No, it works, but the picture wasn't blue. Only blue has inherent cooling properties.

and soon no Dome either.

No Ruby (or Silver) Slippers required.

...a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it.

source: http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/21/agu-richard-alley-explains-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/

No, not really.

From an article that discusses the professor's presentation:

"But what do we say to people who say the lag proves current warming isn’t caused by CO2? We know that orbital changes (the Milankovitch cycles) kick off the ice ages – this was predicted 50 years before we had data (in the 1970s) to back it up. But temperature never goes far without the CO2, and vice versa, but sometimes one lags the other by about 2 centuries. And a big problem with the Milankovich cycles is that they only explain a small part of the temperature changes. The rest is when CO2 changes kick in. Alley offered the following analogy: credit card interest lags debt. By the denialist logic, because interest lags debt, then I never have to worry about interest and the credit card company can never get me. However, a simple numerical model demonstrates that interest is the bigger cause of debt (even though it lags!!). So, it’s basic physics. The orbits initially kick off the warming, but the release of CO2 then kicks in and drives it."

Read through the article, then watch the lecture. Professor Alley makes a compelling, accessible argument.

Watch the lecture.

An over 400 million year- record tend to refute the "correlation does not imply causation" rule.

The other phrase that's often bandied about also seems to have originated from the opposing side: "settled science."

It makes a great strawman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sbandrews/the_science_is_settled

Professor Richard Alley recently gave a presentation called "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History," in which he makes the case that climate models simply don't work right unless you incorporate CO2.

The key point he makes is that there is a record dating back over 400 million years that provides proof that climate is sensitive to CO2. Doubling CO2 adds 3 degrees C to global temperature.

There are multiple lines of evidence to support climate sensitivity, and additional research is filling in what gaps might have been missing, and further strengthening the argument.

There's a source that supports the position that "denialists" came up with the term "climate change:"

"Luntz advises that, “’Climate change’ is less frightening than ’global warming.’ ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge” (p. 142)."

source: http://www.ewg.org/node/8684

Frank Luntz is the Republican pollster and go-to person to craft Republican messaging.

It constantly amazes me that the people who complain about politicizing science, are the ones who are doing it the most.