That’s a sentence, I guess, if you want to get technical about it.  ETA:  sorry, it’s a clause, I was mistaken.

Inferring from your statement, the Accord would be a political agreement or policy statement on how to respond to an topic.  I’m generally skeptical of such things but I’m really not familiar with the details or what science they are based upon.

I can see that you have conflated basic science discussion with discussion about a policy response to supposed science (I don’t know how good the Paris Accord underlying science is, and I’m probably not going to soon look into it, and I certainly can’t do anything about it).

Continue with your flamethrowing, though. I’m sure it’s winning hearts and minds.


ETA: if by cherry-picking, you mean give an an example with which I am intimately familiar and for which people pay me a substantial consulting rate as an expert in my field, then sure, you can call it cherry-picking.

I base a significant amount of my opinion on COvID based on long discussions with a best friend with a PhD in virology who has years of experience who is a leader in her field, backed up by professional awards and certifications, and is in a position to have access to extremely relevant data.  But I don’t claim to be an expert, my friend is.  I’m just a bit more informed than the average Joe.  Wouldn’t take much effort to be informed more than me.