budbromley

One more thing:  Unfortunately, it is not over when the polls close.  Unfortunately, it is not over until we find out how much vote manipulation has occurred and we know that vote manipulation will happen because the politicians and their backers are very desperate.  This is not democracy.  And as documented here, unfortunately, there are no current laws to stop what they are doing.  This post and a few short videos below describe the deplorable situation we are in, and this applies to almost all countries.

“Big Tech can shift 15 million votes in the upcoming election, and we all know which way it’s going. But no matter what your politics, do you really want Google and Facebook picking our next president, our senators, our governors and mayors?”

November 06, 2022

My research team is currently monitoring online political content being sent to voters in swing states through more than 2,500 computers owned by a politically-diverse group of registered voters (our “field agents”), and we are concerned about what we’re seeing.

We are aggregating and analyzing search results on the Google and Bing search engines, messages displayed on Google’s home page, autoplay videos suggested on YouTube, tweets sent to users by the Twitter company (as opposed to tweets sent by other users), email suppression on Gmail, and more.

We have so far preserved more than 1.9 million “ephemeral experiences” – exposure to short-lived content that impacts people and then disappears, leaving no trace – that Google and other companies are able to use to shift opinions and voting preferences, and we expect to have captured more than 2.5 million by Election Day. 

In emails leaked from Google to The Wall Street Journal in 2018, Googlers (that’s what they call themselves) discussed how they might be able to use “ephemeral experiences” to change people’s views about Trump’s travel ban. The company later denied that this plan was ever implemented, but leaked content (including multiple blacklists) and startling revelations by Tristan Harris, Zach Vorhies, and other whistleblowers show that Google is indeed out to remake the world in its own image. As the company’s CFO, Ruth Porat, said in a November 11th, 2016 video that leaked in 2018, “we will use the great strength and resources and reach we have” to advance Google’s values.

Since early 2016, my team has been developing and improving Neilsen-type monitoring systems that allow us to do to Google-and-the-Gang what they do to us and our children 24/7: to track their activity, and, specifically, to preserve that very dangerous and persuasive ephemeral content.

Since 2013, I have been conducting rigorous controlled experiments to quantify how persuasive that kind of content can be. I’ve so far identified about a dozen new forms of online manipulation that make use of ephemeral experiences, and nearly all these techniques are controlled exclusively by Google and, to a lesser extent, other tech companies. 

These new forms of influence are stunning in their impact. Search results that favor one candidate (in other words, that lead people who click on high-ranking results to web pages that glorify that candidate) can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by up to 80 percent in some demographic groups after a single search. Carefully crafted search suggestions that flash at you while you are typing a search term can turn a 50/50 split among undecided voters into a 90/10 split with no one knowing they have been manipulated. A single question-and-answer interaction on a digital personal assistant can shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by more than 40 percent.

In 2020, the 1.5 million ephemeral experiences we aggregated from the computers of our 1,735 field agents showed us manipulations that were sufficient, in theory, to have shifted more than six million votes to Joe Biden (whom I supported) – again, without people knowing they were being manipulated. Among other findings: Google was sending more go-vote reminders to liberals and moderates than to conservatives; that’s a brazen and powerful manipulation that would go completely undetected unless someone was monitoring. 

Our preliminary analyses of the data we have collected so far in 2022 are equally disturbing. In swing states, and especially in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida, we are finding a high level of liberal bias in Google search results, but not in search results on Bing (the same pattern we have found in every election since 2016). In several swing states, 92 percent of the autoplay videos being fed to YouTube users are coming from liberal news sources (YouTube is owned by Google). Unless Google backs down, it will shift hundreds of thousands of votes on Election Day itself with those brazen targeted go-vote reminders – and we will catch them doing so.

That brings me to some surprisingly hopeful news. Just before the November 3, 2020 Presidential election, I was so unnerved by the extreme bias we were seeing in our data that I decided to go public. Ebony Bowden at the New York Post wrote a powerful story about election rigging that might have made the front page, but on October 30, after a phone call between an editor and a Google official, the piece was killed – no doubt because the Post was getting 45 percent of its online traffic from the company in question. 

On November 5, however, three U.S. Senators sent an intimidating letter to the CEO of Google summarizing my preliminary findings, and the company instantly turned off all manipulations in the Georgia Senate races.

