@ fumanchu
I was not attempting to be patronising. referring to you as less intelligent than a bunch of people with PhDs was not intended to be offensive, and I will point out that I also stated that they were more intelligent than me - these are some of the most intelligent people on the planet. I apologise if you took offence from it.
You didn't respond to my point that there are many good reasons to, even if you are undecided, act as if climate change is real, and effected by humans.
As for the video, it's quite hard to judge. If you pause it at 2:31 - you see a good screencap of their demonstrating CO2 lagging temperature. The problem is, this is a snapshot of a <5 000 year period, with a difference in temperature between warm and cold of approximately 0.15 degrees celsius. By contrast, Al Gore's full graph covered a period of about 600 000 years, and the temperature fluctuation was as high as 8 degrees celsius (14 for the most recent warming, ie the one that is presumed by many to be human caused) over the course of approximately 10 000 years.
Obviously, I would need to look into it more to be 100% sure, but it seems to me that those who made the video zoomed in on a tiny section of cherrypicked data, and attempted to use it to prove their point.
Even the original scientific papers on which that video are based seem to be cherry picked, covering only 15000 years, which had a temperature rise of approximately 0.3 degrees celsius. Again, both axes are very small compared to the full data available. The paper is available here http://www.sciencemag.org/content/299/5613/1728.short - although you will need to use a university proxy to get access. You should hopefully all be able to see the picture below, taken from the paper and showing the scale of the data.
I'm not saying that the paper is wrong, but I don't find it convincing - they need to consider more data before it is worth considering.
