[Will]

I doubt he'd be "physically sickened" by climate skeptics unless he really believed in Doomsday

Doubt away, but I believe the part that "sickened" alarikf (and myself as well) was the part where untrained and uneducated individuals attempt to dominate debate on the issue, on either side. Meaning both the people predicting the end of the world because of global warming, AND the people that are saying it has nothing to do with human impact. Both types of individuals are motivated by some kind of personal gain instead of a desire to reach the truth.

I'm skeptical of the hypothesis because a lot of data don't fit the model.

Good! That's what we have been trying to say. Your and Renegade's earlier posts seemed to imply an outright denial of the hypothesis, which would be wrong. You need more to deny it, but being skeptical is part of the game. As for a lot of data not fitting the models, sounds like you've been listening to a bit too much talk radio; it's fairly common there to take something like the "hockey stick graph" and therefore conclude that all the data in all studies are just like it. That is not the case, since I agree that that particular graph is wrong, but do not agree that it in any way disproves anthropogenic global warming.

We don't. As I pointed out in an earlier post, even direct historical measurements are uncertain due to location, changes in location, lack of coverage (especially the oceans), changes in instrumentation, land use changes, etc. etc. Note also that satellite and balloon measurements show less warming than ground stations.

I'm sorry, but we do. There are countless records dating back to the late 1800s that are very accurate in terms of temperature, specific location, and specific time. Go to any small-town historical society, and you can probably take a look at a general store owner's log book, that will contain things like how many bags of flour Mrs. Wilson bought on a particular day, a letter came in for Mr. Smith, and what the temperature reading off the thermometer on the front porch was. Also, your "confusing precision with accuracy" statement is a non sequitur, since the words are synonyms for the same thing... We have time and location data to go along with the recorded temperatures, over a fairly wide area; what more do you want? Sure, there isn't data for oceans etc, but that is not needed for looking at trends in the data. In this case, having data for a single location over a long period is much more enlightening than having data coverage for all locations at any one particular time.

Correlation is not causation. And as Gozra pointed out, it's an open question whether carbon dioxide changes preceded or actually followed temperature shifts. (All this assumes, of course, that ancient ice bubbles are as pristine as paleoclimatologists like to believe -- more uncertainty.)

Correct, correlated data does not imply causation. It suggests causation, in one direction or the other. And yes, it could be that increased temperatures somehow causes more carbon dioxide to be present in the atmosphere, but the problem is that does not make any sense. The other problem is that carbon dioxide is not the only greenhouse gas identified in the theory, so showing that in some cases the curve of carbon dioxide concentration follows after the curve in temperature is insufficient to show that carbon dioxide has no effect. You must also take into account dihydrogen monoxide gas, methane, fluorocarbons, sulfur compunds, etc. For all you know, there could be a spike in other gasses that resulted in the temperature spike, and as those subsided, CO2 rose up, and your anomaly is debunked.

And you joke about medieval SUVs, presumably as part of the argument of "hey, there have been lots of temperature fluctuations in the past, and we had nothing to do with it". We aren't denying that there are "natural" processes at work here (meaning processes that we do not control). What we are saying is that there appears to be some effect that humans have on these natural processes, and you can be skeptical about the degree of that impact, but you cannot deny it unless you present a viable (and better) alternate explanation.

I mentioned dihydrogen monoxide gas earlier... this site linky is a good example of how scientific data can be mischaracterized in the hands amateurs. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to discover exactly what this dangerous chemical is