[John Semmens]

Climate fluctuates. Temperatures and CO2 levels have varied greatly without human contribution over millions of years. So, obviously, there are major forces other than human activities at work. Ignoring these other forces and implying that some Kyoto-type intervention will resolve unwanted climate change seems ill-conceived.

The tip-off that Gore's case is weak is his insistence that climate change is a "moral issue" rather than a scientific one. The implication is that it is human influence that is BAD in and of itself. And that stopping this BAD behavior is the important objective. The other side of this idea is that natural climate change would be okay.

The "natural = good and unnatural = bad" notion is simplistic and, in my opinion, idiotic. The civilization we currently enjoy is highly unnatural. Yet, virtually every human being (even so-called "greens") strives to enjoy the benefits it provides.

If the climate is changing in unfavorable ways what does it matter whether the cause is natural or unnatural or some combination? Wouldn't preventing the unfavorable change by the most efficient means be the most sensible policy?

Suppose a comet were projected to collide with the Earth. This would be a 100% natural event. Does that mean it's okay? No action needed? Or should we try to avert the collision by unnatural means?

What we need to come to grips with is that, absent any human action, the climate will change. If we want to ameliorate, offset or avert this change we need to think about effective methods of trying to accomplish this. Effective methods are going to have to go beyond the minuscule impacts to be achieved by the Kyoto protocol approach of reducing human-caused emissions. The fact that such effective methods are not part of Al Gore's prescription is pretty convincing evidence that it is control of humans rather than control of climate that is his real agenda.

Whether the BBC program was "right" in every regard isn't the issue. It presents a different interpretation of the data than Al Gore does. In my opinion, it persuasively refutes the idea that controling CO2 emissions will be sufficient to prevent climate change. The issue then is whether there is something else that can (or should--not everyone agrees that warmer would be worse than cooler) be done to deal with this change. Since there is no evidence that Gore understands the magnitude of the issue, it is clear that following his advice would be the wrong course to take.

[Zon]

Excellent post. You've shown how the trivial CO2 influence on temperature has been blown way out of proportion by the AGW zealots -- asserting that it's a huge and important problem when it is just the opposite--a non problem. I call it the global warming hoax.

[Ragnar54]

I agree with your post for the most part. However, the point of my question was a dig at the offered "explanation" for the lag between temperature increases and increases in atmospheric CO2. As the "Global Warming Swindle" program demonstrated, the real explanation is that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes.

I'm personally rooting for an ironic conclusion to the GW debate:
1. Gore has it backwards: atmospheric CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases (not the other way around).
2. Gore has it backwards: GW is actually beneficial (not harmful).
3. Gore has it backwards: Humans have not been causing GW, but have in fact been slowing it down (compared to the warming taking place on other planets). This last has not been proven, but seems reasonable if you consider that volcanoes only manage to eject a small percentage of their eruptions to a significant altitude; jet planes are much more efficient at dumping sulfur compounds at 30,000+ feet.

It may turn out that Gore does not have it backwards, but is merely 100% wrong on point 3.