There are many subtleties in those discussion that never get mentioned. For example, the graph of CO2 concentration takes center stage. Fine, have a look at th

There are many subtleties in those discussion that never get mentioned. For example, the graph of CO2 concentration takes center stage. Fine, have a look at the caption: > Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years, based on EPICA (ice core) data. The peaks and valleys in carbon dioxide levels track the coming and going of ice ages (low carbon dioxide) and warmer interglacials (higher levels). Throughout these cycles, atmospheric carbon dioxide was never higher than 300 ppm; in 2018, it reached 407.4 ppm (black dot). NOAA Climate.gov, based on EPICA Dome C data (Lüthi, D., et al., 2008) provided by NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program. So this is all ice core data, apparently. Except that the study was done in 2008. Yet there's a point clearly marked 2018 average in bold. Where did it come from? I could assume that it came from atmospheric monitoring, but that's not what the site says. Not good. Probably not ethical. When data from different sources are mixed together, but not identified clearly as having different sources, that's dishonest at best. And I see it all the time in the public presentation of this research. Let's set aside the issue of whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not. I'm talking about presenting data to try to convince a general audience that something is true. What I've seen so far is lacking.