Is there serious scientific support for what your claim?
There are (seemingly legitimate) sources like realclimate.org that claim that the increases in CO2 are virtually entirely caused by human activity, and that this isn't seriously questioned by scientists.
That article claims that humans release quite a bit more carbon than would be needed to raise CO2 by the observed levels, but that effects like absorption into the ocean compensate.
I think we can all agree that the highly modded-up parent that claims two significant figures of accuracy at 0.28% is completely wrong though, right?
My sources? My sources are the emails that this thread is about.
Regarding the page I referenced, it's not a religious document, and I make no claims that it's special. In fact, if it were special, it would be more suspect, not less. That said, who cares when it was updated? Have there been ground-breaking changes in CO2 measurement, greenhouse coefficients or anything else pertinent in the last two years?
Really? Those emails specifically mention realclimate.org?
I care when it was last updated. There's been a lot of extra data, and lots of scientific papers published in the intervening two (probably closer to three) years.
Apparently Michael Mann and others involved in this scandal are directly in control of realclimate.
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC Rein any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
Is there serious scientific support for what your claim?
There are (seemingly legitimate) sources like realclimate.org that claim that the increases in CO2 are virtually entirely caused by human activity, and that this isn't seriously questioned by scientists.
E.g. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do...
That article claims that humans release quite a bit more carbon than would be needed to raise CO2 by the observed levels, but that effects like absorption into the ocean compensate.
I think we can all agree that the highly modded-up parent that claims two significant figures of accuracy at 0.28% is completely wrong though, right?