I would like to respectfully disagree. The scientific evidence is in (Of course, there will always be "scientists of the Pat Robertson University mold" that disagree). Overall though, the vast majority of the reputable scientific community is in agreement on climate change.
I have included a scientific paper below that explains the relationship between CO2 and global temperatures. It does include information that is in line with what you were saying about CO2 lagging temperature change, but it also explains the effects that increased CO2 has on surface temperatures. Notice that the article is cited with references from "Nature" and "Science" publications. These publications are utilized by universities the world over. These are reputable sources of information. Unfortunately, your facts are misleading and wrong. Please see article below:
Past changes in CO2 and temperature can illuminate the potential future effect of continuing CO2 rise on global mean temperatures. Data from Antarctic ice cores have provided records of surface air temperature and inferred global CO2 concentrations back to about 740,000 years ago. Surface air temperatures based on the H and O isotopic composition of ice have varied by about 8-12°C on orbital timescales (10,0000 to 100,000 years); the longest current records indicate eight glacial-interglacial cycles back to about 740 ka (kiloyears B.P.). Associated with these cycles are ~80-120 ppmv changes in CO2 concentrations based on measurements of trapped air bubbles. The most rapid changes occurred in less than 10,000 years at glacial terminations, termed Terminations 1-8 at ca. 15, 130, 240, 325, 420, 515, 625, and 730 ka, respectively. These sharp Terminations provide an important test of potential relationships between Antarctic air temperature and global CO2 concentrations. However, determination of lead-lag relationships is complicated by the fact that air diffuses in compacting snow long after the snow is deposited, leading to significant age differences between air and ice at a given level in an ice core. The so-called gas age - ice age difference ranges from about 500 to 6000 years, depending on snow accumulation and compaction rates, with uncertainty on the order of 1000 years. Specifically, this complicates determining the timing of air temperature increase and CO2 rise because the former is derived from measurements on ice and the latter from trapped air. After constraining the gas age - ice age difference several studies have determined that initial Antarctic air temperature increase preceded CO2 rise on glacial terminations, typically by about 600 to 3000 years. One study used the δ40Αr isotopic temperature proxy, measured on the same air samples as CO2, and found a lead of 800+200 years at Termination 3. These observations suggest that CO2 rise did not trigger temperature increase. However, these same studies show that approximately 80% of deglacial warming was synchronous with CO2 rise. Furthermore, sensitivity studies indicate that the magnitude of deglacial warming in response to orbital insolation changes requires substantial feedback from greenhouse gases. Scaling these results to make predictions about the next century is difficult, but past climate change is consistent with CO2 exerting a strong positive feedback on surface temperature.
References
Caillon, N., J.P. Severinghaus, J. Jouzel, J-M Barnola, J. Kang, and V.Y. Lipenkov, 2003, Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III: Science, v. 299/5613, p. 1728-1731.
Lüthi, D., M. Le Floch, B. Bereiter, T. Blunier, J-M Barnola, U. Siegenthaler, D. Raynaud, J. Jouzel, H. Fischer, K. Kawamura, and T.F. Stocker, 2008, High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000800,000 years before present: Nature, v. 453, p. 379-382.
Monnin, E., A. Indermühle, A. Dällenbach, J. Flückiger, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D. Raynaud, and J-M Barnola, 2001, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination: Science, v. 291/5501, p. 112-114.
Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J-M. Barnola, I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delaygue, M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, C., L. Pépin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard, 1999, Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420 000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica: Nature, v. 399, p. 429-436.
Ruddiman, W., 2001, Earth's Climate: Past and Future: W.H Freeman and Co., New York, 465 p.
Siegenthaler, U., T.F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D. Lüthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J-M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte, and J. Jouzel, 2005, Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene: Science, v. 310, p. 1313-1317.
As you can see from the article above, when glaciers melt, CO2 rises. When CO2 levels rise, there is a positive feedback in surface temperatures. Therefore, we should be trying to reduce CO2 to combat rising temperatures. CO2 may not be the sole trigger, but it and other greenhouse gases are working together to create climate change. There are many greenhouse gases that contribute to our current climate change problem. CO2 is not in itself a trigger for global warming. It does however lead to conclusions about what our future climate conditions will be and serve as a warning. So, since temperature rises synchronously with levels of CO2, it stands to reason that reducing CO2 will help reduce global temperatures (I'm hoping at the very least, you do understand the major catastrophic problems that an average rise in the Earth's temperature would cause).
Your statement on the temperature peak of 1998 is also misguided. A one year spike does not prove or disprove climate change. What is to be looked at is the trend of temperatures over a period of time, not one year. If you look at the decade by decade average since the middle part of last century, you will see that global averages have increased each decade. This is synchronous with the industrial revolution of post WWII countries. Of course there might be one year where the temperature spikes or dips. That proves nothing.
I think your last statement sums up the problem with your understanding of this important issue. You view scientific evidence as "boring rhetoric". I am guessing that you will view the above scientific article as "boring rhetoric" also.
So, in closing, don't believe me. You don't know me. You shouldn't believe me. Instead, take the time to track down the references from the given information above. In short, educate yourself.
