A documentary that was shown a few weeks ago, claimed that a rise in CO2 follows a rise in temperature. The Birkenstock people with woolen socks, round glasses and accusing fingers claim the opposite: a rise in CO2 causes temperature to go up.

Is there a definite answer about who is right? Or are we supposed to stick our heads into the sand and follow the pack?

@ Frank Lee

We agree on the first part (of your statement), and disagree on the second.

1) Sure, politicians who are 'courting' popularity by preaching to current media fads are usually not held accountable afterwards for having 'danced with the wolves'.  Because those same politicians are often quite capable of 'turning' in time with the wolves as the fads fade and change over time.  Those of us who are old enough to remember the popularity of the nonsense from the 'Club of Rome' a few decades ago, will understand what I am talking about.  

Newt Gingrich is like Hillary Clinton.  They are both smart politicians with high 'negatives', i.e. a high percentage of potential voters say they could not vote for them "under any circumstances".  Gingrich's campaign must be seen in that light: he is working to reduce the 'negatives' (in opinion polls), in order to improve his chances to get his party's nomination in the primaries.    

Nevertheless, his market-friendly approach to real and imagined environmental problems is preferable to the big-government Gore-approach. 
 
2) It is doubtful that environmentalists have "engendered much human suffering by slowing economic development".  I think that IN GENERAL they have had a big impact on the composition of GDP rather than on the growth of GDP in developed countries.   While they might have slowed income-growth somewhat for many (not "engendered suffering") they almost certainly have "relieved suffering" of some (not the many) in manifest cases of market failure.   

The possibility of environmentalists engendering human suffering is much higher in poor underdeveloped countries.   But, it is precisely for that reason that they generally have little influence in those countries.  

The most likely way in which western environmentalists "engender human suffering" in poor countries is often through their support for western protectionism and undermining of 'free trade'.   But they are then usually not acting under their environmentalist-hats, but rather under their naive-left-followers-hats.            

The Guardian appears to be a bit anal when it comes to linking to the article in question. For those having difficulty finding it, try

environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2053447,00.html

The observant reader will note well that in that article, by science correspondent Alok Jha, there is no questioning whatsoever of the reality of global warming. The problem is the global warming itself: implicit in the argument is that trees above a certain latitude act as heat sinks when CO2 emissions rise. In other words, it's the emissions, not the trees, that are the problem.

One might further note that the two scientists behind the report state that "chopping down trees outside the tropics was not a good idea", and that "[trees] provide natural habitat to plants and animals, preserve the biodiversity, produce economically valuable timber and firewood, protect watersheds and indirectly prevent ocean acidification." Alternatives to planting trees in northerly climes are suggested; nowhere is CO2 disregarded as a problem.

Isn't it about time that Brussels Journal stops giving sly selective quotes that support what appears to be its own slant on global warming, whilst omitting parts of the same articles quoted that go against it? An incomplete citation with a dead link to the original - like to one above - is a form of baiting the reader, sidestepping at the same time the actual issue.

American politicians with presidential ambitions know how to read the electorate, which has been fed apocalyptic rhetoric.  And no one will hold them accountable later if their alarmism proves to be unwarranted, because environmentalists are always on the side of the angels regardless of how much human suffering they engender by slowing economic development.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041001457.html?hpid=topnews

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read."

Of course some brusselsjournal adicts need a little longer. I would say "take your time" if it wasn't that urgent.

The science is sound. The same is true for icepack vs. open water. The icepack reflects the sunlight and the trees and water absorb it.