Just a brief observation:
AGW is NOT a theory, but a hypothesis. In order to be a theory of anything requires proof. The evidence used for AGW has not yet provided that proof (albeit in the future it may).
Admittedly AGW is a reletively new hypothesis (1896 I believe) but even newer ideas have come to paper in the past 10 or 20 years that while still also only at the hypothesis stage are worth looking at. The late Dr. Rhodes-Fairbridge, a climatologist that taught some of the younger ones in New York, proposed a new solar cycle hypothesis before he passed away two years ago. Dr. Richard Mackey has picked up the torch on this new hypothesis and since his paper came out last year seems to be on track. A quick web search of just his name will allow you to download the PDF and read it for yourself.
Rodger, I suggest that if you have not read it yet that you do.
Another MAJOR factor is the climate drivers from vulcanism and the ocean. The MOA or AMO (too new for standard name?), PDO and ENSO cycles seem to be major drivers in the last 30 years. In 1991 when the IPCC first published the CO2 hypothesis they were VERY poorly known phenomena.
