Even 20k years is miniscule.
Like I said, not a smoking gun; just a clue that it's worth digging into. And from a Bayesian perspective, one must ask: what are the odds that that rising temperature would happen to correlate with CO2, for entirely unrelated reasons? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w
Don't get me wrong, I find Greta-style alarmism and claims of "extinction" to be counter-productive. But given how difficult it is to get nerds to agree on anything, the fact that there are so few credible scientists on the other side of the issue gives me pause. Pure groupthink? Maybe. Hardly unprecedented. But we've been examining the data and improving the models for decades (including from those with a strong financial incentive to debunk AGW), and yet the scientific consensus continues trending in one direction. Skepticism is a good thing, but the evidence for AGW can't merely be handwaved away by causal narrative.
I know that alarmism is the best way to get attention, but its also the best way for me to think you're a zealot who should be ignored.
I know of at least a few cases, where skeptics have changed their minds due to new evidence (Richard Muller [0] comes to mind). I'm curious if there are any instances of reputable scientists with sufficient training in the relevant fields, who went from true believers to significant skepticism of anthropogenic influence.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of...