This message was self-deleted by its author

[jimmy the one]

49. you provide excellent examples

You don't really understand what 'correlation/causation' means do you?

It means that a correlation between two variables does not NECESSARILY prove causation - but on the contrary the tenet does not contend that causation cannot be related to the correlation. It is simply a fail safe tenet to prevent outrageous correlations from being interpreted as proving causation.
Similar to post hoc ergo propter hoc. If a roofing tile falls onto a roman soldier killing him, then post hoc ergo propter hoc = brick fell onto soldier, thus soldier dead - true; --- if a horse rears 100 yards away after the tile falls killing a roman then the post hoc ergo propter hoc becomes a logic fallacy (probably).

According to your weird logic, any correlation between two variables should be dismissed from any causation since 'correlation does not prove causation', which is absurd.
If there is no outlandish illogical argument, then a correlation can be indicative of causation, especially if there is a logical reasonable link, & with corroborating unbiased evidence.

Your above graphic examples provide ample evidence of illogical correlations between disassociated events, which have little to link each other, outside a satirical artists tongue in cheeky.
Compare with a decline in gun ownership linked with a decline in violent crime rates & FA related violent crime rates, which are logically intertwined.