We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
We know we are burning massive amounts of fossil fuel.
We know that generates CO2.
We know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 corresponds to what we've burned.
We also know that there is a general trend in warming that matches.

It is totally unreasonable in the face of these facts to believe mankind can't be influencing climate. That is nothing more than wishful thinking to avoid responsibility for our actions akin to the welfare mom mindset. It is quite reasonable to be skeptical of the results of any particular model and the correct way to justify that skepticism is to build and test a better model. Poo pooing models in general is a sign of technical incompetance because there is no other way to predict the impact of increasing CO2 levels. Ignoring the trend of numerous independent models is unscientific as is ignoring that many warming trends are actually proceeding faster than predicted. That is quite contradictory to the fallonius arguement that models are rigged to scare people.

It's not that complicated to understand why many people regard anti-warming scientists who use those types of silly arguements as the equivalent of those that denied the link between smoking and cancer. We have a causal link in this case as well as statistics not statistics alone. Any scientist who uses a seriously flawed arguement deserves to have his objectivity questioned. Give me a scientist with data for a counterbalancing trend who will willingly blast nonsensical claims by those against global warming theory and I'll listen. Yammering about models in general instantly stamps the label crackpot or payed stooge across the name of anyone using that line IMO. It bears a remarkable resemblence to those that deny evolution in that people who doubt it know next to nothing about the evidence yet think it's obviously flawed.

Off course it would help if real global warming climatologists were the leading face for global warming research instead of a bafoon like Gore. However, challenging Gore's mistakes rather than real research as a means of denying global warming in total is another sign of a nontechnical arguement. Challenge Gore all you want as an incompetant spokesman, but challenge the theory against the research of people who are actually doing the work.

Above all else you can't claim statistical anomalie as the reason for recent warming yet somehow expect models to predict every bump and dip in the warming trend or claim they include so many variables they can fit any curve and whine that there is yet another variable they don't include at the same time. These kinds of contradictory claims indicate underlying bias rather than an objective scientific evaluation.

Regards,
Mark