The y-axis grid lines are at 0.2°C intervals, in both graphs.

The x-axes are both fifty years in width (well, 51, actually). One of them is 1895–1946, the other is 1957–2008. The grid lines are at 5-year intervals.

The vertical offset between the two graphs is about 0.35°C. (The temporal offset is, of course, 1957–1895 = 62 years.)

But can you guess which graph is 1895–1946, and which is 1957–2008?

The x-axes are both fifty years in width (well, 51, actually). One of them is 1895–1946, the other is 1957–2008. The grid lines are at 5-year intervals.

The vertical offset between the two graphs is about 0.35°C. (The temporal offset is, of course, 1957–1895 = 62 years.)

But can you guess which graph is 1895–1946, and which is 1957–2008?

In the half-century covered by the 1895–1946 graph CO2 rose
by only 15 ppmv (5.3%). In the half-century covered by the 1957–2008 graph CO_{2} rose by 70 ppmv (22.5%), i.e.,
a 4.2× greater CO_{2} forcing.

I do not doubt that rising CO_{2} level contributed to warming, but the similarity of
the two graphs, despite the huge dissimilarity of the two CO_{2}-forcings, obviously doesn't support the case for
CO_{2} being the “principal control knob”[2]
for climate.

The “control knob” wasn't methane, either. In the half-century covered by the 1895–1946 graph methane (CH4) rose by 0.25 ppmv (29%), and in the half-century covered by the 1957–2008 graph CH4 rose by 0.57 ppmv (47%).

Here's a follow-up article:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/20/where-exactly-is-the-problem/

You can easily reproduce these two graphs (very closely) at any web site which can produce graphs of HADCRUT3 temperatures, e.g.,
WoodForTrees.org.