You do understand that this is a no-win conversation, don't you?
Personally, I have to give a lot of weight to the fact that the overwhelming majority, 97-98% or so, of those actively professional in the field (as defined by peer-reviewed publications in the appropriate scientific journals) support AGW.
It is certainly still an evolving area -- there's a lot we don't yet understand about it. It seem far more likely that the changes will be improvements in our understanding of how AGW works, but it is logically possible that the whole thing get overturned.
It is clear that some in this thread disagree with the above. What I'd ask them for is references to peer-reviewed publication (in the appropriate journals) that is anti-AGW. There is some, but it is very much the minority view.
Absent that, as far as I can see the vociferous opposition comes mostly from True Believers -- in the US generally associated with right-wing politics -- and no amount of discussion will sway a True Believer.