I am not sure exactly which Gore graph you are referring to, but when I look at the original graphs (e.g. on NASA, GISS, or most university websites that cover the topic) I see something very different. What goes on 700 years ago is separate from what is going on today and has a very different profile. I look over 650,000 years and very broadly the two correlate extremely well. But keep in mind that the raw data does not really tell you causation. That is why I always refer to correlation. Where you get an idea of causation is from physics. We KNOW that carbon dioxide acts as a green house gas. That is pure physics and is demonstrated by looking at the atmospheres and surface temperatures of Venus, Earth and Mars. Physics tells us increasing carbon dioxide leads to increased planetary temperatures. So when we see the correlation in 650,000 years of temperature and carbon dioxide data we can pretty well imagine that we are seeing this knonw physics in action. I actually call it proof of principle when we see in action something physics tells us should happen.

Now 700 years ago, the main human contribution to carbon dioxide was deforestation. This was not trivial, but it doesn't come close to comparing what is happening now. And as I read the graphs the events of 700 years ago resolved. The current rises in carbon dioxide, with a slope that you never see in the past 650,000 years and reaching carbon dioxide levels that you have not seen in the past 650,000 years, really began around the time of the Industrial Revolution and has an inflection point to an even more dramatically unprecedented slope within the past 75 years or so. Every single graph I see shows this.

No one thinks humans are the only factor. But it does look like the correlation is with our activities. Combine the correlations and the physics and look at how human industrial activity correlates with the previously unprecedented slope of carbon dioxide increase and it is really hard to avoid the conclusion that we are causing it. I want to emphasize that there is not one single peer-reviewed scientific article that agrees with your "700 year lag" idea. Many peer-reviewed articles support the anthropogenic global warming theory. Not one refutes it. There are plenty of details that are opent to dispute. I do not think the premise behind that dumb movie about global warming leading to a localized ice age, is well accepted. But the broad outlines are completely accepted.

Again, keep in mind that even the biggest SKEPTICS (as opposed to deniers) in climatology do not dispute the basic anthropogenic global warming theory, even though the question the most catastrophic scenarios (as do I).

Let's move on to solutions. The most optimistic models give us about 10 years left to react. Let's not squander it. Let's focus on the smartest ways to change before change become beyond our control.