You have yet to actually read anything I have written, nor have you taken the time to care about any other research to the contrary.  We all know the world is getting warmer.   That is very clear, straight-forward and easy to understand.  What we DON'T know is what are the factors that cause it and how much of that is actually related to human activites.  C02 production on this planet comes from a lot of other sources than Humans.  (The Oceans, Volcanic activity, Animals on the planet, etc,etc).

You do realize your graph, clearly shows an increase of temperature, then C02 concentration right?  If it's a cause and effect ratio as you'd like to proclaim why is are the temperatures increasing before the C02 is?  Why are there cases when the C02 levels dip that temperature goes upward? 

I feel sorry for someone like yourself who is a fairly intelligent individual so convinced that this is 100% fact and won't even accept any other explanation. It doesn't shock me though with you being from Australia.  They have the Carbon Tax and a whole host of other garbage making things more expensive for the general public there. This type of stuff has been going on for ages.    Let's start with a little required history lesson. 

From the 1940s - to the 1970s,  the world was cooling.  Despite a rise in C02 during that timespan, the world was cooling.   Let's read an article from Newsweek 1975, Here.  

Let us also look no further than the United States and President Obama. You might know of a man named John Holdren? Big proponent of global warming today. Very well educated, you know the types of folks who know a lot more than you or I.

• On December 20, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama named Holdren as his choice to be Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

• Oddly enough his stance in the 1970s was, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

So this nutcase is proclaiming of an ice age in the 70s. It gets better though.  In 1986, the same man predicted "Global warming could cause the deaths of 1 billion people worldwide by 2020".  Weird, in 15 years we're concerned about the impending ice age, yet 15 years or less later we're talking about people dying due to Global Warming?  Damn hope a lot of people don't die to global warming in the next 8 years.

There are MANY and increasingly more within the Scientific community who disagree with this man-made global warming agenda.

About C02 itself.

It represents very little of the entire atmospheric composition. From this,  humans  contribute little to that composition of C02.  Why does C02 have such a tangible effect yet Water Vapor does not? 

Okay. You don't like religion. I think we all get that now. Unfortunately, in your railing against the illogic of religion you seem to have swallowed a different brand of illogic whole. "If more kids go to college now than in 1979, the DoE must be a success." Really?

First off, you need to go back to school because you obviously don't understand that correlation does not imply causation ...

If something else is driving global temperature change (say that big ball of fire in the sky) there would be a high level of correlation between global temperatures and any other measurable variable that was impacted by either the driver of temperature change or from the temperature change itself.

Consider (for example) that Sunspot activity impacts the formation of clouds and leads to higher global temperatures, higher global temperatures (over time) leads to higher temperatures in the ocean, and higher temperatures in the ocean reduces the amount of CO2 that can be sequestered in the water leading to the release of CO2. What you would expect to see from this is a temperature increase occuring before an increase in CO2, and then CO2 increasing rapidly and then plateauing as most sequestered CO2 has been released that will be released through increased temperatures; basically, the exact graph you have provided.

That's really a problem with a lot of places.  They don't properly teach Scientific Methods anymore.

If you actually talk to credible researchers, you find one very interesting thing.

They pretty much NEVER talk in absolutes... even in expierments they've run themselves.

Not only that, the huge problem (to me) is the course of action desired by the AGW scientists and their pressure groups. They want massive amounts of power, subsidies, and economic shift in the economy to their methods. Its hard to take such people seriously when they have a huge (and I mean huge to the sum of trillions of dollars) impetus to correlate Co2 to global warming.

I mean, in Scottie's case, it directly impacts his future career. Do you think he's going to see it objectively? I don't think so.

When it comes down to the issue of global warming, the following arguments must be made, then dealt with in the proper sequence:

1. Can we directly observe that the earth is undergoing an increase in temperatures?
2. Can we observe that this increase is outside the norm for our planet?
3. Can we know with certainty what is causing this increase, and can offer significant proofs?
4. How then can we institute solutions to achieve a positive result if in fact the situation warrants it?

The problem is that we can likely state #1 with certainty, but the scientific community is really grasping for things on the next three points. That reeks of bias, which is a shame for the scientific community and all of the honorable men and women who work hard in their respective fields.

While I'm not making any claims about scottie, I have noticed that a lot of people (even well educated people) who blindly accept global warming alarmism tend not to have curious or sceptical minds in general; which is one of the core needs of someone who really wants to be a strong scientist.

As a demonstration of this you will notice that the majority of individuals who believe in Global Warming also believe in Peak Oil (or more generally "Peak Fossil Fuels") and yet do not see any problem with that. They do not see the inconsistency with believing that the world is rapidly approaching the peak production of fossil fuels and yet will somehow (magically) be able to rapidly increase CO2 production from burning fossil fuels to a level which could cause dangerous global warming.

Well to be fair, even if you go by Peak Oil advocates most alarmist stats.  Or rather... current most alamarist stats. (Since according to some we should of hit peak oil anyway.) it's not really that big of a deal.

Natural Gas could fill in for Oil in practically everything Oil does.  We'd have at LEAST 10 years worth of cheap Natural Gas to go through before there were any issues.

So Natural Gas would likely increase CO2 production.

Really i'd say the real issue that shows the lack of scinetific thinking is that essentially for most people it's "Green energy or nothing."

Most People don't want Nuclear or Natural gas or any other resource to replace oil that would lower carbon emissions unless it's renewable energy.

Which is just... an awful poisition that could only be based around an energy lobby.

It's sad too, because there are reasonable and logical ways to push for renewable energy, but giant subsidies do nothing but hurt renewable energy investment and refinement.   Afterall, why spend millions and billions into research when if you do all that will happen is your product will be more efficent, and you'll lose your subsidies leaving you with the same amount of profit?

A SMART use for rewneable energy money would be to offer a contract from the US military to create practical renewable energy military vehicles.  Afterall it gets prohibitivly expensive to ship US gas all over the world to the different military bases.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Besides the problem that's already been brought up of "correlation does not equal causation", your argument has various other problems. Among them:

One, you can clearly see at 390,000 BC, 330,000 BC, 220,000 BC, and 110,000 BC times when the CO2 concentration was higher than the temperature variation. And there are a variety of other points on the graph that it looks like it might venture beyond as well. How would you account for those in your argument?

Two, since the situation of "higher CO2 than temperature flux" has happened a plethora of times before, how CAN you honestly say without hesitation that it's not happening again? Perhaps maybe the fact that it's happening at the peak of a temperature flux is the only reason it's fluctuating so much higher than normal. And even so, it's NOT any higher above the temperature fluctuation than it was in 110,000 BC, so I still fail to see how your graph helps your argument.

Ron Paul has the veterans vote. most of the vets support him. He is for the constitution and following it strickly. following it worked well for America until the 20th century when we stopped. most of our problems would be solved by going back to it which is what Ron Paul proposes. Think about it, bringing the troops home would save billions in spending. shrinking a bloated government would save 100's of millions more. He's even proposing reducing the presidential salary to 39,000 a year the same as the average American. Ron Paul is the only one running who hasn't lied to the American people look at his record he does what he says. in 2000 bush said he was going to do a lot of stuff then acted and voted and furthered Clintons agendas and look at what Obama has done. there is no difference between dems and repubs. bush and hillary voted the same on every issue when she was senator and he was president. If you want to be communist like china just vote for romney or Obama