While I have no Ph.D. in climatology or weather prediction, meteorology or the like, I have read widely, have attended conferences by and with scientists, and believe that the data presented to us by the anthropogenic folks — those who believe that any warming is man-caused — is marred by limited cherry-picking of data, and using tainted, skewed, or unreliable data by a segment of the believers.  Those scientists who do not go along with the prevailing leftists' version of heating and CO2 are intimidated and muted and have always been so since this topic became a volleyball back-and — forth, 20 years or so.

The data are not dispositive on the side of man-made warming.  The cycles of warming and cooling have been millennial; we happen now to be in a warming phase.

There was for example considerable warming in the Middle Ages, when there were no cars, factories, or other notable "bad guys" belching out emissions now blamed for the rise in global temperatures.

As we know, India and China are by far the worst emissions offenders, and they are doing almost nothing to mitigate the output of culpables.  Instead, the "guilt" (blame) is transferred to the cleanest countries who are doing the most.  This guilt weapon appears to be quite effective.

Scientific discussion mandates an open inquiry, but those who doubt anthropogenic warming are decried and mocked and often silenced.  The loss in terms of debate is considerable.  At a recent meeting hosted by George Soros's Open Society, the moderator spoke from on high to the assembled 80 or so attendees.  She did not even brook a doubt as to the certitude of "climate change" as a man-made and intractable issue for us, the developed countries.  The evening was couched in the "doom loop" of the failing two-party system.  Republicans were ghosts in the audience, if they were there at all.  No one therefore raised a question about her assertion, so no one heard any naysaying.  She, the moderator, is a Harvard Fellow in LGBT affairs, not a climate expert at all.  In fact, she was not even an expert in the two-party system or Constitution, either.  This is, alas, typical in the Open Society.

In terms of expected rises of the mercury, temperatures are reputed to go up by approximately 3 degrees Centigrade, not much more.  Longer and more frequent growing seasons in areas heretofore not viable for growing seasons extending are the beneficiaries.  Minneapolis will see lower banks of snowbound parks.  Iceland will be greener than it has been recently.

But the true investigations using measurements from important strategic loci are now compromised.  Data are fudged and have been for some time.  Again, scientists working among leftists committed to the man-made theory are quelled and silenced, and true objective research is thus abbreviated or abandoned in some cases. 

The jury, in other words, is still out.  We need less strident defenders of the anthropogenic view, more neutral scientific inquiry and debate.  Now, to date, we have a welter of finger-pointing criers and yellers not conducive to true analyses and potential conclusions to possibly truer analysis.