Since you insist on using your bogus graph so often, I can at least give you an accurately drawn graph using real world data. Let me show you exactly why Michael Mann tried to hide this trend, and why your graph is bogus. First, the blue line is not emissions, and it is not the CO2 concentration. Emissions are tons per year. Concentration is the tons the air has kept. The line is a logarithm of that concentration, times a number chosen so the recent trend matches, plus a constant chosen so the pens overlap. Next, let's add the temperature trends from 1910-1940 and the resumed trend between 1970 to present. OMG! Do you see the bump, exactly where I predicted it would be near the 1940s? Perhaps this is why so many scientists (like myself) who have spent years doing real scientific work have a somewhat logically skeptical view of the radiative forcing hypothesis. Furthermore; human emissions would not draw that blue line! The blue line is not emissions, and it is not the CO2 concentration. Emissions are tons per year. Concentration is the tons the air has kept. And that's an important distinction, isn't it. The line is a logarithm of that concentration, times a number chosen so the recent trend matches, plus a constant chosen so the pens overlap. If industrial emissions were what your chart claims to display, the curve would have to follow the emission history: slow before 1950, a postwar step, the post-2000 acceleration, the 2020 dip. But your graph does not. Your logarithm erases those steps, and the vertical slide erases the gap. A smooth overlay is what you get after those two operations. It is not evidence that temperature is the log of fossil fuel usage. The radiative forcing of a given CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic. That is a statement about photons, not a license to crop the temperature record at 1959 and call the regression a measurement. So, stop posting your bogus graph, expecting it to have an effect on someone who has spent a lifetime doing the real scientific work! The graph is still not a picture of temperature, but a logarithmic forcing is an idealized BS answer and should be rejected based on observational evidence and cycle time physics.

I find that people who can't articulate their own words use phrases like "word salady" because they're just pretending to speak intelligibly about things they don't fully comprehend and are caught assuming everyone is as dumb and uneducated as they are about the subject.

1°C and 100 ppm in 60 years is NOT unprecedented. I don't get my paleoclimate history from fraudsters. Paleoclimate reconstructions have methodological limits. Proxies (tree rings, sediments, ice cores, etc.) vary in resolution, seasonal bias, spatial coverage, and dating precision. It's all performance art orchestrated by believers with biases. Many papers and reviews diverge from the IPCC assessment. And the research doesn't agree. You can't compare a proxy to instrumental data and declare that 1°C and 100 ppm in 60 years is unprecedented! Many reconstructions show faster rates with CO2 and temperature. Especially within the last 2000 years. The further we go back in paleoclimate history, the less precise it is. There's a potential of 1-7 degrees of difference in temperature and CO2 could have been higher than 450 ppm during the RWP. I don't choose to believe liars anymore. I'll figure it out on my own from now on.

Not a surprise, as Congress is a constitutionally established federal legislative branch of organized crime syndication today in the business of funding smaller organized crime syndicates and Omar simply represents the Somali division of their interests. 🤔😉 It all makes sense.

Just going to teas you a little bit here. But did the Zionists help us remove the ugly twin towers in NY back in 2001 or was it Islamic Terrorists. Maybe it's time to get those "Zionists" to pay rent if they are going to spend so much time in your mind? real-political-violence-stat…

No, I just don't believe that anthropogenic clapping brings pixies back to life after a fairy denier sneezes fairy dust. A logarithm doesn't explain a relational cause.

What "mystery"? I never said that. I said it's magical thermodynamics, meaning it has no mechanism, & guess who may have said it first in 2017? Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen.