How can CO2 be considered a leading indicator now when it’s proven that historically it was a lagging indicator?

I assume you’re talking about the major warming periods that follow ice ages, like the interesting curves shown here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
(please correct me if you’re talking about something else). You are right; at the end of an ice age, global temperature generally starts going up a few centuries before the CO2 increase. That warming is initially caused by wobbles in Earth’s orbit (“Milankovitch cycle”), not by CO2. Once the warming does get started, atmospheric CO2 also increases – most of it comes out of the ocean, since it’s not as soluble as sea water warms up. CO2 is a green house gas, definitely absorbs infrared radiation; there is NO scientific debate about that. So CO2, whether “natural” or produced by human activity, can actually amplify the warming triggered by the orbital variations. All else being equal, increasing atmospheric CO2 causes air temperature to increase in response. Yes, there are factors that can cause cooling too – e.g. increases in atmospheric dust due to volcanos. However the record of the past 120 years show a very clear upward trend in average global temperature. During this same period, carbon dioxide from burning coal, oil and gas has been injected into the atmosphere at many times the natural rate (see the famous “Keeling Curve” –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg).

Why did the “warming” appear to stop ten years ago?

Have a look at the global temperature curve from the past 120+ years:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

Yes, there sure are up and down variations, but these are superimposed on a clearly upward trend. Some of the short cooling trends are correlated with major volcanic eruptions (high altitude dust generally causes cooling). Like the stock market, there are short-term variations, but a clear trend over decades.

How many of the scientists who climbed into bed with Al Gore were actually climate scientists? How many of the climate change theorists depend on government grants to fund their work (speaks to motivation)? How many scientists have changed their minds and distanced themselves from their former climate change bedmate? How many real climate scientists (not psychologists and “social” scientists) argue against AGW or AGCC and what are their bona fides as compared to the believers? (prove your “great majority” contention and then, when you do, tell us how consensus equals science)

The scientific consensus is very impressive. It is not unanimous – science almost never is. Majority membership of the American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, The American Association for the Advancement of Science agree that AGW is real; you can see a list at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
Regarding consensus – science is not a perfect process, but it is self-correcting; claims made by investigators are rigorously investigated by others, who will publish confirmation or refutation of the original claim. In some cases the minority opinion can turn out to be right, so consensus is not “proof”. However most people are not in any position to try climate experiments for themselves, nor able to rigorously examine all of the details, so consensus can be a very important criterion when deciding whether something is “true” or not.
I don’t know how many scientists have changed their minds on this. As I say there will always be scientific dissent, and that is the way that claims are tested. We should always have an open mind (including me) – new evidence might show long-term cooling. But as far as I know, that evidence does not exist.

I have many more questions and I want them all answered before I climb into bed with manbearpig .(ugh!)

Finally – we agree on something! ;-)
I object to the claim that somehow there is a vast conspiracy of scientists to perpetrate a global warming “hoax”. There is very strong evidence that warming is occuring, and there is very strong evidence that increased CO2 caused by burning oil, gas, and coal are causing much if not most of that warming.

How can CO2 be considered a leading indicator now when it’s proven that historically it was a lagging indicator? Why did the “warming” appear to stop ten years ago?
How many of the scientists who climbed into bed with Al Gore were actually climate scientists? How many of the climate change theorists depend on government grants to fund their work (speaks to motivation)? How many scientists have changed their minds and distanced themselves from their former climate change bedmate? How many real climate scientists (not psychologists and “social” scientists) argue against AGW or AGCC and what are their bona fides as compared to the believers? (prove your “great majority” contention and then, when you do, tell us how consensus equals science) How much money has and will Al Gore make from capitalizing on belief in AGW/AGCC (again, motives anyone?)?
I have many more questions and I want them all answered before I climb into bed with manbearpig .(ugh!)

Trying to steal from everyone to enrich those who are perpetrating this hoax is nothing but evil.

Sporty1946 on August 16, 2009 at 8:41 AM

What exactly do you believe is a “hoax”? The great majority of climate scientists believe that CO2 from human activity is causing the Earth’s atmosphere to warm. There is a lot of evidence that this is happening. Or is your positioning that warming is happening but there is nothing we can or should do to stop it?

Forward Onward and Upward!!

A few years later, they were all but gone. I loved DDT.
Voodoo on August 16, 2009 at 2:45 AM

Same time frame. We had the “fog man” once a month. An army jeep that drove over yards and around all the houses in the country side at twilight with a dozen of us running through it for miles pretending we were in the movie the Crawling Eye.

I still don’t get bit! Just kidding.

Hah! I love this guy.

Today it is hard to believe that explanation. But it was easy for a 1954 four year old to understand. Late in the August afternoon the swarms were so thick that they provided shade from the setting sun. I could not play outside after the sun began to set.

A few years later, they were all but gone. I loved DDT.

Thanks for posting this, Ed.

Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria

Personally, I think he gives them too much credit.