I don't think we are in disagreement. The graph misrepresented the facts, but the lay public isn't going to fact check . It's published ergo it's true. The point I was trying to make is the graph is attractive and simple, easily understood . Accuracy is beside the point. The actual science article wasn't. The public is more attuned to sound bites, not really thinking things through. The graph was simple and easily understood. It's always been the same, it takes 5 seconds for someone to make a claim and 5 minutes to explain why the claim is wrong. Who is going to hang around for the full five minutes? Whoa, look at that bright object in the sky, must be a UFO! Well, no, it's really something easily explainable - in five minutes. You're singing to the choir on this one. I was long ago convinced about global warming.