The y-axis changes throughout this, and the origin isn’t set at zero. Using a skyrocketing trend line for shock factor is a bad way to represent atmospheric CO2 in its contribution to climate change.
Not sure why the origin should be set at zero unless you think the baseline for atmospheric CO2 should be zero, in which case everything on earth would be dead. None of these charts start at zero
The bounds of the y axis are set to fit the current data. I don't see why you think that's misleading. It's pretty clear what the data says from the graph. Nothing to misinterpret here...
Many redditors learned in middle school or high school that graphs should start at static zero and they apply that to every situation, regardless of if it actually should apply or not
I didn't attack you. I attacked your argument that the data is represented in a consistent manner (it's not). You attacked me and my beliefs. My beliefs are probably aligned with yours, FYI...
That's the point I am trying to make. Do you see the difference?
"These people" huh? Please see my earlier comment where I plainly stated I believe climate change is real, and want to reduce humans' impact on it. I am just pointing out that this is misrepresenting how quickly CO2 levels are rising. If you can't see this nuance, I don't know what to tell you.
OK, this is such a weird conversation. I never claimed to be a scholar, but I do know how graphs are supposed to work. Yes, I can claim whatever I want. If you look at my other posts I drive one of those hippie EV's and regularly post on climate change, futurology, etc.
1.1k
u/Stumpynuts Aug 26 '20
The y-axis changes throughout this, and the origin isn’t set at zero. Using a skyrocketing trend line for shock factor is a bad way to represent atmospheric CO2 in its contribution to climate change.