I'm sorry, but climate modelling is not well understood. Henrik Svensmark's theory that the stars (and the sun, which is a star :)) are controlling the cloud coverage goes against the prevailing models, yet they are turning out to be true. See the C.L.O.U.D. project which just finished at CERN. It is interesting that this result was not mentioned anywhere on slashdot. This is exciting research, provable theories are being proven. This is science, not opinion.

Unfortunately, you are still trying to estimate what is happening 40-100 years in the future, and we fall straight back into chaos theory and the same problems as weather forecasting.

And once upon a time all scientists knew that the earth was flat. Just because there is a consensus doesn't mean that they are right. I think people are being sceptical because we're just not seeing the evidence of what they are proposing. So far, none of the climatologists predictions have come true. Al Gore himself has bought San Fransisco-bay area real-estate that would be washed away if his own predictions were true.

Even if there are a million scientists that claim that the air is full of little invisible fairies that push the clouds around, if they are scientists, they should listen when someone puts forward proof that this is not the case. There are scientists (Henrik Svensmark, for example) that have alternative theories to why there is global warming and who actually have experiments that confirm their theories.

I think one of the main reasons why people are sceptical to this research is that it is a field where we suck. We suck at predicting weather. We suck at it because it is too hard. If you've studied just a little bit of chaos theory you know that it is impossible to forecast weather for more than a very limited time. So all one can say about it is possibly general and broad statements about how it's going to be in the far future and even then just a slight change in the model or the data you're basing your calculations on and that all changes.