I am not necessarily a denialist, though I do tend to be skeptical of most things I hear or read. I’m also not a climate scientist, so I can not understand tables and tables of data.
It appears to me that the Global Warming Skeptics make a better argument to the general public with simple, easily understood statements such as the natural variability of weather, the difficulty of differentiating correlation and causation, the over-reliance on computer models which can’t possibly take every factor that affects such a complex system as weather into consideration, and, most recently, the statement that the world has not been warming for 15 years: Global warning: We are actually heading towards a new Ice Age, claim scientists | Daily Mail Online
However, those defending AGW continually point towards a consensus among scientists, and then point me toward a bunch of scientific data that I am unable to understand, or make references to specific studies that, as I’m not a climate scientist, I’m not already aware of. A consensus, even of very smart people with good intentions, can turn out in the long run to be wrong.
I really want to believe the scientists, but the skeptics make better public arguments. Remember, I get my information from reading papers, NPR, TV news and from trying to read sites arguing both sides. I don’t read peer-reviewed journals directly. So, please convince an AGW dummy like me that the world is getting warmer and that humans are causing that to happen. (And, yes, I have read previous links on this board.)