I'm not a climateologist, but I have to say that I believe that the current published science of climate change is skewed towards proving that we are to blame.
The way this works is that research money has to be justified in advance by the researcher before the research starts. So researcher A asks for money to find why the Polar Bear population is reducing. Researcher B asks for money to research how man-made global warming is affecting Polar Bear populations.
Faced with the titles of these two research projects, the politicians (who ultimatly hold the purse strings in most western states) decide that the latter one is in keeping with their green agenda so has political value as well as scientific. So, the research starts off with a biased premise, skewing the perception when the results are presented out-of-context. It's like saying that all scientists who are looking for man-made climate change agree that their research concludes it is happening. What a surprise that they have found what they were looking for. Hey, they've justified their funding. This is the IPCC to a tee, and dissenting voices are shouted down.
Now, please don't get me wrong. Climate change is happening, and we are contributing to it in many different ways. But from what I have gleened, we are at the end of an ice age, the amout of geological change is reducing, affecting the long-term carbon cycle (look it up), and the Earth may be returning to a more 'normal' (in geological time frames) tempreture after about two million years of cold. This probably would happen even if we were to stop producing carbon dioxide tomorrow. I reference the BBC series Earth Story (ep. 6) to help support this claim.
I agree that we should reduce fossil fuel use, not to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, but because they are precious resources which will never be replaced naturally in any useful (to us) timeframe.
I'll just don my asbestos coat.