>Are the reasons for your denial listed here : https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
>If they are then I'd be interested to know which ones you believe ?
>
>You really got me interested in examining this issue again. Your link was very interesting. Of course, there is never one single correct explanation for anything, so did a little GOOGling the topic. Of course, since I happen to believe that "climate change" is mostly a political tool, I am including links that support my own POV.
>
>I hope that you don't mind.
>
>http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/252989-climate-change-seven-indisputable-facts
Victor has already pointed out the Smith has received $600k from vested interests.

>https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3
No clues in this article (or indeed on the entire site) as to who is making these statements.

>http://www.rense.com/general88/climchn.htm

From the Sydney Morning Herald:
"One author of the critique was the retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter. Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector"

>Food for thought, no?

Not from these. So do you not believe that >90% of scientists are convinced human activity is causing global warming - or that all of them are part of some vast conspiracy (and, if so, to what end) ?