We were monitoring those races through more than a thousand computers owned by a diverse and undetectable pool of real voters in Georgia, and not one received a go-vote reminder. Even more striking, political bias in Google search results dropped to zero. I had thought that such a feat would be impossible, but Vorhies explained that Google can turn bias on and off “like flipping a light switch.” He also pointed me to leaked company documents such as the manual for the company’s Twiddler software, used for “re-ranking” search results. 

Will the article you are now reading change the course of history? Will it cause Google to take its digital thumb off the scales in our midterm elections? Whatever Mr. Pichai, its CEO, decides to do, we will know, and we will preserve the evidence.

And this time, we will continue to expand the monitoring system, and we will be monitoring content going not just to voters but also to America’s children. By late 2023, we will have a digital shield in place – a panel of more than 20,000 field agents in all 50 states – and we will shame Big Tech into staying clear of our elections and our kids for many years to come.

Robert Epstein, Ph.D. (@DrREpstein), former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today, is senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology. A Ph.D. of Harvard University, he has published 15 books and more than 300 articles on AI and other topics. His 2019 Congressional testimony on Big Tech’s threat to democracy can be accessed at https://EpsteinTestimony.com. You can learn more about his research on online influence at https://MyGoogleResearch.com.

A few short videos

Short video snippet https://099b286b23d8a2f9529f-ec541110d0b03f9950b9c176a7222fa9.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/Tucker16.mp4

Short video snippet  https://099b286b23d8a2f9529f-ec541110d0b03f9950b9c176a7222fa9.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/We+NEED+to+STOP+Big+Tech!.mp4

15 minute video slide show showing their 2020 election findings.  https://099b286b23d8a2f9529f-ec541110d0b03f9950b9c176a7222fa9.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/EPSTEIN_et_al_2021-Large-Scale_Monitoring_of_Big_Tech_Political_Manipulations-FINAL_w_AUDIO.mp4

#Election #Elections #Election2022 #RedWave #ElectionNews

BY DAVID SOLWAY 11:01 PM ON NOVEMBER 04, 2022

Read the original post here: https://pjmedia.com/columns/david-solway-2/2022/11/04/the-great-reset-a-perfect-storm-n1642854

Archived here to protect against deletion

Storms come in many forms and may consist of many different constituent elements, but when all these elements combine at the same critical moment, we call it a “perfect storm.” When such a storm is transposed analogically to the cultural, political, and economic realms, that is, when it seems to impact the entire social environment, we have no choice but to grasp its significance and prepare for its onset by taking protective measures.

Such a storm is now upon us. All its elements clearly point to an orchestrated intention; in other words, it cannot be an accident. And the intention we discern in the current historical moment, the underlying plan, would appear to lay the ground for what has been called a “techno-totalitarian digital dark age,” associated with the Club of Rome, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum, that is, what has come to be known as the Great Reset — the corporate takeover of property, health, currency, travel, energy, and sustenance. The upshot involves a thorough restructuring of democratic society along neo-medieval lines, an elimination of the middle class, a two-tier political order, and a reduction of the global census.

The sinister elements composing this storm are readily observable to anyone paying attention:

• The imposition of a viral pandemic and its official response — lockdowns, social distancing, masks, quarantines, medical apartheid — that effectively closed down the public life and economic structures of entire nations, leading to loss of livelihoods, physical and psychological illness, and spiraling suicide rates.
• The mandating of novel genomic “vaccines” that are creating mass casualties, as witnessed in the phenomenon of SADS — Sudden Adult Death Syndrome — which came into prominence post-vaccine. The plethora of dissuasive “fact-checks” on social media and the Internet are further signs that we are living in an age of censorship. The correlation between SADS and the vaccine rollout is overwhelming and may even suggest a causal link. The massive rise in stillbirths may also be attributed to the vaccines.
• A “climate change” policy entailing carbon taxes, bans on fertilizers, the shutting down of standard energy production, the marketing of costly and inefficient electric vehicles that threaten to deplete the power grid, and the legislating of largely unworkable and extortionate green renewables based on insecure and fabricated science and dodgy computer models, whose effect has been to impoverish both producers and ordinary citizens in bringing about a new and despotic dispensation.
• Supply chain disruptions.
• Government-induced food and fuel shortages.
• Rampant inflation, pricing the necessities of life beyond the ability of vast numbers of people to afford them.
• The official insistence on so-called “abortion rights.”
• The focus on and pursuit of LGBTQ+, “non-binary,” transgender, and sexual indoctrination of preschoolers and minors, creating a growing cohort of human beings who do not reproduce, i.e., a condition of sterility.
• The proposed creation of a cashless digital economy and the introduction of digital ID with the aim of establishing a China-style social credit system, depriving the individual of personal freedom and discretionary choice.
• The initiating of proxy wars, as in Ukraine, further resulting in crippling forms of material scarcity, economic pain, and population stress.

