http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-science-czar-suggested-compulsory-abortion-sterilization-50783612.html

Many non-economist science bloggers have hailed Obama’s appointments of scientists to key positions within his administration. But some people, including economists, have been a bit more hesitant about at least one appointment. Likewise I am not so sa…

If you had read it, you’d note that the CO2 data that the author used came from estimates of the amount of CO2 people contributed each year, not from measurements of the amount that was in the atmosphere, so the argument that temperature increase drives CO2 increase doesn’t apply here (unless people create more CO2 when it’s hotter).

The type of analysis they used (comparing residuals) was both powerful, and easy to follow. The stock “room for doubt” arguments against AGW that you brought up don’t really apply to it.

Also, pointing out that the person who wrote the article is not a professional climate scientist is classic ad hominem fallacy. He’s not pretending to be one either, but his input has more value than you give it credit for.

Nothing of this is proof against AGW, but it definately makes room for doubting that we have an enormous problem.

http://autismnaturalvariation.blogspot.com/2008/06/anthropogenic-global-warming-is.html

The gist:

Take the average temperature over the last 150 years, and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions over the same period. Do a regression on each and look at the residuals. They are very robustly correlated with CO2 emissions leading the temperature increase.

That pretty much settles it for me.

Climate science is SOOOO simple!

Probably not, but that is supposed to be the predicted main driver – and the majority of the experts seem to agree since a few years back. And the alternatives are starting to be excluded; I believe I saw a press release on a paper ruling out solar variation this week, and with the current trend it is likely it will stand up.

So if the temperature is increasing, CO2 is increasing, the other hypothesized climate drivers looks to be excluded, the majority of the experts have voted with their feet, and as a consequence international climate organizations as well, one has to be slightly skeptic about the rationale behind people claiming that the jury is still out. It is in, and now we have to face the consequences, whether we like it or not.

[Not that there isn't likely to be other mechanisms around, IIRC another press release claimed to see an older trend in climate concurrent with agrarian cultures, perhaps due to CO2 and methane release with changed land use. I assume there is plenty of leeway in CO2 trends, as it naturally should go down late in a glacial interstitial, i.e. right about now.]