This story is unavailable.

What a poorly written article. The logic is atrocious and hard to follow.

The author tells us that a “best estimate” (whatever that is) is better than a more nuanced statement of probability by scientists which states that humans are likely to be the most significant, but not only, souce of greenhouse gasses. He wants us to believe that we would be better off relying on a best estimate because it is a better story, regardless of whether it is better science.

He implies that for some reason that the authors of a scientific report decided to “bury” their findings, but that we should assume this is their primary finding.

He provides a prominent link and reassuring link to the “ latest scientific literature”, which is not a link to anything at all.

He talks about “human emission of greenhouse gasses” in one paragraph, but in the next changes this to simply “greenhouse gasses” and includes a reference to a chart about greenhouse gasses. With this sleight of hand, you are led to believe that all three refer to “human emissions of greenhouse gasses”, but in fact the second two refer only to greenhouse gasses in general, with no reference to humans, and the chart in fact includes volcanic activity.

I could go on, but I would rather spend my time looking for useful information rather than this biased drivel.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

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