Junk Science & Global Warming (or is it Climate Change?)

I'm impressed that both camps in the Global Warming debate have factions that call the other side "Junk Science."  It's not constructive for either side.  Here's how it breaks down for me...

There is no doubt that 380 ppmv CO2 is high, based on measurements over several hundred thousand years, and I think it's hard to dispute that the recent trends since 1950 have been driven largely by anthropogenic sources.  Where it gets fuzzy is the conclusion that warming is driven by CO2 concentrations.

The ice core data suggest that temperature increase leads the increase of CO2 (and CH4) by several hundred years, and we've seen several cycles (ice ages too) over the last several hundred years where CO2 and temperature oscillate with a curious frequency.  If temperatures rise before CO2 mixing ratios, then we should be concerned--not so much by the amount of atmospheric CO2, but instead what happens when the temperature load dissipates.  Recent solar observations suggest we are headed into an unusual quiet period for sunspots, which indicates cooling.  If the sun is the main driver of global temperatures, and we've had ice ages where most of the CONUS was covered in mile thick glaciers, then it seems a bit over-reacting to legislate our global economy into a punishing retreat in order to ward off future warming.

Either way, I wish the intelligence of the scientists could somehow rise above the attacks, and bring about helpful, creative debate on which way the climate is going.  It seems to always come down to big business (conservatives) versus big government (liberals) fueling the fire that turns into labeling the other's arguments as junk science.

Maybe a 3rd party makes sense?

I'm Roy Obadiah and these are my rants.