While you say: "I responded that based on my assessment, this is not good evidence to support a claim that climate change (e.g. global warming) is 'real' and is human caused, and I specifically laid out why.
That's it. That was the point."
I don't dispute that this particular piece of "evidence" might be problematic. I'm not prepared to invest the time to make an independent determination one way or the other, frankly. You have, and I have no reason to doubt that you've raised valid issues.
I do have some issues with your apparent dismissal of expert consensus. I think "an argumentum ad populum" is mislabeling. When the people who hold the opinion are experts in the field, and the overwhelming majority of them say the same thing, choosing to dismiss that as some sort of mob delusion seems wrong.
The vast majority of experts tell me the Earth is an oblate sphere. There are some people who claim it's flat. Do I dismiss those experts? Or, perhaps more to my point, do you?
As I said: there are times in history, both recent and not so recent, when the consensus of experts has been incorrect. Groupthink is real, political pressure is real, lazy thinking is real, and even fallacious understanding of reality is real.
That said, I do not believe that I, while perhaps a skilled technologist, have the expertise to form a judgement contrary to that of literally thousands of experts here.
Do you?
Or are you simply attempting to ensure that when evidence is presented, it is immaculate?
You then say "As for the consequences being dire, we'll see". That also suggests to me that you do doubt the expert consensus? Of course, literally, you're right: the predicted outcomes are only predictions, and the climate is a massive complex system. The only way to be sure is to wait and see what happens.
The Michael Crichton link is 3:32 long. Would you be willing to summarize his point before I wade through that?