Every time I see one of these rants from anti-global warming quarters, I am suspicious of their scientific qualifications and ethics. Occasionally, when I have time, I look more closely at them, and have to date always had my suspicions confirmed. This contribution is no exception.

This contribution should be ignored as it uses shonky sources and fraudently claims support from reputable ones. The website from which the graph is taken (3cheadlines.com) is clearly an extremist anti-global warming group (fanatics might be a less kind but more accurate term).

The graph is fraudulent in that it claims to be based on data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). However, the C3headlines website states that the graph is derived from NOAA data ‘and two sources of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels’. These other sources are not named. The website seems to make a habit of combining official statistics with unattributed and unrelated data to make its own argument.

The NOAA site which is cited as the source of the graph also has a number of documents and reports which endorse the problem of AGW, refute claims of recent cooling (with specific refutations of such claims by Lord Monckton), and call for action on global warming.

This is clearly summarized in their 2013 statement that ‘There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause’ (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked-questions#hide7).

See also NOAA’s 2012 State of the Climate report (http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/2012-state-climate-earths-surface-temperature).

Vic needs be more careful of his sources or risk promoting fraudulent claims.

"Viv Forbes is a geologist and farmer".

Perhaps, but he is also the director of a coal mining company.

http://stanmorecoal.com.au/corporate/

I give this article a failing mark, and note the obvious (and oddly unreported) conflict of interest.

Godo goes the fraudulent route and ignores the greatest fraud of all: AGW!

Since both alarmists, Jeremy and Godo, have questioned the validity of the graph let's talk about it. The graph is unclear and 6th degree polys are unnecessary to depict the logarithmic decline in CO2 emissivity and therefore temperature effect which is what the graph is depicting: that decline is well established:

http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/Koch_fig1.gif

A prize to any alarmist who knows who and when this graph comes from.

Of course the log decline in CO2 effect is based on climate sensitivity; if you think climate is very sensitive to CO2 increases then you will also believe that the log decline effect of extra CO2 is also reduced. But even the IPCC is reducing its figures/guesses for sensitivity!

As well AGW says that equilibrium sensitivity will not occur for centuries so the effect will be filtering through the system for that time.

This is wrong as the bomb test analysis shows:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/01/the-bombtest-curve-and-its-implications-for-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-residency-time/

I am at a loss to understand how the CO2 emmitted before 1922 had a significant cooling effect on a per ton basis, and yet had a much greater warming effect after 1930?

Could someone please explain this for me?

So asking for the source of a graph, and realising that noone in NOAA would try to fit a 6th order polynomial, makes me an alarmist?

And posting a graph without any explanation of what it represents - what does that make you?

Just another denier of climate change with the usual rubbish along with a few others on OLO, keep your head buried in the sand think I would rather believe the scientists.
Rather than some one with a vested interest in a coal mine.