How do global warming deniers explain this plot?

Burning oil raises the temperature and produces co2. It is not shown in which way the temperature was higher.

If something blocks the sunlight, the world will always begin the ice age.

I hope it's not covid.

Your charts may be accurate but they are relying on the correlation is causation idea.

How do those graphs not show that the temperature is affecting the CO2 levels rather than vice versa?

As $@!ar W!nd pointed out, science has clear evidence that temperature "causes" CO2 and not the other way round. Your charts do not address the causality issue at all as far as I can see.

Restoring naturally sequestered CO2 levels just restores the ORIGINAL climate.

Several times in Earth's history the whole planet was ice free, and diverse life flourished.Any time there is an alteration in nature, there are bound to be hiccups for the interim.

Now if you believe that humans are the proximate of climate 'disaster', then what do you propose is the fix?

There can be only ONE fix - reduce the world's obscene overpopulation. Less people = less CO2 generated.

Less people = less methane generated too.

Altering our habits just DELAYS any purported human caused climate change.

And that is just treating the symptoms, not the problem.

The Earth goes through natural climate change at certain intervals, usually every 25K years or so.

We also have pole reversals that directly affect our climate.

Not a thing we can do about either of those.

Look up the year without a summer - one VOLCANO altered the planet's climate.

Right now, there is one in Alaska spewing ash, CO2, etc 20,000 feet into the atmosphere. Coincidentally, there is an unusual cold spell in the upper midwest, which follows the same Jet Stream.

armoror2000 just contradicted himself, he said:

''Here is the Fact

the worlds Temperature in the Past 150 years has only Risen by 0.7 degrees C

That is NOT global warming'' 

I still wish armoror2000 well though. 

xx 

that is Right a Plot to deceive

Here is the Fact

the worlds Temperature in the Past 150 years has only Risen by 0.7 degrees C

That is NOT global warming

yes , isnt demand for modern things on the rise , after all 50 years ago we where a 1 car family and no aircoditioning , now you wouldnt buy unless its airconitioned . its them same as the demand , 

After reading the answers, the only one that even made an attempt was solar wind. Kind of pathetic.

'But but Dirac is a paid alarmist' But but everyone that asks a question here pertaining to global warming, and is not a denier of AGW, is one of his sock accounts!' Sorry guys, but... P.A.T.H.E.T.I.C.

The NASA ‘global’ temperature record is a fraud just like you Dirac. See if your tiny brain can figure out why. 

Your graphs are debunked by the Vostock Ice Core analysis that verifies by scientific research that CO2 follows Earth's temperature levels, which are governed by the Sun's activity level. The greenhouse effect is thus a bad hunch. 

EDIT: Poor Clown Crusher, he doesn't even know which of his lies to defend. In another question, he accuses me of forging the redacted snippet from my teaching contract below. I guess he's seen too much television and he thinks something like that can be faked--which it certainly could, if you have the time and ambition. He doesn't seem to get that I posted it almost immediately after he posted his answer--furthermore he doesn't get that regardless of whether you believe it's real, he was caught in a lie about what is full-time as far as teaching goes. Does he seriously think that I invented the concept of a "weighted teaching unit" and chose just the right values to prove him wrong? The guy is a lunatic. You'll notice that he has never--not once--provided any evidence that shows I don't teach or that I have multiple accounts. He really doesn't have the faintest idea about building a logical case regarding anything, not global warming and certainly not about me.

I apologize for "answering" my own question, but the troll says "He claims he is teaching 3 classes this semester, which is around the equivalent of full-time teaching gig."  In fact it isn't. This is a slightly redacted image from my contract as a lecturer.  I am teaching 3 labs, each of which is considered to be 2 "weighted teaching units", for a total of 6 WTUs. If you look at the fine print of the image you'll see that 15 WTUs is considered full-time, so this is 40% time. In fact, the labs only take about 2 hours each in (Zoom) class, so that amounts to a total of 6 hours teaching in a regular work week.

He has lied about me from the time he got here, this is more proof.