Significant mechanisms have been considered. But how anyone can say AGW is understood (or even that all mechanisms have been discovered yet!) when the Science is so stupendously inaccurate at predicting outcome is an inaccurate statement. No. AGW is not understood, barely at all in the context of the complexity and unexpected surprises we are experiencing!
Increasing understanding and observations are however, starting to make "aware" Scientists realise that many previous assertions are indeed wrong and therefore they are LOOKing for alternative possibilities and mechanisms to consider! (Like changes elsewhere in the solar system; s silly as some want it to sound! It is not silly or necessarily irrelevant when there is a whole lot of unknown out there.)
Over and above your guide of how to "be a diligent sceptic", I suggest that you make an effort yourself to read further than the popular AGW "sell lines" in abstracts of cherry picked and selectively published papers. Make and effort to delve into what is included in the specific scopes of study, methods and results to of the papers to realise for yourself, how many of the papers, or their media attention grabbing "conclusions" in themselves, are not what they are made out to be. (The 97% claim used misleadingly by so many, being a great example!)
Peer review? No comment to be made. The process it beyond broken at present! If you are involved in it, that cannot be denied.
Here's a tip with good odds. No one is about to get a Nobel Peace Prize for anything to do with Global Warming unless it is politically motivated and politically accepted. Climate change is a field so complex that no one specific discovery or finding is likely to be a keystone to the puzzle.
That Higgs Boson NPP you mentioned? NOT a great example! Despite being an immense project and discovery in itself, the prize giving part is HUGELY contested. It was a massive team effort that would not have been possible without involvement, funding and knowledge from a huge number of individuals, rather than the work of any particular knowledgeable individual which allowed the discovery.
Thanks for the pointers and thanks for the reply, but it is best you assume I come from a background and involved interest in relevant Science which spans many decades. It will make future communications more productive. Remember to keep an open mind about AGW and the possibility the various changes we see are not related to human CO2 emissions at all. (Just like I keep an open, but doubting mind, to the concept they are.)
