Here's what we do know: The earth has historically been much hotter with more CO2 in the atmosphere (much more) than it is today. There's also some evidence that historic rises in CO2 lagged temperature rather than the reverse.
Just because something happened in Earth's past doesn't mean it's a good thing for us, nor is it a good idea for us to slingshot our way very quickly toward that balmy future.
That's only true in some cases with strong emphasis on "some". If you want to know how much of that is true and how much is wrong just watch this video https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=703
I don't think I can do it justice with a butchered summary on HN but I'll keep it long enough to get you hooked. There are two phases during a deglaciation and CO2 lags in the first one and leads in the second one.
We have basically skipped the first phase by emitting CO2 directly. If anything, this should worry us even more because there is evidence that increased temperatures drive CO2 emissions as well. So we haven't skipped the first phase at all, it's going to happen in the future.
Feedback loops have been predicted by many scientists. What could happen is this: "man-made CO2 -> higher temperatures -> more CO2 -> even higher temperatures".
I recommend you to watch the entire video. Not just the segment I linked.
That same content creator also made a whole playlist concerning climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8e...
This is evidence that CO2 is not causative of warming. You can wrap this in whatever additional logic you like, but nobody's buying it.
In any case, if there was an increasing feedback loop, then we'd see that with the #1 greenhouse gas, water. We're not, so we're not in a feedback loop.
Anything you average over 300 years will tend to flatten. If you averaged the last 100 years over the last 300 years it would not look as dramatic too.
So the graph is manipulative to say they least.
Because the recent data is over a period of 166 years, you can turn the line into 10 dots which represent each 16.6 year 'line' average.
I think you should try this yourself. You will find that the averaging only smooths out brief transients between your new dots. In the case of the comic, it has no effect on the gradient at 2016.
Having more data doesn't change the average slope - it simply allows you to measure average slope over shorter distances.
So unless you think the joke was "haha we've been at this temperature before", I suggest it is you who is being ... what you said.
So try and put it into a 300 year or higher average span and you will see it flattening.
But don't take my word for it.
https://www.scpr.org/news/2016/09/15/64670/epic-climate-cart...
You've just shown us all that the gradient started to shift upwards less than 300 years ago.
Seriously, look at some basic calculus. Try to understand what you are doing.
I look forward to your further efforts in debunking climate data misinformation.