I agree that media reporting is usually less than perfect, after all there are few issues that many of us think the media do a good job on, and even fewer where we have any special knowledge or interest.
That aside, there is significant danger of babies going out with bathwater. Al Gore and others may be running around giving us worst case scenarios, and the motives of some may be questionable, but the case cannot be dismissed purely on the basis of the irritating nature of the most prominent advocates.
I'll be honest here, I'm not a climate scientist. Nothing that has been posted on these discussions in the past has convinced me that I'm any more or less qualified to have this discussion than anyone else, and I don't think I'm qualified at all. If your motive in posting this was pure in the sense that you are looking for genuine discussion about this issue I think you've come to the wrong place. Firstly because I'm about the only vocal 'contrarian' about and I'm not a climate scientist and in no position to debate the science. Secondly, neither is anyone else that has yet contributed to these threads. Third, the vast majority of these threads are little more than the seeking of reassurance amongst those who share the same viewpoint and so the same points crop up again and again, which is why I post specific links to realclimate where I can.
So I'll give you this -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/q-a-global-warming/ - as a starting point, which links to a Q&A with John M. Wallace of the University of Washington (who according to realclimate was initially a sceptic) The second question is specifically on the link between human activities and CO
2I don't link to realclimate because they are my holy grail, the arbiter of truth and right in my universe, I'm not in a position to make judgements about what they say. I post links there because they have tackled (not a value judgement) almost every one of the usual 'this is/isn't happening because...' arguments that I've yet read.
I've also had a quick scan through this -
http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html - which is written by a meterologist at MIT, and is recommended reading by realclimate. It seems readable and clear, with this of note:
The IPCC reports are fairly candid about what we collectively know and where the uncertainties probably lie. In the first category are findings that are not in dispute, not even by les refusards:
• Concentrations of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, ozone, and nitrous oxide are increasing owing to fossil-fuel consumption and biomass burning. Carbon dioxide has increased from its pre-industrial level of about 280 parts per million (ppmv) to about 380 ppmv today, an increase of about 35 percent. From ice-core records, it is evident that present levels of CO2 exceed those experienced by the planet at any time over at least the past 650,000 years.
• Concentrations of certain anthropogenic aerosols have also increased owing to industrial activity.
• The earth’s average surface temperature has increased by about 1.2°F in the past century, with most of the increase occurring from about 1920 to 1950, and again beginning around 1975. The year 2005 was the warmest in the instrumental record.
• Sea level has risen by about 2.7 inches over the past 40 years; of this, a little over an inch occurred during the past decade.
• The annual mean geographical extent of arctic sea ice has decreased by 15 to 20 percent since satellite measurements of this began in 1978.
Now, I should note that if argument is sought there is little point anyone arguing with me. Not because my mind is made up, but because my google jedi is as strong as anyone elses', and that's about all it seems any of us here have got on this issue.
