RE: Curating the Internet: Science and technology digest for February 24, 2020
Personally, I hate the term "climate change". I think it's meaningless, for just the reason you mentioned. But, it's the term that the authors used. (Probably because it was required by reviewers and editors at Nature, I suspect.)
Their point on confirming "climate change" was that areas that were previously ice covered are turning green, which does confirm warming in some regions, thus - "climate change". I couldn't disagree with that. Of course, by itself it doesn't confirm the source of the warming, and it doesn't confirm any sort of global phenomenon. But that's just basic logic. The authors didn't say any of that... at least not in the Abstract, which is the part I focused on.
The main points that I thought were important from the article were: (i) the confirmation of wide-spread greening that is caused by CO2 fertilization; and (ii) The confirmation that this greening removes additional CO2 from the atmosphere.
Thanks for the clarification. Too often the lack of contextual communication written words convey deprives us of better understanding.
I am confident that the rise in CO2 is claimed to be the cause of climate change by the authors, due to the stated wording of the link. I am a bit flummoxed because the link at the beginning of the portion of the post dealing with the article leads back to your post, and not the article.
Edit: the link to Lemire's blog did get me to the Nature article, and I am reading it now.
It appears my assumption was correct.
Yeah, it was certainly implied. I think that you probably can't get past the
gatekeeperspeer reviewers at Nature without advancing that viewpoint, at least by implication.