首先,让我先与免责声明:这个答案我不否认气候变化。从我读了什么,怀疑论者的大部分不声称另一种解释最近的变暖。他们的论点(不是我的)四倍:1。最近变暖不存在,是自然的,或者只是噪音。小一半程度变暖我们已经看到在过去的40年里是一个微小的波动在过去所发生的巨大变化。2。气候变化是一个自然的发生。大量自然气候改变了历史,比小一半程度变暖我们已经看到在过去的40年。3所示。预测天气十天后是徒劳的。 Predicting climate is worse than a fool's errand. It can't be done. 4. Even if things have warmed up in the last forty years, one thing is certain: It's not CO2. That a tiny trace gas could possibly drive the climate is laughable. 
 ----- Those are not my arguments. With regard to point #1, [![enter image description here][1]][1] Source: [World Meteorological Organization Press Release No. 976: 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes](http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html) The above image speaks for itself. The global temperature change over the last forty years is very real, and is not noise. 
 With regard to point #2, yes the climate has changed in the past, and by huge amounts. We've had everything from snowball Earth to dinosaurs roaming the Arctic. And the point is? This argument is akin to a farmer taking a trip to the Grand Canyon and upon seeing what damage nature can do decides to forgo contour plowing and other anti-erosion farming techniques. That the farmer's field might turn into a mountain or be washed out to sea several millions of years from now is irrelevant. What's relevant is that his good or bad practices have an impact on the world food supply. That nature can do far worse does not negate those bad farming practices. Bad farming practices are bad for humanity. Getting back to climate change, if higher global temperatures are bad for humanity, it doesn't matter matter one bit how close ice came to the equator or how far north dinosaurs roamed in the past. What matters is that modern humanity is sensitive to climate change, be it natural or induced by humans. 
 With regard to point #3, yes, weather becomes chaotic after ten days or so. That does not mean that climate is chaotic, and if it is, the ~ten day Lyapunov time of the weather does not mean that climate also has a ten day Lyapunov time. With regard to point #4, it is CO2. It was amusing to follow the skeptic response to Richard Muller's Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Muller was a self-proclaimed skeptic, and he was going to prove those leftist climatologists wrong. The skeptic community cheered at the start. "He's going to prove them wrong!" A funny thing happened on the way to proving them wrong: He proved them to be correct. Muller was an honest scientist in this regard. His own work caused him to switch from being a skeptic to ascribing to AGW. [1]: http://i.stack.imgur.com/7ENS6.gif