That's a pretty good linear fit.
(Plotting against log2(CO2/CO21850) shows time in units of CO2-doubling since 1850.)
CDIAC: CO2, 1832-1978
Mauna Loa: CO2, 1959-2016
HadCRUT 4.5: GMST anomalies, 1850-2016
"It is unlikely that the Anthropocene moniker has the symbolic power to correct ecomyopia, which the authors define as the tendency to not recognize, to ignore, or fail to act on new information that contradicts political arrangements, social norms, or world views...."Note the abstract ends with, "The global capitalist response to the Anthropocene will likely be to embrace technological hubris."
- "Ecomyopia in the Anthropocene," D.G. Casagrande et al, Anthropology Today, Volume 33, Issue 1, pages 23–25, February 2017.
Now, what is a pollutant? A pollutant is a subject that is harmful to human beings or to animals or to plants. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. Carbon dioxide is not harmful to ordinary things, to human beings, or to animals, or to plants. It’s actually needed for plant growth. All of us are exhaling carbon dioxide right now. So, if it’s a pollutant, we’re all polluting. When Congress authorized the regulation of pollutants, what it had in mind were substances like sulfur dioxide, or particulate matter—basically, soot or smoke in the air. Congress was not thinking about carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases.This is just dumb on a couple of levels.
However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
"It's really a story of not disclosing what you did," Bates said in the interview. "It's not trumped up data in any way shape or form."