degree.

agree to disagree with Lucky

or

engage in a conversation with Lucky using the document to support why you dont believe "the trail leading to 1 C."

I was never disagreeing. I simply cant find anything supporting 1 C in this document. Thats why I asked "which page is this on?"

[baldgriff]

Here is where I leave you back to Lucky....

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

I'm on the edge of my seat...this is gripping

[cardboardbox]

Here is where I leave you back to Lucky....

Clearly he's never going to tell me where to find supporting data for 1 C except to say read all 24 pages.

[Redbirds Fan]

Damn. I'm like the kid in "My Cousin Vinny" who decides to dump his Public Defender and go with baldgriff..."I want that guy!"

[cardboardbox]

Damn. I'm like the kid in "My Cousin Vinny" who decides to dump his Public Defender and go with baldgriff..."I want that guy!"

got a page number for me yet?

[baldgriff]

Damn. I'm like the kid in "My Cousin Vinny" who decides to dump his Public Defender and go with baldgriff..."I want that guy!"

In a list of comments that you may say about me - This may be the last one I ever expected....

Thanks Lucky!