I think you confuse correlation and causation in respect of your comment about the last 200 years.
(There are a huge range of things that might show correlation with temperatures over the last 200 years, but that doesn't mean that they caused the temperature change).

So you are still denying that CO2 increases have lagged temperature changes?

Sidicks
Sidicks you claim to have a science qualification yet judging by your replies it appears you have a very poor understanding of it.
That you have said "science doesn't work by consensus" brutally illustrates that point.
No.I'm not now and never did.See the last paragraph of post #19.If it's unclear to you, perhaps someone else will try and explain it.I've given up.
So you think that science DOES work by concensus?!!
I always thought that observation and evidence were involved!!!!
When the evidence doesn't tie up with the theory, chances are the theory is wrong.....

Sidicks
Ok, so you accept that CO2 concentrations are driven by temperature changes not the other way around.
(but increased CO2 MAY have a subsequent effect on temperature i.e. greenhouse effect (ignoring various feedback mechanisms)).
In which case, shouldn't we worry about what drove the temperature changes in the past, assess how that might change in the future, and then decide whether CO2 emissions really are a problem.
Rather than focussing on CO2 as the 'culprit'?
If the cause of the original warming chnages or reverses then reducing CO2 might make things worse not better.

Sidicks
Of course science works by consensus. Scientists have to have their research peer reviewed if they want it to be published and taken seriously. That is the cornerstone of science. Other scientists read through the research and decide if they think the experiments included were reliable and publish, or send it back and get the researcher to complete some more work.
Science also works by the weight of evidence. Why do you think there are theoretical hegemonies? How do you think researchers find out what scientific avenues are worth exploring?
If there is a critical mass of articles that provide evidence to challenge an accepted model, then the existing model is chucked out and replaced with a new one.
Science works almost entirely by consensus.
Have you seen the 'climategate' emails and how the peer review process was corrupted to prevent the publication of contrasting views?
Science works by taking a theory and testing it against the available evidence.It is difficult / impossible to prove a theory but to contradict a theory you just have to find evidence to the contrary.
Where are the research grants?Almost entirely for 'proving' man-made global warming....
There is plenty of evidence that shows that the warming predicted for the last ten years has not taken place.There is plenty of other evidence to show that CO2 lags temperature not drives temperature.

Sidicks
It was more a 'pal review' system than a peer one. A circle jerk of commited activists corrupting science to further their eco-marxist beliefs.
I think this says it all.
YouTube - Global Warming Panic explained

Well, I wouldn't say that.
But it certainly says a lot about the people who spend their time & effort producing such things, and on the people who think it says it all.