No. It would not be more prudent to err on the side of caution. No evidence suggests or provides whether more, less, or the same amount of co2 is better or worse on "temperatures." CO2 is not pollution. It's naturally occurring and it's good for the environment. ZERO EVIDENCE EXISTS to the contrary. The people screaming the end is nigh are "lunatics" like old rocks and crooks like Al Gore.Wouldnt it be more prudent to err on the side of caution? I dont necessarily think man alone is responsible for the warming but our contribution of CO2 could tip some unseen balance.It means the chart is making a mountain out of a mole hill, or in this case showing a minor variation in concentrations of "ONE" gas over time as if it's somehow some significant thing. The reason for this minor variation could be just about anything, but more than likely it's an issue of weather patterns maybe a volcano or two, some fires.And what is that supposed to mean, other than you don't have a clue?ROFL look at the asshole who wants respect for junk science.Losertarians work on opinions and really don't have a solid idea of what science is and a respect for it.
Look at that scale 387 to 407 for blue to red ROFL
It's a stupid monkey chart.