Oh, yes, because a work of fiction is a better reference than peer-reviewed scientific papers.

In his talk, Gore presented a lot of data which made the "it's a cycle" argument look silly. I don't remember all the specifics, though, so you'll have to see the movie.

There was one graph showing CO2 levels over the last couple million years, sort of like the one below except that it was more up-to-date and went back farther. As you can see, yes, we are currently at a peak after tens of thousands of years of increases, which is probably where the "it's just a cycle" people get their argument. However, you'll also notice that it has shot up dramatically since the industrial revolution, to the point where CO2 levels now are significantly higher than they have ever been.

Dunno what other evidence you need, really, but Gore's talk had tons.

[UPDATE: It has come to my attention that Tim was joking, and it totally flew over my head. Sorry. Full response kept for posterity.]

Tim, I'm sorry, but those links suck. Allow me to rip them apart.

Your first link is attributed to Dow Jones and was printed in the Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones, being a major industrial company that produces copious amounts of CO2, would obviously have an interest in discrediting global warming, and The Wall Street Journal is known to have a heavy conservative bias. Of course, these two facts don't, on their own, automatically make them wrong. What qualifies the article as Grade A Bullshit is the sources, or lack thereof. The only things resembling citations that I can find on that page are the sources for the two graphs. The first graph -- which does not actually contradict global warming, but only shows that solar magnetic cycles also affect temperature -- is attributed to the "Astrophysical Journal", a journal of astronomy, not climatology. I would like to look up the paper which this graph came from to see if it actually had anything to do with global warming (doesn't look like it), but I can't, because the article does not cite the actual paper. The second graph is cited as coming from the "Marshall Institute" which, as it turns out, is a political organization, not a scientific one. This so-called "institute" employs a lobbyist for ExxonMobil as its CEO. I suspect this graph is highly doctored, especially since it contradicts every other graph of temperature over time that I've seen. If these are the best sources the Wall Street Journal can come up with, what does that tell you?

Now, the second article. The NCPA is, again, a policy organization, which says on its own web site that its "goal is to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control, solving problems by relying on the strength of the competitive, entrepreneurial private sector.". Based on that alone, what do you expect this organization's stance to be? Of course, again, the fact that they have a stated bias towards one side does not automatically make them wrong, so let's look again at their sources. Oh, what's this? Once again, they have mostly failed to cite any sources. The only citations are the graphs. The first one is attributed to The Washington Times, a newspaper that is well-known for sitting somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. The second citation is a Gallup Poll. Again, if these are the best sources the NCPA can find, it only makes me more convinced that global warming is real.

Since these articles fail to cite any sources that are both reliable and relevant, I have no reason to believe that their "facts" and numbers are any less fictional that Michael Crichton's book.

If you can find me one recent, peer-reviewed scientific paper which contains evidence that global warming is not real, please do share it.

I'd like to point out that no one has a private interest in enacting anti-emissions legislation. You cannot claim that Democrats are in this for the money.

And to address the rest of your post directly...

That's just offensive. Why would he be lying about this? At worst he's just wrong and misguided. It's only the polluters who have a reason to lie.

Our favorite anti-creationism site has some descriptions and even cites their sources!

I have not seen any claims that these measurements are inaccurate, nor can I find any on Google. Indeed, many anti-global-warming sites, such as this one, seem to cite the Vostok ice core as evidence for their cause (noting the cycles).

The large impact we've had on atmospheric CO2 levels is not debated.

Enforce the treaty. Put economic pressure on companies who release lots of carbon. They will be forced to switch to cleaner technologies (creating/strengthening the market for said cleaner technologies). It worked with CFCs and it can work with CO2.

This is obviously all true. However, at the same time, you don't have to be terribly observant to notice the increase in hurricanes lately, nor does it take much to understand that increased temperature = more energy = stronger storms. That said, I suspect they play up the hurricane issue because it's something real that people can easily relate to, whereas the real problems of global warming (increased sea levels, CO2 poisoning sea life, reduction in arable land, etc.) are much harder for the average person to grasp.

yay for anti-creationism.

WARNING: Will waste a lot of time if you want to read through the entire comic series.

Sorry for misinterpreting your post.

Yes, it is a long-term problem. Gore says we have about ten years to do something. The NCPA page actually says we have 25 years... from 1995. So, 14 years. Surprisingly similar estimates.

The thing is, if we don't start now, it's going to be much harder to do what we need to do later. This change can't happen overnight; as you've pointed out, we don't have the infrastructure. So, we need to start encouraging people to build that infrastructure now.

Hydrogen.

I'm actually not. I think a lot of environmentalist positions are just silly emotional things. Like, I don't really care if we drill in the ANWR, except that it would delay the switch to alternative energy sources.

Like I said, before I saw Gore's talk I didn't really care about global warming. I'm convinced now, though, that it could create a lot of real suffering.

Although, come to think of it... it sounds like the real problems won't happen until at least 2020... and that's when AI takes over the Earth and solves all our problems for us.

Still, I think solving global warming would be a much better focus for our country than terrorism.

The World is a breathing living thing, should we protect it, YES, I am just saying that Al Gore is a fucking dip shit that will do anything for his fucking party and for money just like most of the politicians in the great land of D.C. I am also saying don't fall into the political trap of either major party.

Just like there are facts about power plants there are facts about how trees are causing global warming. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm Because of this should we go chop down trees or quit planning them? NO. I am saying we are doing the best we can... if you travel in Europe or other places in the World you will find that there are places much worse then we are at conservation of the environment. We cannot solve global warming, the Earth will do it for us with or without our "help."

The Earth is a large ball of iron with a bunch of creatures living on it. We have little to no control over it. If earthquakes happen, they happen. If hurricanes happen, they happen. We cannot control nature. We can protect the Earth by doing what we think is right, which we do a OK job at. Earth will correct itself, violently if necessary... we have gone through a few ice ages in the past as well as switching of poles... it will survive, we just might not.

Al Gore is just a tool to get a slanted message out.
He also invented the Internet... Just like I invented cheetos.... mmm cheetos

It was a joke actually...

What he said on CNN's March 9, 1999 'Late Edition':

"Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."