“I think it is too easy to look at it as two monoliths. (i.e is there global warming? yes/no)”

This where I disagree. To me the question isn't one of whether global warming/climate change is or is not occurring, but one of whether one is at ease in fully believing the politicised science of the IPCC (and its ramifications), or mainstream science: the former having quietly altered its remit to look exclusively for anthropogenic causes, while the latter seeks to continue looking at the whole spectrum; i.e. both man-made and natural causes. From my perspective, therefore, the term denier is entirely wrong, but is still regularly used due to the ease with which it can close down debate.

*

“I will be dead before it becomes a problem, so I don't care.”

This both presupposes there is, indeed a ‘problem’ and that CO₂ reduction is actually a solution to it. That said (and though now being 64 and on the downward slope) I do actually care. Not about climate change per se, because I believe it to be predominantly natural, but at the cost (financial, social, political and environmental) to be borne by those youngsters being gulled into demanding action. As I mentioned above, one only has to look at the gilets jaunes protests in France (and the, sometimes, brutal suppression thereof) to get a flavour of what’s to come when the piper demands payment.

*

“My life is expensive enough if accepting we need to do something about it makes life more expensive then I would rather we wait to do something.

Again as mentioned above, there are some in the UK already suffering the consequences of the UK’s response to climate change, which at present has only tackled the 'low hanging fruit'. With the necessary increased reliance on renewables, this can only get worse.

*

I’ve commented on my local rag’s website that when, in the past, someone was paid to find witches, witches were usually found. Upton Sinclair was more eloquent when he said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” Both can be applied to the way in which the IPCC operates: the searching for evidence to support a preconceived narrative and the ignoring, suppressing and even the altering of counter-evidence, to protect one’s grant payments/income, in this pursuit.

Ever since Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph was comprehensively debunked by Steve McIntyre* (subsequently reinforced by the climategate revelations) I’ve been increasingly suspicious of how the IPCC operates. (Even worse has been the fawning of the BBC in their support.) We’ve had 30 years of ‘ten years to save the planet’ (actually making the latest 12 years a 20% improvement), but in reality, very little has changed. This, of course, hasn’t stopped some from blaming just about every weather event and ill (including Brexit) on climate change – which I find eerily reminiscent of early civilisations, rather than those of the 21^st century. And let’s not forget too that some entrepreneurial individuals have grown incredibly rich from fostering this belief, and the lavish subsidies being thrown at renewables.

You may be correct in believing we need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, but reinventing an inefficient and intermittent centuries-old technology is not progress. I also believe the storage part of CCS (if they can get it to work) could very well be one of those remedies worse than the illness: a real environmental catastrophe in the making (alongside the present avian slaughter from wind farms). And as I described above, the cost will not be just 'a bit of cash'.

*Am I the only one to notice that Matt Damon's character in Interstellar (the pedlar of dodgy climate data) is a scientist named Mann?

I totally agree but with some caveats:

1. Our outdated Electoral College system is how he "won".
2. His opponent received millions of more votes (see your comment above about how we live in a democracy. Really?).
3. It is clear that Russian interference helped get him elected.

Of course, there were many other factors that helped to get him elected:

1. Hillary Clinton was anointed "Queen" by the DNC and a lot of folks didn't like that. (see "Clinton Fatigue")
2. The media and most polling showed that she was going to win. This may have caused a lot of non-Trump supporters to stay home ("Why vote? I don't like Hillary. I hate Trump even more. But it doesn't matter because she is going to win so I don't have to worry about Trump being president")

Democracy does not work very well without an informed public. The US population, as a whole, is probably on the bottom of the scale of "informed". Most Canadians know more about us than our own citizens. Don't even think of asking them about Canadian Government. But you already know that.

Its also how Bush "beat" Gore.

The reality is that there aren't enough rich folks + rednecks to get a republican elected in this country.

So I am very interested in your observations. Do you think the hockey stick graph is indeed the basis upon which all of this climate “science” rests upon? And since it has been thoroughly debunked, where does that leave the global warming believers? I am really interested in a non-emotional exchange of ideas here.

The Medieval Warm Period is known to science as a time when global temperatures were appreciably warmer than today (The Little Ice Age significantly colder). Indeed, the IPCC's First Assessment Report, in 1990, offered a graphic illustrating this. However, in the mid-nineties, Dr David Deming received an email from an IPCC scientist (later identified as Dr Jonathan Overpeck) essentially saying "We have to abolish the medieval warm period." Overturning a swathe of previous scientific research, the 2001 Third Assessment Report duly obliged: the reason being Michael Mann's hockey stick graph.

"Do you think the hockey stick graph is indeed the basis upon which all of this climate “science” rests upon?"

No, but it's important to understand how it’s many shortcomings were overlooked because of the political ammunition it provided the IPCC in allowing them to promote their preferred narrative of alarmism. It's what brought 'global warming' into the mainstream, and along with it the UN inspired demands for political change to 'combat' it.

"And since it has been thoroughly debunked, where does that leave the global warming believers?"

As much as the term 'denier' has been deliberately misused, I believe one has to be careful about what one means by 'global warming believers' and the negative connotation it implies. I believe in global warming/climate change/whatever, though I also think it to be predominantly natural: a part of the cyclical variability seen over the many millions of years of Earth's existence. That, however, is not to say there's no anthropogenic component to the global atmospheric CO2 content seen today, though to suggest a minor trace gas has the ability to control Earth's climate is, to my mind at least, absurd. If it were the case, the Earth would likely have become uninhabitable those many millions of years ago.

