>What correction did you make? Is the chart wrong? The term is "organic matter oxidation/erosion", sorry ive not the time to explain at length what this term m

>What correction did you make? Is the chart wrong? The term is "organic matter oxidation/erosion", sorry ive not the time to explain at length what this term means when I already have highlighted its obvious meaning, but that is what you should revise if you wish to understand my correction to this thread. -- It is not a function which we know we have any significant control over. Also engineering solutions to global environmental disturbance is no simple matter as shaving milliseconds here or there is. Even if the term "oxidation/erosion" meant what you took it to mean, and if we could adjust that global phenomenon as we wish we could, the effect and side effects of the adjustment are liable to further confound the aim to stabilise the system. (The system whose stability we depend on for everything, which can not be simply rolled back or upgraded) >Maybe you want to mislead everyone like the media does. Ive been observing media manipulation against knowledge of global warming, (and many other industrial wrongs) since the 1990s. Its an exasperating form of double-duping that after the achievement of the Copenhagen consensus, the oil funded message of denial started convincing people that it was the science which was a product of manipulation. As you are obviously thoughtful, open minded and concientious, i do hope you realise in time the true absurdity of the idea that AGW science is the product of manipulation and the oil industries are the victim of such a "green conspiracy".