All these factors are occurring at the same time, that is, they are components of a perfect storm brought to bear on the global community — or, more accurately, on the community of Western nations. (“Civilization states” like Russia, China, and India, are largely immune to the concerted onslaught.)

One cannot credibly deny that there exists a conscious purpose behind so evident a concatenation of simultaneous events, envisaging a new and reductionist world order and population diminishment in every sense of the term. The liberal civilization of the West is to be replaced by an anti-capitalist global coup favoring a totalitarian governing class. Indeed, to change the metaphor, what is impending is a kind of “mass extinction event” on the level of culture, state, and civilization, a kind of ideological asteroid or “planet killer,” orbiting very close to the future.

In his 2020 Ted Talk, Bill Gates asserts that “if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could lower [world population] by ten or fifteen percent.” Vaccines and boosters seem to be having precisely that effect. Gates’ posing with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, an Ethiopian Marxist revolutionary, should tell us all we need to know. Klaus Schwab’s Great Reset, backed by leading politicians, NGOs, technocrats, and globalist oligarchs, would reduce the free world geopolitically and demographically to near-global servitude.

For additional confirmation, one need only read the Meadows/Randers influential and updated book, Limits to Growth, adopted by the Club of Rome. As Dennis Meadows claims in a recent interview with the leftist online magazine Resilience, “I don’t know what a sustainable population level is now, but it’s probably much closer to a billion people, or fewer.” The authors are skeptical of growth as a function of what they call “overshoot,” of “go[ing] beyond limits accidentally,” which can ultimately produce an “ecological footprint” that is unsustainable. They do not recognize that growth and its negative offshoots can be managed without employing drastic solutions — solutions that are themselves a product of overshoot. “If a profound correction is not made soon,” they warn, “a crash of some sort is certain.” The trouble is, they are the crash.

Of course, there is nothing new in their deposition. They advance what is essentially a Malthusian argument that posits an inverse ratio between (geometrically increasing) population growth and (arithmetically increasing) material resources. Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, in true Malthusian fashion, famously proclaimed that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over [and that] civilization collapse is imminent.” Interestingly, none of his dated predictions have come to pass.

Indeed, the theory of universal implosion has been long discredited. Science writer Ronald Bailey, for example, puts paid to the thesis in The End of Doom, ridiculing the Malthusian refusal to “let go of the simple but clearly wrong idea that human beings are no different than a herd of deer when it comes to reproduction.” Humans are reasoning animals — at any rate, some humans — capable of dealing with pressing and seemingly intractable problems through genuine scientific discoveries and innovative approaches developed over time. As Matt Ridley mentions in his informative The Evolution of Everything, even Malthus was not a thoroughgoing catastrophist, proposing late marriage as a solution to overpopulation.

Nevertheless, our latter-day Malthusians, Resetters, and plutocratic Marxists persist in advancing their campaign, like avid but errant disciples of Francis Galton who claimed, “What nature does blindly, slowly, and ruthlessly, man may do providently, quickly and kindly.” The “kindly” part soon dropped out of the formulation and negative eugenics, entailing involuntary sterilization, eventually emerged as a solution to the problem of overpopulation and declining resources. (As Nicholas Wright Gillham writes in his fascinating biography A Life of Sir Francis Galton, “What eugenics wrought in the first half of the twentieth century was much worse than anything Galton would have envisioned.”)

Fortunately, resistance is mounting. Important books have been published, like Michael Walsh’s edited volume Against the Great Reset, Alex Jones’ The Great Reset: And the War for the World, and Marc Morano’s The Great Reset: Global Elites and the Permanent Lockdown (all highly recommended), that are eloquently and passionately sounding the alarm. So-called “populist revolts” in countries like France, Italy, and Sweden, (the latter two having elected new conservative administrations), as well as the MAGA movement in the U.S., are challenging a powerful conspiracy — not a conspiracy theory but a conspiracy fact — that seeks to destabilize the world order, uproot the foundations of long-standing usages and traditions, collapse the economic basis of the West and, in short, build back worse.

