The Global Warming Theory is not mine. It does have an impact on my life and life style. Since it does, I want to know more about it. I do not have a political agenda, nor a scientific axe to grind. I just don't care to pay excessive taxes for no good reason.
Think of it this way, How many anomalies can a theory not predict before it is justified to question the theory? I did not make the predictions.
First, the Antarctic is not warming as predicted by the theory. That may be due to ozone depletion. If it is due to ozone depletion, then ozone depletion would appear to be a means of controlling the rate of global warming. If that is the case, why stop using chlorofluorocarbons if they help regulate climate? In actuality, ozone depletion does not appear to be the primary cause of the Antarctic not warming as planned, the conductive impact of Carbon Dioxide and Carbonic Acid in temperatures at and below -20 degrees Centigrade appear to be the cause of the Antarctic not warming. That would be a flaw in the Global Warming theory.
Second, the basis for the Global Warming Theory as currently understood, is based on the work of James Hansen's studies of the planet Venus where He described the isothermal nature of Venus' atmosphere as being due to a runaway Greenhouse Effect. In actuality, it appears that Venus' surface to atmosphere thermal boundary is in effect iso-conductive. That is a major flaw if it is indeed true. Dr. Hansen's predictions of Global Warming are much greater than those of his contemporaries. It appears, Dr. Hansen is wrong.
Third, the radiant model for CO2 forcing is based on a simple up/down two-dimensional relationship. If conductive impacts are neglected, that model is wrong.
Don't take this in a bad way, but Global Warming Theory is inadequate for predicting future climate. Time to start over.
Update: Since the Climategate 2.0 Emails, I changed my mind a little, I am picking on Real Climate a touch :)