That conclusion is not logical; it is a non-sequitor. Never in the past have we had such an artificial forcing of CO2 into the atmosphere. It could be that carbon dioxide and temperature are in quasiequilibrium, and we are forcing the system with the addition of CO2. Look up Le Chatelier's Principle for examples of such systems.
IF you lower the temperature of a glass of water in a freezer, it will freeze...the ice follows the temperature drop. But that doesn't mean you can't add ice to water to drop its temperature. An artificial addition can reverse the system.
Also, have Monnin, Indermuhle, or Cuffey considerations/corrections been applied to these data for this analysis?
What did I say about eggheads?
Homo sapiens sapiens ..... Friend of Plants.
The whole plant kingdom may have been suffering these last 30 MY from carbon-dioxide depletion and asphyxia, which we have just relieved to an extent unimaginable in the days of the Greenies' much-romanticized but quite possibly terminally abnormal "unsullied natural splendor" of the Pleistocene.
Wrong on both counts. The conclusion is the best fit for the data and it is not a non sequitur because the statement is not an if/then piece of logic.
Two sentences. Temperature is not a function of CO2. Whether that sentence is literally true is neither here nor there. Temperature can be a function of CO2 levels but the function is logarithmic which means CO2 has no "tipping point". But the poster never says that because CO2 doesn't drive temperature then the reverse must be true.
You need to go back to AGW nut school and a brush-up on logic crap wouldn't be a bad idea either.