The zero point of CO2 in the atmosphere would have been sometime during the planet’s formation. You really won’t accept a graph unless it goes back 4.5 billion years?
No! You are totally missing my point, as it were. It's a question of *how* data is represented. There is *no* time scale involved in the graph, or this argument.
When the origin is surpressed for the ordinate (the 'y' axis), it does not give a proper - or exaggerated - perspective of the data. Read my original post again. The graph looks like there is a steep - significant - rise of CO2 over the provided timescale (abscissa, or 'x' axis).
*If* the ordinate values properly started at 0 and went to 400 or so, it would be obvious that the rise of CO2 is actually very slight.
The general public is often mislead by such representation of data. It makes it look much more significant than it actually is. How can you not understand this?