[smudgymcscmudge]

I’m in the same boat as the person you replied to. In the past I’ve read arguments for and against anthropogenic climate change. Both were compelling to me when I read them. I’ve come to the conclusion that I just won’t understand the climate models enough to evaluate them on my own without spending months or years studying the topic. If my opinion on climate change ever matters, I will side with the vast majority of climate scientists, but I will always have my doubts.

[xorcist]

There are no credible arguments against the fact that an increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gives a warmer climate. The physics is well known, we've seen historical evidence of how it's happened before, and it's easy to demonstrate experimentally.

We know pretty well how much hydrocarbons we burn every year, global production of both oil and other hydrocarbons are public figures. The oxidization process of hydrocarbon is high school chemistry. Anyone who went to school should be able to understand these processes.

Climate models are complicated, but they're something else. They are helpful to understand exactly how the climate changes. That may be where scientific discourse is, but very far from the public one.