Oboe, no I'm not saying he's fudged the Co2 #'s.
But what I'd like to see is where that data was collected, the raw uninterpreted untouched data, ie no corrections, conclusions, etc.
I agree we are off the scale on Co2, but is he measuring apples & apples? Or apples & Oranges?
Is he mixing atmospheric data from the US with polar ice cap data?
When you start looking at statistics there are simply tons of ways of influencing the results. That is assuming you go in with a bias one way or the other.
I would love to see clear cut, unbiased results across the board from someone who's funding does NOT depend on the answer.
Seems that everything is either loosely based in fact, biased, or just flatly trys to ignore the whole problem.
Would love to see some truly independant investigations.