Significant mechanisms have been and continue to be considered, and AGW is understood, and that understanding continues to expand and be refined every day, as it has for decades and will continue for decades into the future. If you stay away from Rupert journalists and web-blogs for a while and start reading peer-reviewed journal articles then you may one day understand.
As I stated many a post ago I don't ever expect a single person to be swayed by what I say. Generally those who have decided to go against scientific consensus do so due to cultural, religious or political reasons. The individuals will either come around on their own or remain with their opinion.
A true skeptic reviews all the credible evidence, ie peer-reviewed articles posted in respected journals. If there was a paper produced that was so powerful as to provide solid evidence that everything we currently know if wrong then that/those scientist(s) will do doubt win a noble prize and all climate scientists will have to reconsider and review everything they know. These events are rare, but we saw this happen recently when the higgs boson particle was discovered and proven to an acceptable level, even Stephan Hawking got that one completely wrong and was completely happy to admit it and help to communicate and rewrite a very large and fundamental section of physics.
