The other statements seems to accurately portray
conslusions of the Jones paper (aerosols and other natural variability caused us to warm slightly less than expected by balancing / off - setting a portion of the GHG - caused energy gain), but your wording above seems to have confused some folks.
But they also have a lot of
conslusions that either seem to contradict or neither support not contradict your claims.
(Praying we wouldn't run into each other in the elevator, dodging questions about the other in emails and meetings, not seeing mutual friends, etc.) And before anyone jumps to
conslusions, it was absolutely nothing malicious and neither of us did anything «wrong.»
Yes, go on believing
the the conslusions you've made from «public information sources.»
These scientist also need funding and isnt if funny that they seem to come to
conslusions to the delight of the people funding them.
My conslusion is that — like with most new technologies in general — Trying new technologies in the judicial process, questioning how things are done, and taking innovative approaches are all good things.