The class of power-mad manipulators behind the Great Reset pass themselves off as humanity’s benefactors. We should be neither impressed nor influenced by their presumed concern for the welfare of mankind. They are agents of destruction, not laborers in the vineyard. Murray Rothbard wisely urges in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature that “the challenge must take place at the core — at the presumed ethical supremacy of a nonsensical goal.” The goal may be nonsensical, but it is real and dangerous. Nor do ethical considerations even remotely figure in the revolutionary agenda of our presumed Samaritan patrons.

Perhaps the perfect storm can be weathered. Perhaps the ideological asteroid can be deflected. But it will take awareness, knowledge, and commitment on the part of more and more people if we are to emerge on the other side of the gathering cataclysm.

https://buy.tinypass.com/checkout/template/cacheableShow?aid=XGSTHNtMcq&templateId=OTLSWHS8F50O&offerId=fakeOfferId&experienceId=EXGVP57HPC8X&iframeId=offer_5f004691ffcbd062695c-0&displayMode=inline&pianoIdUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fid.tinypass.com%2Fid%2F&widget=template&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpjmedia.com

 Share

 Tweet

For media inquiries, please contact communications@pjmedia.com

David Solway is a Canadian poet and essayist. His most recent volume of poetry, The Herb Garden, appeared in 2018 with Guernica Editions. His manifesto, Reflections on Music, Poetry & Politics, was released by Shomron Press in 2016. He has produced two CDs of original songs: Blood Guitar and Other Tales and Partial to Cain, on which he was accompanied by his pianist wife Janice Fiamengo. His latest book is Notes from a Derelict Culture, Black House, London, 2019.

Read more by David Solway

Who did it?

November 2, 2022

15% above the 5 year average.

Vinay Prasad MD MPH 2 weeks ago

12 minute video

4 minute shocking video and two cardiologists.

Texas Lindsay, producer of the video. Nov 3, 2022

“This is the most significant video I’ve ever made. Please share it, it could save someone’s life. It’s also available on: Rumble.”

https://rumble.com/v1re0yi-until-proven-otherwise-two-world-renowned-cardiologists-reach-the-same-conc.html

And below is the protocol for post-vaccine therapy. Do it now. Don’t wait until you realize you are having problems. Consult with your health care professional.

I-RECOVER

POST-VACCINE TREATMENT PROTOCOL

• Download Treatment Protocol Summary PDF

• Download Treatment Protocol Clinical Companion PDF

About this Protocol

This document is primarily intended to assist healthcare professionals in providing appropriate medical care for vaccine-injured patients. Patients should always consult a trusted healthcare provider before embarking on any new treatment.

More info on I-Recover https://covid19criticalcare.com/treatment-protocols/i-recover/

I am reluctant to repost Bill Maher. But, in this short video he is spot on, IMHO.

Thank you John Stossel, John Mills, and Paul Homewood. This is truth to awaken the woke.

Carbon dioxide data from NOAA-Scripps Global Monitoring Laboratory at Mauna Loa (MLO) for 2021 are not yet finalized as I write this.  According to MLO for 2020, net CO2 from all sources and sinks, human and natural, on average increased only 2.58 ppm for the year 2020.  That is only 0.000258% of the atmosphere and it includes all CO2 from all sources and sinks, natural and human. 

In other words, human-produced CO2 emitted to the atmosphere minus human-produced CO2 absorbed by the environment DID NOT EXCEED a 0.000258% increase for 2020.  Net global CO2 atmospheric concentration measured at MLO was 414.24 ppm. (That’s the annual mean for MLO in 2020 minus annual mean for MLO in 2019.  414.24 ppm minus 411.66 ppm equals 2.58 ppm.)

Then 2.58 ppm divided by 414.24 ppm is 0.0062 or 0.6%.  This means that the annual increase for 2020 in total CO2 is only 0.6% of the total CO2 in air and this 0.6% percent increase includes CO2 from all sources and sinks, natural and human.  In other words, the net increase of CO2 for 2020 due to humans did not exceed 0.6% of the total CO2 in air.

NOAA, etc. writes statements such as:

“From 2000 through 2018, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels rose from 6.7 PgC yr ^–1 to 10.2 PgC yr^-1 (1 petagram of carbon is 10¹⁵ gC, or 1 billion metric tons C, or 3.67 billion metric tons CO2). Global fossil fuel emissions have increased steadily year upon year, with the exception of 2009 following the global economic recession and 2014-2016 when emissions held nearly constant (Figure 1).”  https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/carbontracker/index.php#north_america

Near the bottom of the same page linked above, NOAA informs the reader of important uncertainties in their estimate of CO2 emission flux, including that it contains guesswork.  This may be the most useful information on that webpage. 

