Trying to make sense of global warming from one's personal experience is like asking a single private in the trenches how a war is progressing. Then again, can you trust what the generals are saying? In some questions, proof positive must wait until events play themselves out, after which it will be too late to do anything about it.

In cases like this, we have to rely on the consensus of specialists in the field, a process which will always be attacked by some as "argument from authority". The distinguishing characteristic of this particular debate is its entanglement with political ideologies. Those who deny human-caused global warming will be accused as being selfish defenders of policies which are designed primarily to benefit them financially. They, in turn, claim those who promote the idea as being influenced by cultural or political prejudices against them as well as academic fashion, funding biases and careerism.

For those of us not qualified to evaluate the research, we have to rely on our instincts and common sense. My own response is

1) Is the hypothesis reasonable, or can it be dismissed out of hand?
2) Err on the side of caution
3) Trust the experts
4) Follow the money