Good luck with your position is all. I think it's naive to take either side in an argument as complex as this. As I said I have been researching it for 6 years and am still no closer than when I started.
In my previous posts I explained what I thought was wrong with the Warmists argument that CO2 was the cause of warming. You answered with a ocean temp graph. We are talking about climate not water!
In another post I showed how the temperature and CO2 rise was not the same for the past 17 1/2 years. Their models did not show that at all. You responded with a canned quote from a website stating how data could be manipulated. Of course data can be manipulated, that's why it's hard to get any definitive answers out of either side! I even said statistics can be presented any way you want to make either side look bad.
You then washed your hands of @dorton for mentioning the sun. The sun is MOST responsible for our climate...and our life! Don't you think it plays a little part?
Again, the earth has not warmed in the past 17 1/2 years. CO2 has risen in that time. Why? Where is proof? Why even is the earth warming at all? I know it is but why? It's not CO2. The side you picked is making stuff up. The other side is making stuff up. Both sides manipulate data to suit their argument. Why? Because NEITHER SIDE HAS PROOF ON WHY THE CLIMATE DOES WHAT IT DOES. They have speculation, they have consensus but they have no proof. You mentioned skeptics having ties to right wing politics. That's true to a point. just like Warmists having ties to the left wing and green groups. Again, politics and science don't mix. I have noticed that for warmists this has become a cause, or religion. For the skeptics it is just about proving the other side wrong instead of coming up with an alternate explanation.

In any argument as complex as this I don't blindly pledge allegiance to either side. I try to understand as much as I can first and beliefs be damned. And lastly, much of the data I would like to have is behind paywalls so I get it where I can. What I showed in previous posts is what I think is most accurate based on info from both sides of the argument. Believe me, I go to Skeptical Science as much as I go to Watts up With That.
@ndcent I wish it was that simple and I wish one side or the other would quit postulating and show some real proof so we could maybe predict the short term future with some accuracy! Neither side has come close to current observations and that goes for all temperatures and pole data. Hell, the Farmer's Almanac is the closest so far! I'm pretty sure I can go out and sniff the air and wet my finger and hold it up and get as close as the climate scientists on either side so far.