NOAA and other human-CO2-caused-global-warming proponents typically neglect to inform the reader that CO2 added to the air in excess of the Henry’s Law partition ratio is absorbed by the environment.  An increase in CO2 gas concentration in air results in a 1:1 proportional increase in CO2 solubility in ocean water. If net global CO2 emissions increases by 2.58 ppm per year, then net global CO2 absorption will increase by 2.58 ppm per year. And vice versa. They also neglect to inform that the MLO-measured-and-reported CO2 concentration, the defacto “gold standard”, is in fact the net residual difference between two very much larger natural CO2 fluxes, CO2 emission flux and CO2 absorption flux.

The trend of increasing net global CO2 (i.e., the MLO rate of change of net global CO2 atmospheric concentration, aka the Keeling Curve slope) cannot be caused by humans, as is shown below. 

There are many natural sources of CO2 and many natural sinks for CO2 and both are orders of magnitude larger than net human CO2 emissions.  Human CO2 emissions are being absorbed into the environment as they are emitted by humans, and then that CO2 is re-emitted and re-absorbed repeatedly. In the real world, the net global average CO2 concentration in air (and even more so the net global human CO2 emission) cannot be distinguished from noise in the measurement system.  In the real world away from computer models, atmospheric CO2 concentration is determined by nature not by humans; by addition or removal of CO2 gas, humans can neither increase nor decrease net global average CO2 concentration except as a temporary local perturbation.

CO2 measurements typically ignore the variability of both CO2 and air in the natural environment.  MLO is essentially a lab environment; its measurements are diligently made, accurate and precise for that lab location and for its purpose.  The unit of measure used by MLO is ppm, that is CO2 parts per million parts of air.  As measured by MLO and NOAA Global Monitoring Labs, their unit measured is micromoles of CO2 gas per mole of dried air, which is the same as ppm. But it (ppm) is measurement and ratio of moles, not a volume measurement. 

MLO data files are accompanied by the following data description.

“See http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ for additional details. The uncertainty in the global annual mean is estimated using a monte carlo technique that computes 100 global annual averages each time using a slightly different set of measurement records from the NOAA ESRL cooperative air sampling network.  The reported uncertainty is the mean of the standard deviations for each annual average using this technique. Please see Conway et al. 1994  JGR  vol. 99 no. D11. for a complete discussion. CO2 expressed as a mole fraction in dry air micromol/mol abbreviated as ppm.”

Thus, there are major problems using the diligently measured “gold standard” MLO data of net global average CO2 atmospheric concentration as commonly, and repeatedly reported worldwide, when these data are compared to CO2 from wet air sample. First, MLO have removed a huge variability in CO2 data by removing water and water vapor from the sample.  CO2 gas is highly soluble in water and the solubility varies significantly with temperature. The concentration of water and water vapor in air is more than 10 times larger than the concentration of CO2, and humidity is highly variable.  In practice, if MLO did not remove the water from the air samples, then the variability in the data would be so large that accurate and precise routine CO2 measurements would be impossible; this is but one reason they use a molar mass measurement micromoles of CO2 per mole of dry air (ppm) instead of a volume measurement such as micrograms CO2 per liter of air (or ppmv); ppm and ppmv are not equivalent units.

Secondly, ppmv is calculated by dividing the volume of one component by the total volume of the sample and then multiplying by one million. But in natural air the water and water vapor content are highly variable (near zero to 2 or more percent) which means the volume of the air is significantly variable. On the other hand, when water is frozen out of the air samples, then the volume is stable. Freezing the sample releases CO2 gas in the water or aerosolized with water vapor.

Thirdly, CO2 gas, water vapor and water have overlapping infrared spectra. Various types of infrared instruments have been used at MLO over the years. Deconvolution of these overlapping data is probably possible by digital signal analysis, but impractical for routine on-line repetitious sampling.

Fourth, MLO routinely and diligently and frequently calibrates its systems with CO2 standard samples bottles prepared by the Keeling Lab at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. If MLO measured volumetric wet natural air samples, then MLO would need standard sample bottles containing varying amounts of water vapor and water. Water reacts with the standard bottles which would need to be carefully temperature controlled. The standard bottles and the system would need to be so frequently re-calibrated during the day that the process would be impractical for routine online sampling.

