Butcherboy, I am relieved that you are willing to concede that AGW is not an absolute truth but is 'likely'.This shows an open mind and in my mind supports the value of your opinions.
There seem to be some who regard it as 'absolute' and that 'the science is settled'.I find such exhortations not to question offensive and counter to all scientific method.
There is a great deal of science to absorb on both sides of the debate. My science background is better than average but not equal to you and Starbust. Unfortunately there is a dearth of what I regard as neutral scientific literature. The information available is polarised along political lines.
I think that like many others I am turning into a sceptic not on scientific grounds but because AGW is starting to smell like a scam. For instance; a)The ruthless bullying and suppression of debate such as the censorship of any argument hostile to AGW(eg Clive Spash).This behavior belongs to the old totalitarian regimes. If AGW proponents were confident of their position they would welcome debate. b)Political exhortation by the Prime Minister not to question as this is 'dangerous'. Questioning and community debate of all issues is usually encouraged. c)The use of the Copenhagen draft agreement to introduce an almost unrelated agenda for world government and taxation. This indicates to me that this is a political rather than scientific move. d) The adoption by one side of politics of the AGW argument to support various scarcely related agendas makes me worry that support for AGW will soon be required not for its own sake but because of the associated causes and individuals who have 'hitched a ride'. e)The propensity of the adminisrative class to need a doomsday cause (peak oil, eve of destruction, club of Rome, Y2K)makes me think these propositions are worthy of close scruitiny. f)The over reliance on the word 'international' and the involvement of the UN immediately put me on my guard.
