[QUOTE=Hill-Shatar]
Not exactly the most stable evidence in any case. I will go to Tim Hortons tommorrow for lunch down the road, and ask random people there, and report back with my results.

However, perhaps it would be best if someone who is not somewhat biased on the subject. Perhaps you, Fiona?[/QUOTE]
I'm flattered by this invitation but I am not sure I can contribute very much.
As I said, I have no science to bring to the debate, so my take on it is different.
As is probably clear from other things I have said, I am not bedazzled by science. In many fields I believe that scientists themselves, or perhaps a rather lazy media on their behalf, claim an authority which their particular expertise does not afford them. ( I don't want to get into this debate again here, but I have given reasons for that view elsewhere). Other disciplines(eg social sciences) frequently try to adopt the methods of science inappropriately, either in the hope of making better progress, or, sadly, sometimes to make the discipline's conclusions appear more persuasive (for bad reasons or good).
The misuse of the methods or appearance of science, coupled with overstated claims or reports of the results of true science, has led to a growing scepticism. Many people in power currently seem to be fostering that scepticism for their own ends. For example the attack on various professions is an ongoing feature of UK political life. It is easy for a politician to identify errors ( which everyone makes) and to imply that it discredits a whole enterprise. The media find that a "sexy" story so it gets splashed about. The gain for the government is the undermining of an alternative locus of power and influence. The long term implications of that are not their concern.
However I cannot emphasise too strongly that scientists do have knowledge the rest of us don't have in scientific fields. There are questions which are clearly in the realm of science, and are answerable using the scientific method. There are questions which are not of that type.
So for a lay person like me the first question has to be "is this actually a scientific question, or something else". In my opinion climate change is very clearly in the scientific field. It is true that scientists do not know everything about it, and some of the uncertainties are clearly acknowledged. However the scientific method is a legitimate approach to this question
A second question has to be "who is funding the research, and why". That question does not necessarily invalidate the results, but it may indicate a need for caution in some cases. Again in the case of climate change I see no reason to be suspicious about the research or the results.
A third question the sceptic may want to look at is what evidence is there which conflicts with a particular scientific conclusion. So far as I can gather there is little evidence against climate change. Those who deny it seem to rely on the kind of argument outlined above: ie that there is doubt about the extent and significance of it. Granted. But that is not evidence against it. What you would be looking for would be ice core samples etc which do not show any increase in average temperature over a long period etc. I don't think that exists. You can deny anything, and many people do. To paraphrase Shakespeare, you can call monsters from the deep, too; but will they come?
Even if one is not persuaded by the scientific concensus, it seems to me legitimate to apply a precautionary principle in areas where the consequences are so great. So it is reasonable to accept the scientific concensus meantime, while lobbying for more extensive and different research to settle this issue, if you have reason to rationally doubt the current wisdom
I believe that many vested interests benefit from a lack of "belief" in global warming (see Von Dondu's post)
I consider that it is in the interests of the powers that be to persuade the lay person that his opinion is just as good as anyone else's; and that years of study in a particular field count for nothing. It helps people to feel good about themselves and it stops them asking awkward questions or even educating themselves. It also makes it less likely that they will defend a profession or follow a well informed leader who opposes the existing power structure.
In contrast I have no reason at all to believe that the scientists in this case have any vested interest in reaching the conclusions that they have. Nobody is entirely disinterested, but I don't see the profit for them here
In short, scepticism is fine if the information is suspect; the expertise is not relevant to the field under discussion; or there are ulterior motives. Climate change research suffers from none of these defects and I am happy to accept the scientific view.
Sorry, I've gone on at great length. Just my thoughts.