Global warming proponents Kevin E. Trenberth and Christian J. Guillemot (1994) state in The total mass of the atmosphere: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/94JD02043

“Thus the mean mass of water vapor is 1.25×10¹⁶ kg and the dry air mass is 5.132×10¹⁸ kg, corresponding to a mean surface pressure of 982.4 mbar. Overall uncertainties are ∼0.1 mbar or 0.5×10¹⁵ kg in total mass and about double those values for atmospheric moisture content.” 

These global warming proponents point out that the mass variability is high for dry air, but variability of moisture content is about double of that mass variability.

According to this estimate (Trenberth and Guillemot, 1994), the atmosphere contains about 5.132 X 10¹⁸ kilograms of dry air, which is 5.132 X 10²¹ grams of dry air.  Then 3.9 X 10^-6 grams of CO2 (the annual increase per gram of dry air) multiplied times the estimated 5.132 X 10²¹ grams of dry air in the total atmosphere results in an estimated increase in the atmosphere of 2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams of CO2 for 2019-2020 due to all sources and sinks, natural and human.  Sounds like a big, scary increase.  But wait, there is more that is rarely if ever mentioned.

Thus we have 2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams of CO2 added to the atmosphere (from all sources natural and human), which are diluted immediately and continuously into 2 natural, continuous, opposite vector-directional fluxes of CO2.  One flux is CO2 absorbed into the environment, primarily ocean surface, which is 71% of earth’s surface.  The other flux is CO2 emission flux, also primarily from ocean surface.  CO2 gas is continuously colliding with earth’s surface, thus continuously being simultaneously emitted and absorbed at all normal earth temperatures.  Although we do not know precisely the size of these two continuous CO2 vector fluxes, the MLO-measurement (i.e., the Keeling Curve) is the record of the rate of change of the net annual difference between these two giant fluxes, i.e., 2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams of CO2 per year for 2019-2020, which is the slope of the Keeling curve expressed in grams of CO2 per year for 2019-2020. 

The above “Keeling Curve” would appear flat (as in the graph further above) if the left hand axis represented the whole atmosphere instead of 0.01% of the atmosphere.

Notice, for the estimated mass of the atmosphere (5.132 X 10²¹ grams of dry air), that the net annual increase in CO2 (i.e., the MLO-measured net annual difference between the two fluxes, or 2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams of CO2 for the year for 2019-2020) is more than 5 times larger than the estimated average annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions (3.67 X 10¹⁵ grams of fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2000 through 2018, from the NOAA reference above).  This is CO2 fossil fuel emissions only, not net emissions.  Net emission is emissions minus absorptions; net CO2 fossil-fuel emissions would be about half of the estimated 3.67 X 10¹⁵ grams of average annual fossil fuel CO2 emissions. 

Thus the two slopes (2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams of net CO2 per year versus 3.67 X 10¹⁵ grams of fossil fuel CO2 emissions per year) are diverging over time and the net global CO2 is growing faster.  Therefore, it is not scientifically plausible that CO2 emissions from humans burning fossil-fuels are causing the slope of the Keeling curve.  

The very slowly increasing slope of (a) the “gold standard” measured net global CO2 atmospheric concentration (i.e. the NOAA-Scripps Institute lab at Mauna Loa) cannot be caused by (b) the more slowly increasing slope of estimated CO2 emissions from fossil fuels combustion because the slope of (b) is less than (a) when (b) and (a) are on the same scale. The slopes are diverging with respect to time. There are no exceptions to this logic and math.

Also notice, for the estimated mass of the atmosphere (5.132 X 10²¹ grams of dry air), that the estimated uncertainty is 0.5 X 10¹⁸ grams, (i.e., 0.5×10¹⁵ kg from the above reference Trenberth and Guillemot, 1994).  The uncertainty in the denominator of ppm (i.e., 0.5 X 10¹⁸ grams) is about 25 times larger than the numerator (2.0 X 10¹⁶ grams) AND this large uncertainty has not been propagated to the resulting ppm ratio.  In other words, the ~414 ppm measurement, although precisely measured in the lab sample, is highly uncertain in the real world; it does not represent the high variability of CO2 concentration in normal atmosphere.  With an uncertainty which is 25 times larger, it is highly improbable that the ~400 ppm signal could be distinguished from noise in a sufficiently powered sampling of the natural environment.   Here is a reference on propagation of uncertainty:  https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Analytical_Chemistry/Supplemental_Modules_(Analytical_Chemistry)/Quantifying_Nature/Significant_Digits/Propagation_of_Error