Climate change is much worse than we thought, page-55

Yawn. So why do you only use one data set, giss data,when other equally valid data sets give a different result that doesn't suit your agenda.? Oh, did i just say why? I seem to remember Jopo pulling you up on that, but no reply from you, of course. Isn't that what you just accused me of?
Re the graph, you explained manipulation of graphs, fair enough, seen and heard it all before,but you didn't prove a thing. You only accused my graph of being a manipulated graph, which was a CFC correlation, peer reviewed (and published in the International Journal of Modern Physics ) showing a coefficient of .97. That's strong by the way.

https://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says


Btw, I have read the rebuttals, ( so please dont put up Unsceptical Cook or Nutter )but still think there is some merit and therefore food for thought, in the paper. The correlation is better than CO2 for the period and you wanted a new graph, but it seems your not happy with this one either. Surprise, surprise.