What's wrong with "The climate crisis explained in 10 charts" by The Guardian - part 1: Atmospheric CO2

The Guardian newspaper is well known to be one of the most climate-alarmist papers. On the occasion of the 28th Conference Of The Parties (COP28), they published an article titled "The Climate Crisis Explained in 10 Charts" that provides an excellent series of examples of how to misuse statistics, omit full context, and demonstrate biases. Let's have a look at some of them. This post will look at some of the problems with just the first graph referenced by the Guardian, and their short text attached to it. Let's list the errors, omissions, and biases in this very small dose of Guardian information, and perhaps I'll show the extent of errors in other Guardian graphs in future posts. I do think examining just the first one tells you all you need to know about the likely quality of the rest, since it reveals a deeply untrustworthy source of information.

Figure 1 - from the Guardian. Note that I take no exception to the data presented since it is an objective measurement.

Problem 1: They state that rising CO2 is a problem.

1. If it is a problem for humanity then we would expect it to show up in mortality statistics, right? There is no question humanity is getting wealthier fast, and that life expectancy and health are rising, but if CO2 is causing great harm then surely people must be dying from its effects at a rising rate? Nope, in fact, figure 2 shows that deaths from cold are ten times higher than deaths from heat and this is true all over the world. Do you think this might be important context to provide?
2. Also, Figure 3 shows that deaths from extreme weather and climate events are estimated to be 100 times lower than a century ago and a thousand times lower than 150 years ago. This is not a small, debatable difference but rather a difference of orders of magnitude. Might this be an important context?
3. To fill in more of the full context, CO2 is a trace gas that is close to its all-time low in the atmosphere, as shown in Figure 4. CO2 is the gas of life, the food for plants, and the basis for all life on earth since animal life depends on plant life. Would CO2 level over the last 600 million years be valuable context?
4. Further, Figure 5 shows that when you look at the detailed timing of changes in temperature and CO2 as in the Vostok ice core study, you find that temperature always changes first, then CO2 follows as the warming oceans and frozen land give off previously dissolved CO2. Would the fact that temperature causes CO2 and not the other way around be valuable information if you cared to consider the full context?
   

Figure 2- From the peer-reviewed science literature

Figure 3 - From the peer-reviewed literature

Figure 4 - From the peer-reviewed literature.

Figure 5 - From the peer-reviewed literature.

Problem 2. The Guardian states that CO2 is at its highest level in the past 4 million years

1. Why choose the last 4 million years when Figure 4 is available and shows the last 600 million years? 
2. Why is the temperature in Figure 4 so uncorrelated to CO2?
   
3. If we are at a dangerous level of CO2, then what about when the level was much higher for almost all of the last 600 million years. Did the higher CO2 level lead to mass extinction or a runaway global warming?

Problem 3. The Guardian says CO2 is rising faster than at any time in the last 66 million years. 

1. Given that Figure 4 shows CO2 has fallen over the last 66 million years it is not hard to say it is rising faster now.
2. Figure 5 shows that every glaciation cycle sees a sharp rise in temperature, then a similarly sharp rise in CO2. The slope of the most recent rise is similar to the past rises. 

Problem 4. The Guardian tells us that scientists say we are in uncharted territory.

1. We are not told what is uncharted.
2. Since both temperature and CO2 have been much higher for most of Earth's history, maybe they need to look closer at the charts, or perhaps they are avoiding looking.
3. Since humanity has thrived during the recent warm periods like the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period and Modern Warm Period, perhaps the standard of value the Guardian is using is not human flourishing, but something else, something not human, or anti-human.

Problem 5. The Guardian identifies 350ppm as the safe level for CO2 in the atmosphere.

1. There is no rational basis for this. It is completely arbitrary.
2. Since 350ppm is close to the 270ppm at which plant life starts to die off, and since all human life depends on plant life, would not a higher level be safer?
3. Since plant and animal life flourished to a far greater degree (Figure 4) in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher, and we have fossil records of forests and animals living in areas that are now ice-covered, why not choose 800ppm or 2000ppm as the "right" level? Perhaps it is because they would then have no reason to attack every form of economical energy known to man?

Problem 6. The Guardian says CO2 has been rising since the Industrial Revolution.

1. So why did they identify the Industrial Revolution as an important time? Perhaps it is because this is how and when humanity began to achieve climate mastery by using the stored energy of fossil fuels to improve live, make it safer, build better homes and factories, enable transportation and communication, bukld, improve, progress and flourish? 
2. Why did they not say CO2 has been rising sharply since the beginning of the end of the last glaciation, about 20,000 years ago, when (see Figure 5) much of the world was under a thick layer of ice? Could it be that they are against industrialization and thus against human flourishing?