I had tried to figure out where I sat on AGW spectrum. I'm an agnostic on most things that cause internet flame wars, including this one.
Most probably had assumed that when I felt things weren't adding up, I was an evil Republican troll who worked for an oil company and I hated the environment. This, of course, is hyperbolic, stupid, and illogical.
I've no doubt the Earth has warmed since 1850. I have serious doubts about the catastrophism that will befall us anyday. I have a psychological theory that the post 9/11 times have made pretty much everything dark, from TV to science fiction to the proliferation of catastrophe porn shows on The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Learning Channel and elsewhere. We've become obsessed with our own ends.
I suspect there's more then enough evidence that the world doesn't work that way.
I drew this chart for myself:
I'm a lukewarmer, closer to the 'believer' side but fairly skeptical on a lot of things . G&D stands for Gloom and Doom.
Lucia, at The Blackboard, has a post about just that.
I wrote this post to explain why certain blogs appear on my blogroll. They run a wide spectrum: from Anthony Watts who clearly falls in the skeptic range, to Dr. Pielke Sr who I suppose I'd classify as a 'Lukewarmer' to his son who is most definitely a believer, but feels the debate needs to move toward adaptation in addition to mitigation. These are people who more or less fit my views.
As an aside it wasn't always like this. I more or less took An Inconvienent Truth at face value. Katrina settled it for me then---but recent research indicates Katrina wasn't all that unusual a storm. I still think An Inconvienent Truth is a decent film and Katrina was a terrifyingly excellent wake-up call for coastal residents everywhere (and will lead to needed reforms in emergency management and the Army Corps.)
In closing, my answer is "we'll see." The pipeline warming may turn out to be real and the world will end before 2100. Or, it won't. That said, it's time we got off of petroleum and began the construction of a new energy infrastructure that involves wind, solar, hydro, and nuclear, and hydrogen fuel. Or gas from air---as the scientists at Los Alamos believe is possible.