Don, It seems to me that you had a primary belief about Climate Change before you started your investigations; and that was disbelief. Your reading of the evidence that Climate Change is real and a threat to humanity was therefore cursory and you did not see the atmosphere in cities such as New Delhi and other large cities as any present and future danger because you were not feeling the effects of the smog or breathing the toxic air. Perhaps I could say you are like the doubting Thomas, who did not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead, but had to put his hand into the wound in Christ's side where the spear had pierced him.

The climate hysteria is best left alone if you want to remain sane. The wackjobs have won because the rest of us cannot work together. Democracy is dead because we have not had to fight for it for 70 plus years. Just like the slow but sure return to Left tyranny, there will be a return to times when we are ruled by the environment, and not human values. The environment was extremely dangerous to human life before we tamed it with cheap energy made available by fossil fuels. The wackjobs have chosen the environment over humanity. There is no going back now

There are several factors which may be indicators of global warming. Without postulating the causes, the following are some of them.
All around the world, glaciers are melting, The ice floes in the Arctic sea are diminishing year by year to the extent that the polar bears who rely on their presence are starving and their young are not surviving, The tundra in Siberia is melting and as a result the thawed out organic material is decomposing to produce methane, another greenhouse gas, higher CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the pH of the oceans to fall, resulting in the shell fish shells becoming more fragile. Warming oceans are causing a deterioration of coral reefs, the weather patterns are changing as evidenced by the movement south of the winter high pressure zone.

At present, I would discount sea level change because there has not been enough ice melted on land to make a difference. I suspect there are geological forces at work producing major effects in particular places where tectonic plates meet.

David

The ghost of climate change. I fear, you fear we all fear. The moral panic.
Climate change enters the paranormal.

The Dons of this world are actually the problem.

Dan

I suggest Don engages with the likes of Professor Kevin Anderson @KevinClimate on twitter Or another good one is Peter Kalmus @climatehuman . Both are climate scientistis, the former is also an engineer and energy specialist and previously headed up the Hadley Climate centre in the UK, the latter a climate specialist who works for NASA.

Spend 6 months debating with them and then come back and publish more articles here.

Unlike Don I'm a scientist (physical plus biological disciplines). But I suspect we share strong natural sceptical tendencies. I went through similar thought processes on global warming some 20 years ago, concerned in particular that my colleagues had caught the "galah syndrome" (the flock sticks together). I knew then that a century earlier a leading physical chemist (Arrhenius, around 1900) thought that that increasing CO2 from burning coal might influence atmospheric heat balance. But after appropriate calculations he concluded that human activities were at that time simply not adding enough CO2 to make a difference. I quizzed leading atmospheric scientists, especially about measured increases in solar radiation at earth's surface, and decided to accept that by then the huge increases in CO2 emissions could likely be having an impact. I kept an eye on monthly satellite data for upper atmosphere temperatures and saw they were rising at a pretty constant rate. But it was only about 1.6 degrees Celsius per century, which to me was of no concern. However the flood of popular alarmism and exaggeration that accompanied the data was definitely of concern. Is Don rejecting the legitimate science in reaction to the alarmism? Perhaps. Predictably people like me are dismissed with derogatory labels. “Warmist” is one; “climate denier” is a more common attempt at insult.

So, left with the prospect of continuing gentle temperature rise, what does a logical scientist like me do? Can I be sure that some of the theories that predict faster changes won’t turn out right? On balance I think calm proportionate action is appropriate. If we can stop burning fossil fuels we should. After all, they also produce other emissions that are undisputedly harmful (particulates and gases). And the predictions of a glorious future based on cheap exportable clean renewable energy? On that subject I don’t believe a word.