Human populations do affect the weather.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020613urbanrain.html

How much do human populations affect the weather?

Healthy scepticism is not a bad thing and certainly in the climate change debate there is enough confusing 'science' on both sides for the layman to digest.

Sceptics have often been the subject of ridicule but some with good reason - it took a while for some to accept the earth was not flat.

There is no point lamenting the lot of a sceptic, it is a fact of life and happens in most debates, it is called difference of opinion and the vitriole is often present on both sides.

Malcolm you fall in to the same trap of seeing this issue through a political lens with your blithe dismissal of decades of science from all over the world with the trite comment "While there has been some fine science carried out on global warming ..."

Taking a more considered view, the US National Academies of Science recently undertook a comprehensive re-assessment of the evidence and concluded once again, that we're in strife unless we substantially reduce our emissions: http://americasclimatechoices.org/

Genuine sceptics, people who are really trying to sift and weigh the evidence, are of course critical to any public debate. But plenty of people who call themselves sceptics are simply deniers, holding to that position no matter what and refusing to actually take the time to go through the evidence. To fail to see the distinction between genuine open-minded scepticism and bloody-minded denial is a curious oversight. There are very good reasons why some who call themselves sceptics are derided. For genuine sceptics, there are some useful resources here:

Ian Enting's demolition of Ian Plimer's laughable book:
http://tinyurl.com/PlimerErrors

(How anyone could trash their academic reputation so comprehensively at the end of their career is beyond me!)

A useful Q&A seeking to address many of the sceptic concerns:
http://users.monash.edu.au/~bparris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html

Morgan, G. and McCrystal, J., (2009) Poles Apart: Beyond the Shouting, Who's Right About Climate Change?, Scribe, Melbourne.
[They use panels of advisers from both sceptics and scientists]

Sea-levels for the last couple of decades:
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

Lenton, T.M., et al. (2008) "Tipping Elements in the Earth's Climate System", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, February 12, 1786-1793. http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1786.full.pdf

Solomon, S., et al.(2009) "Irreversible Climate Change Due to Carbon Dioxide Emissions", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106, February 10, 1704-1709. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full.pdf+html

Battisti, D.S. and Naylor, R.L., (2009) "Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat", Science, Vol. 323, No. 5911, 9 January, pp. 240-244. http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22374/battisti_naylor_2009.pdf

- the last three for those fighting a culture war and are content to gamble our children's future on it! All three papers are online for free.

Loxton states: I do not think it is up to the people who accept and understand the science on climate change to continue to provide "evidence", it is out there is abundance. Yet there is still no substantive peer reviewed work, published in a reputable journal by appropriately qualified people which provides evidence to undermine AGW. Even the great target, the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been exonerated after numerous enquiries.

It is unscientific to say that the AGW hypothesis is true until such time as it is proven wrong. The onus of proof rests firmly upon the proposer of the hypothesis, not with its refutation. The warmists have failed to produce that proof , after searching for over 20 years.

It is not surprising that the University of East Anglia's climate-research unit has been alleged to have been exonerated , as the socalled 'inquiries' have all lacked impartiality, having been conducted by warmists or their sympathisers.

Scientists, once beleived that flight was impossible, because once man was more than a few feet off the ground, he would not be able to breath, hence the hot air balloon experiment.

Scientist, once beleived that motor vechiles would not be able to travel faster than around 30mph (I think this was the speed) because again humans would not be able to breath.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/07/18/97-of-scientists-do-not-believe-in-the-theory-of-catastrophic-man-made-global-warming/

To believe that science is infalliable, because it isn't. Basically science is about testing a hypothesis to see whether it is true or not. So science is constantly changing as new ideas and insight and evidence are discovered.

Not sure how many posters can advise me on this but here is my personal challenge with climate change: almost all available articles are either political, environmentally motivated, religious or dooms day conclusions.

I can't find any article or proper research made by an independent body of scientists and business people to agree on a consensus which can be convincing either way. Until then I am shamefully indifferent on the topic.
Perhaps someone from the posters can help?