But….
IMO, there’s little point in arguing over the shape of the CO2 curve – it’s obvious that there has been a recent increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 and a recent increase in the rate of change, and the reasons are well established, in this regard we are quibbling over details.
The meaningful discussion is “What are the implications of this change”.
No, actually we're not. There is no proof that CO2 is the cause rather than the effect of "global warming". In fact, there is some data that says it is "global warming" that causes the increase in CO2.
And there have been periods when the CO2 level has been much higher. Earth survived that---so will we.
GW is alarmist BS propagated by those who want to use it as a political driver to institute "strong" global governance.
Global Warming and Pseudo-Science (Hawaii)Article excerpts...
The temperatures in those interglacial periods were all warmer than the current interglacial period by about 2 deg. C. Today’s temperatures simply are not that unusual when placed in historical context.
Thanks to the great literature work by Fred Singer and Denis Avery we now know that in the past 1 million years there have been 600 warming periods. The CO2 concentrations have varied as well during this time. However, the maximum temperatures usually occurred 600-800 years before the maximum of the atmospheric CO2. This calls into question the true relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. Is there such a relationship and what is it? The Sun remains the primary suspect driving these climate forcing functions.
According to climatologist Robert Balling the sea level has been rising a modest 1.8 mm/yr for the past 8000 years, perhaps longer. We’d expect this after emerging from thousands of years in a deep ice age.
While it is permissible to suppress, ignore, adverse testimony in the courtrooms of the land, and to attack/discredit adverse witnesses, it is most assuredly not permissible in science.