Have you even looked at that graph? The x axis randomly changes to suit the data.

I get that it's a joke - but it's not even a very good one if you have to fake it to make it work.

It could be made, but it wasn't in this case, which was my point.

You're missing my point:

Graphs are completely meaningless. Correlation does not imply causation. Asking for a graph is the last thing you should do. Ask for a hypothesis about why there might be a causal relationship. Test that hypothesis.

Correlation very much implies causation, it just doesn't guarantee it. After you test that hypothesis, you'd find correlation if the hypothesis was correct. Saying "correlation is not causation" is useful for dismissing data offhand, but where you find causation you'll find correlation.

Also, graphs are demonstrably NOT completely meaningless. They can absolutely be misleading, but they can also accurately depict the underlying data. I think the point of this thread is that the authors of this study have proposed a hypothesis and collected data that supposedly reinforces it. The data (and methodology) can be analysed and verified. There's no need to start from scratch, in this case, to determine if the findings can be substantiated.

Yes, everything you said made sense. Except the part where this particular thread was about cell phone batteries causing global warming.