The problem is that it's being presented under the "appeal to authority" fallacy, but the "facts" that have been released supporting "anthropogenic climate change" have turned out to be, at best, carefully-selected statistics. ... The IPCC climate models continue to fail to account for the 18-year hiatus in warming, with all of the 'explanations' for the hiatus being untested hypotheses with no experimental validation.
Wow, AC, you warn us about carefully selected statistics, and yet you carefully choose the most anomalously high year (1998) as your start point, then claim there is a hiatus. If you want to look at it in chunks, there was also a "hiatus" from 1950 to 1975 or so, followed by fast warming up through the early 2000's.
I'm genuinely curious, though. What do you believe we should do, or not do? Not invest in alternative energy? Solyndra was a big fat failure, but since then (as of Nov 2014), the US DOE clean energy loan program has been turning a profit. Not limit emissions for cars or businesses or power plants? Generally, limiting those things translates to increased energy efficiency, which reduces our need for energy, which saves us money in the long run.
Personally, I want energy independence, and developing clean, alternative energy (nuclear AND wind AND solar) is a too-good-to-pass-up way of accomplishing that. Reducing our impact on the climate is pretty much just a bonus.