as you well know, I am firmly on the fence about anthropogenic influence in climate change / global warming. Or perhaps not firmly on the fence, as my best estimate is there's about an 80% probability of significant human influence on climate (based very simply on my own personal observation that about 80% of the smart people I know who hold an opinion believe the AGW hypothesis).
Another way to phrase this is that as a first best guess, I can say that human activity accounts for up to about 80% of the observed change in global temperatures. My own explorations of climate data leads me to believe the importance of human activity in changing climate is probably less than that; if I compare my own naïve "prediction" of global temperature anomaly from late 2014 to that of any of the IPCC reports, actual temperature fluctuations have (so far) been much better "predicted" by me, which leads me to believe that other (natural) factors are (much?) more important than human influence, explaining most of the variability.
I don't ask you or anyone to accept my conclusion, and I don't really want to argue about it (that's not the point of the thread), rather I have what I perceive to be a more important question...
Let's imagine an ideal world in which everyone (all countries) jumps on board to reduce emissions and live up to any other Paris Accord commitments and any other measures deemed necessary to slow and reverse anthropogenic climate effects. What if we've got the importance of anthropogenic effects completely wrong, and natural forcings dominate and continue to drive temperatures up, resulting in the same effects we are hoping to avoid by reducing emissions? What then?
I think this is the more important question; I think we need to be prepared for the possibility (likelihood) of continued temperature rise (and other associated phenomena and effects) irrespective of whether we act to prevent it, since there is at least some possibility that nothing we will do will help.
This isn't an argument in favour of doing nothing (since doing something may help), rather this is an argument in favour of being prepared to react to continued warming regardless, which is, I think, the much more important part of the discussion, but is hidden well beyond much of the public "debate."
What say you?