[mnemonicsloth]

but rather scepticism and more specifically scepticism towards individual claims... [although] I'm of the opinion that the AGW hypothesis is correct.

Hats off to you for refusing to poison the debate. I hope you'll read this question in the same spirit.

Have you given any thought to what evidence you'd have to see before changing your position?

[_delirium]

In my case, I'd be more skeptical of AGW if there were better theoretical explanations of how large changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration might not cause macroscopic climate changes. As far as I can tell, most of the debate is over the instrumental record, i.e. an argument that as an empirical fact, warming isn't happening. But we do know that CO2 concentrations have increased (I don't think those measurements are controversial), and as far as I can tell the theoretical understanding is that this ought to produce a warming effect. Are there contrary theoretical models that predict that CO2 levels could increase at magnitudes approximately around those we see and yet not produce a warming effect? (Not a rhetorical question; I'm curious if there are.)

[colah]

Thanks!

It's hard to ask for evidence in advance (and probably mildly contrary to the scientific spirit :) ), but at the very least it will have to explain lots of seemingly contrary evidence (or show flaws in _all_ those studies).

update: I should also mention that I'm fairly trusting of at least some of those studies, since I know some people involved in them and they're both smart and trustworthy... Also, I'd be very surprised if CO2 was completely innocent.

There's actually a theory going around that land use may be a contributing factor to climate change along with CO2: a forest absorbs heat differently than a crop field which is different from a city. This theory demonstrates that CO2-based AGW isn't either-or.