What? I'm sorry, I actually have a life outside of slashdot. I work, I have a family. I spend my evenings watching my daughter while my wife works.
BUT, if you must have an answer as to why I do not completely agree with the AGW concept, here goes;
I believe in the fact that when we take X material, convert it to energy, and in turn it releases Y byproduct, effectively introducing something outside the "norm" into the atmosphere, there will be an impact. That I agree. My argument is and will always be with scale, effect, and information reliability. When you start screaming the sky is falling, people will and do resist. Have you never heard the old adage about it being better to bring forth a solution rather than a problem?
Saying we have to cut all dependence on fossil fuels, coal, and the like is not a problem solution. It's economic collapse. Also, there is not a consensus. In science, there should rarely ever be a consensus, until all outside explanations have been exhausted.
Wikipedia has a decent list of scientists that oppose the notion of AGW negativity. So just because the majority says X does not mean there is consensus. And yes, i originally had the link included when I was posting, but slashdot string length error will not allow me to post it.