i'm actually curious to see if there are scientists that find themselves in the middle position; ie there is some effect, but it's not going to cause the earth to melt down in 20 years, and the solutions do not involve de-industrialization.The sceptics aren't trying to argue that man's influence doesn't exist, just that the claims by the AGW proponents are so full of holes that they need to be examined in greater depth before we make policies that will drastically effect economies.
We need to have confidence that:
a. the problem is real, and
b. the solutions offered will be effective
i notice within the AGW community it's already split; ie the types whom think that being more efficient and new technologies will be enough, vs the types whom think nothing less than stripping back "consumerism" and industrialization will do (and view the first group as "lazy environmentalists").