Climate change is real, of that there is no doubt. The climate has fluctuated from hot periods (as we are in now) to cold periods (such as the ice age and the so called "little ice age.")
I think those are facts that we all can agree upon.
Since industrialization began there seems to be a small upward trend in temperature, but just how much humans have actively and/or passively contributed to this phenomenon remains to be seen. The main problem I have with either side of this debate is that they use computer models. A computer model will be biased based upon what the researcher is looking for, just like data can be manipulated to appear to support one side or the other.
The truth is, we don't have any basis for comparison. None. We don't know what the climate was doing 6000 years ago. We didn't have weather stations set up then, as far as I know. We can guess as to what certain aspects of the weather were doing back then based upon rocks, tree rings and such. Unfortunately the weather in one part of the world doesn't always reflect the weather in another part of the world.
My own belief is that humans have exercised some effect upon the climate, but I don't know how much and in what way. Deforestation of South American and Indonesian forests come to mind as two very large human sourced problems-but to what extent? Are the clear cut areas simply holding onto the heat or is the lack of forestation causing less CO2 to be recycled as O2? Is the "hole" in the Ozone a cyclical phenomenon, commensurate with the history of temperature fluctuation?
I don't know the answers. Both sides of the debate have some decent points-but both sides of the debate are driven by industry; and that is the inherent problem.
