Ex-sheepie, I'd explain it by saying you are wrong. If you look at the graphs, (or make your own by finding the Vostok Ice Core CO2 data and plotting against a palaeotemperature data set like the Ontong Java Foraminifera proxy data, which you could do in under half an hour on the web) and well they're pretty much in lock step. When one goes up the other goes up. When ones goes down the other goes down. Plot them against reconstructed solar intensity data (from Milankovitch orbital and sunspot data) and well you'll see that solar forcing isn't the major factor. It may be the root cause by supplying the energy, but ocean currents, continental drift, and ice formation (ie all those feedback mechanisms) have more to do with it. Yes the science is complicated, and there are gaps in our knowledge, but there isn't anything disproving what has been worked out yet. This is where the industry funded PR firms come in, this is where conservative think-tanks and their ideological sheep followers come in. They know they aren't going to win on the science, but they can win on the propaganda, and they know that they can whip up a bit of enthusiasm from the unquestioning masses (also called fools). Anthropogenic Climate Change IS happening and it is very important that we limit our industrial output to within safe levels. CO2 isn't the only thing we should worry about. For instance domestic woodburners should be banned in all Kiwi suburbs because they spew out toxic wood smoke. The kind of noxious poisons that kill 11,000 New Zealanders a year and make the rest of us suffer and have a reduced quality of life. You wouldn't accept your food or water to be riddled with toxic poisons, but that is seen as somewhow acceptable by society in the air we breathe. Well society says "No Thanks". Getting rid of wood smoke is a social justice issue, and is even more important that curbing our greenhouse footprint. It is also a lot cheaper to deal with by banning woodburners and not compensating those affected. Once again though people who don't understand the chemistry and the epidemiology are going to poo-poo the idea, but really what they are saying is, "I am too dumb to understand, so I am just going to be noisy and stand in the way of good policy".

How do you explain the fact that in the past when Co2 levels have risen it is PRE-CEEDED by a temperature rise, and may be caused by said temperature rise. Usually this rise in co2 will cause more plant growth (co2+sun = plant food) which brings it all back. Also the fact that there has been warming detected on other planets should be a give-away that it's not us causing the warming. What is the main driver of our climate? What gives our climate the energy to do what it does? THE SUN.

Out they squirm from under their rocks. Yes it's the discredited folks who deny a link between CO2 level and temperature. Sorry folks but there is a strong correlation. The last 120,000 years, back to the previous interglacial has seen a mean of 230ppmv, and a peak of 280ppmv, except for now, where it is steadily and dangerously climbing. At 200ppmv we're in a deep ice age, at 270ppmv +- 20 we're comfortable. At 350ppmv we're tempting fate. At 1000ppmv we will have caused the end of life and civilisation as we know it.

"Scientists say that an atmospheric carbon dioxide limit of 350 parts per million is the safe upper limit for humanity." This is true "some" scientists blame carbon dioxide for environmental changes. However some other scientists do not agree with them. In the United States 31,478 scientists have signed a petition rejecting the Kyoto global warming agreement and of these, 9,029 have PhDs in physics, engineering and geology.

Baaah