The scientific question is actually a side issue. The issue being argued is a political one.
Politicians are using (one side) of the scientific debate as PRETEXT for a massive reconfiguring of our entire economy. And they ADMIT this massive reconfiguration will have almost NO affect on the hypothetical CO2 increase.
If you want to effect political change focus on the political fight.
I do not dispute your contention that the climate change issue is principally political at this point, bent on turning our energy-driven economy upside down. I hate sloppy science, especially when the result of that sloppy science propels an agenda.
I will not concede there is anthropogenic climate change, but I suppose I could keep my mouth shut and hope the tacticians on the right side of the argument can swing the political tide :)