Presented without context.
>280ppmWHAT YEAR IS IT.
boy am I glad we have high resolution data from 2 000 000 years ago and can draw reliable conclusions from it!
>>16823974based appreciator of science
>>16823959>science bad>except when it conforms to my beliefs
>>16823972Why is the boundary on the right side of graph labeled like that? It is a misrepresentation of the natural processes occurring.
>>16823972i cant wait for conservatives to put so much co2 in the atmosphere we wont be able to breathe without masks
>>16824005Humanity is natural, yes.
>>16824005the right side of the graph isn't even labeled, moron
ok, quit posting non linear shit this is bothering me i need edge for 20 years to cagr to trillions
>>16824123>people think graphs like this are realIt is more likely that some retarded model fed with retarded input data generated this retarded graph to justify retarded policies to people that consider themselves smart because their opinions align with the smart funny man on screen and are the opposite of the opinions of people that are portrayed as dumb by the smart funny man on screen.
>>16824769>My graph? 100% real and reliable>Your graph? AI generated nonsense made to push an agendaYou understand that as far as arguments go this one is extremely poor, right?