This might be a good place to ask this. My mind is mostly made up, due to the fact I believe that the energy sector has a much higher profit motive to distort the facts than the academic one, but in any case:
How is a layman to interpret this science? Heck, how are reasonably smart people who are not climatologists to interpret it? How are time-starved politicians who are responsible for the related policy to interpret it?
There are really two questions here: Do I understand the science? Do I trust the scientists?
Understanding the basic theory is not that hard--certain gases in the atmosphere trap heat; we're adding more gases so we expect more heat to get trapped; and we've confirmed that by measuring rising temps. An afternoon on Wikipedia can fill in a lot of the details.
The question of belief might be more difficult, but I think it comes down to understanding that the scientific process works largely the same across disciplines. Black holes, quantum tunnelling, and retroviruses are at least as fantastic as a warming Earth. Do you believe scientists on those subjects? So why not on the physics of the Earth's climate?
Science is not really a buffet; I think one should either accept that it works, as a process, or don't. Picking and choosing is dangerous--because what is your criteria?
Of course individual scientists can be wrong, but how do we know that? Because other scientists proved it. So it always has to come back to scientific proof. Not op-eds and blogs.
> "My mind is mostly made up, due to the fact I believe that the energy sector has a much higher profit motive to distort the facts than the academic one, but in any case:"
The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction. Oil company spending on climate science propaganda consists of a few $million here or these, and the best skeptics don't even take any of their money. The best ones are unpaid amateurs (like Steve McIntyre) or they achieved a position in academia decades ago before belief in global warming became required to advance. I suggest you read some skeptics like Steve[1] and see if you think he is as evil as Phil Jones thinks he is[2].
Moreover, the environmentalists control the institutions which create public opinion - namely the media and the universities. I'm guessing this is how your opinion was formed[3]. It's remarkable how utterly dominant cultural forces can see themselves as underdogs.
I find it interesting that you didn't cite your most pertinent claim.. namely "The "we're all gonna die" faction gets four orders of magnitude more funding each year than the global warming skeptic faction."
Further, the fact that you referred to people who believe the climate change theory as the "we're all gonna die" faction tells me squarely which camp you're in, and I'd thank you to avoid further such sneaky pre-framing of the argument if you wish for me to take your claims seriously.
The biggest skeptic propaganda organization that I know of is the Heartland Institute, which has an annual budget in the single millions. Greenpeace alone has an annual budget in the $hundred millions and there are dozens of other substantial environmentalist non-profits. The NOAA has a budget in the $billions, of which $hundreds of millions are dedicated to climate research, and that is not the only federal organization that deals with climate research. And there are other countries which have budgets allocated for this stuff. For example, all of the choicest anti-science quotes from climategate came out of the UK's University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit[1][2] and their struggle to prevent skeptics from accessing data.
I don't know that the global warming hypothesis is untrue. But I do know that our current process is not a method designed to find truth. Scientific data should be open to all humanity, and not hidden for the sake of advancing political agendas.
[1] "Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"
[2] "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone."
Read it until 1) you reach a part with a reference and follow and read the reference or 2) if no reference, google the part that confuses you.
No one ever follows the references. It's a shame. The body of a piece of work is just a small contribution of a larger body which is the referenced works.
Short answer: you don't. How would you interpret reports filled with technical jargon, and most of it has no clear-and-obvious relation to normal every-day life?
You trust the people telling you what's what, and you analyze your standards and expectations of what can happen and plan accordingly. How do you plan against something you know next-to-nothing about, or you know so little that you can barely grasp the enormity of preparing for "global warming"? That's a great question, and it'll involve plans whose scope lies well beyond what you'll be doing tonight, tomorrow, next week, or 20 years from now -- it'll involve plans that include everybody and what we'll be doing tonight, tomorrow, next week, or 20 years from now.
Indeed, but hackers are like everyone else in that they have 24 hours in a day. A higher willingness to learn yes, but climatology is not something you can just take a weekend course and hope to understand.
"everyone else" is at a disadvantage because they probably have less of that intellectual curiosity, and less time to devote it to studying things which may not interest them at all.
How is a layman to interpret this science? Heck, how are reasonably smart people who are not climatologists to interpret it? How are time-starved politicians who are responsible for the related policy to interpret it?