“First … the debate about the science is over. For an ever-reducing minority, there is an ever-shrinking area of doubt in which to seek refuge. The scientific conference which we held in Exeter, where the scientific community with representatives from across the world, met in February this year concluded that there was “greater clarity and less uncertainty about the impacts of climate change across a wide range of systems, sectors and societies”.

And the second comes from the speech by the Secretary for Trade and Industry at the same meeting:

“Twenty years ago, those people who warned against global warming were considered to be eccentric — the sort of people who ate lentils and listened to the Incredible String Band. For every person who said climate change was a threat, there were a thousand who said it was scaremongering. For every company “going green”, a hundred whose mantra was “business as usual”. When Margaret Thatcher’s Chief Scientific Adviser warned her of the threat from global warming, she is alleged to have said, “Are you seriously telling me I should worry about the weather?” The Rubiks Cube of national opinion has been turned over several times since then. And all of the squares are now falling into place. As we can see today, there is a growing consensus. Between the environmental lobby, public opinion and the scientific community – and now, after Gleneagles – the world community.”

I just noticed comment 31. Your suggestion by juxtaposition is false.

So does correlation mean causation? In the high resolution ice core records, the CO2 rises happened consistently 800-1000 years AFTER the temperature rises had begun, and continued after the temperatures had stopped rising and begun to fall.

Let’s see: 800-1000 years ago we had the Medieval Warm Period. We now have had rising carbon dioxide from about the middle of the 19th Century.

Or alternatively, the bottom of the Little Ice Age was in the 17th Century and then temperatures rose 3 degrees in a couple of decades. But carbon dioxide didn’t start to rise until the mid 19th Century.

So how did carbon dioxide cause temperature rise which preceded it by at least 150 years but more likely 800-1000 years? Time traveL?

Would also add: temps going up over last century and at same time CO2 going up.

Re: #22. Yes I saw your post. Interesting the question was about agreement of temperatures, and Gavin answered about agreement of CO2 scenarios, avoiding the issue of temperatures. I know this is not rebuttal of AGW, but surely if global temperature forecasts and the instrument record have been used in defence of AGW, the can also be used in its prosecution.