Ok, I normally don't call people out about stuff like this, but this just pissed me off. Did no one read my last post? Global warming is a scientific theory. By definition, there is no such thing as a consensus on it. By definition, it is not fact. And did you not read the link I posted up there? That's a small list of scientists who do not believe in the Al Gore, bandwagon global warming theory. Scientists>you.
How the hell can you expect me to believe that just because temperature and CO2 levels have a strong association over the past 500,000 years (I realize its almost definitely longer) that CO2 automatically causes temperature change? Association != causation. Any statistician can tell you that. It is equally likely that temperature changes cause CO2 level changes. Especially when you look at some of the graphs and see that the CO2 levels lag behind the temperature by a small amount. That's right, in An Inconvenient Truth he uses faulty graphs. The temperature goes up BEFORE the CO2 in some of those graphs. I'm not saying temperature causes the changes in CO2 either.
We're dealing with fucking climate change here. Do you know how many factors go into the climate? When weathermen can barely tell what the weather will be like a week from today how do you expect them to accurately predict temperatures 100 years from now? I'm going to have to find the source on this, but one predection by a climatologist who was predicting increased temperatures was off by over 300%. If you had a 300% error in any experiment you probably did something wrong.
Climate is affected by way too many things to blindly say that CO2 is going to drive temperatures up drastically high. Other greenhouse gases (btw, water vapor is much much much more prevalent in the atmosphere, something like 90% of all greenhouse gases), cloud levels, sun activity, axis tilt, ocean temperatures, snow cover, and so much more all go into it.
As a minor disclaimer, I'm attacking Al Gore's global warming, not necessarily all of the climate change theory. I have nothing wrong with reducing pollution, finding alternate energy sources, etc. etc. I just have a problem when people say the "debate is over", when, by definition, it is not.