Originally Posted by gimlet

Poptech

Sorry I was not clear in my posting. The point I was hoping to make and failed, was to point out that in a book over 100 years old the CO2 levels described were higher than they are now reported to be for the same period. I was trying to be sarcastic (again failed) by pointing out the readings on the tops of mountains over 100 years ago was sometimes very high, so nothing new- 1110 ppm CO2, will I know get some posters very excited.