Climate science is nothing like as straightforward as many have been led to believe, but having been fed MSM propaganda for so long, it’s hardly any wonder they have become sceptical (irony?) of challenges and challengers to it. That said, it’s still frustrating being confronted by the likes of those long-debunked 97% claims. And In explaining why they’re rubbish I sometimes wonder if I’d be better off talking to Michael Mann’s Bristlecone Pines.

Note:
Andrew Montford’s books "The Hockey Stick Illusion" and "Hiding The Decline" are well worth a read. And this podcast is also worth a listen.

So “man made global warming” I am thinking is the issue. Climate changes are cyclical as you noted, without any industrial contribution. In fact, didn’t the cooling period of the 20th century coincide with the uptick in manufacturing and driving that you would have expected the opposite?

So I am thinking it’s the “man made” part that causes disagreement?

You can't argue with propaganda so I won't even try.

Fail

At least comment on something that opposes the science you have read. To call it propaganda is more of a closed minded comment that I hoped you would not adopt.

Real science is testable and verifiable. Some “science” may be more hypothesis and less verifiable.

Hoping for an open debate.

The polite way of claiming I'm a denier?

I’m regularly at the receiving end of such comments; along with the de reguerre: 'so you believe you know more than the IPCC?'

Even having what I think of as being a reasonable general education I, of course, don't understand as much about climate-related issues as the IPCC nor, indeed, the scientists conducting the research. I do, however, have a curious mind; thus it was easy to discover the selective nature of IPCC evidence and the increasingly aggressive pursuit of those who disagreed with it (subsequently laid bare by the Climategate emails and which continues to this day). To those who question my views, I merely ask they research the issues for themselves, though I do so knowing that most are lazy, preferring instead to rely on the headlines of a compliant MSM and claiming all climate-related science not IPCC approved is propaganda. And down that road lies Lysenkoism

Note: The person/persons behind the Science of Doom website focuses on the science of climate change (not the politics) and has received recommendations from both sides of the argument. It's an excellent place to start, though I don't expect you to believe me.

The anthropogenic component today’s atmospheric CO₂ content is indeed an issue, but the primary concern is one of climate sensitivity: the temperature rise for a doubling of CO₂. As ever, the IPCC offers scenarios of doom and gloom unless radical changes are made, but research since Hansen’s testimony suggests it towards the lower end of their spectrum or perhaps even lower.

You mention the mid-twentieth century cooling period, where there was genuine concern about the possibility of an oncoming ice age. The twentieth century, however, saw three distinct climatic phases: a warming period from circa 1915 to 1945, a cooling period from circa 1945 to 1978, then a further warming period from circa 1978 to 2000. It’s easy to claim, the latter warming is a result of CO₂ emissions, but as you say it’s generally agreed that CO₂ became a factor during the 1950s; long before the re-emergence of warming. One should also consider that the rate of the late-twentieth-century warming is very similar to the early twentieth-century warming when CO₂ had no influence. And that since 2000 the rate of rise has dramatically reduced even though the global CO₂ level continues to climb.

It’s my belief the IPCC are grossly overestimating the importance of CO₂ to pursue their goal of political change to ‘combat’ its rise. The irony, however, is that the changes they want to see will, almost certainly, bring about the Armageddon they claim they are trying to avert.

Re: The hockey stick controversy
From the Wikipedia page:
More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][17] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[18] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions.

Note that the author of "The Hockey Stick Illusion" is an accountant, not someone that has a degree in global climate science.

List of organizations that have made formal statements that Global Warming is real and that humans are at least partially the cause:
[Link: climate.nasa.gov]
That URL also contains a link to international organizations that too have made the same formal statements.

That page also states that:
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. 

Numbers elsewhere substantively agree with this number.

I refuse to debate a topic that has been debated to death and where there is a massive consensus. I just don't have the time.

What's next? Should I debate the existence of ghosts? Bigfoot? The Virgin Birth?I've got better things to do.

I'd be happy to discuss the different ideas on what can be done to reverse the coming catastrophe but I fear we've already reached the tipping point

Thank you for taking the time to share this. However, I do hope you know it was all in vain. Which is why I don't bother. You will never convince someone who's mind is completely made up. "Keep an open mind" they say. Sure, but not so open that your brains fall out.

I can’t see anything but you, describing yourself.

I think djy and I are willing to look at all angles to see what we can agree with.

You will never get to the bottom of the real challenges to the hypothesis (I purposely said that) unless you read opposing views. Then you can see there are two sides to every discussion.

When any opposing view is immediately blown off as “propaganda”, you make it clear that honest dialogue is beyond your simple willingness to engage.

You can’t read a mainstream site and get anything but affirmation for the prevailing view. That is no help. Try the Science of Doom as djy mentions, so you can see that there is actually some science that does not agree. You will become more knowledgeable in the process.

Sometimes there aren't two sides. Sometimes there aren't opposing views.

Two plus two is four. There is no reason to argue otherwise. I am not going to waste my time trying to convince people of something that they should already realize is so. It's why I never argue about the existence of god. For one, you can't prove a negative, and second, I'm not going to change anybody's mind. And that's fine. I just don't really give a crap what people want to believe. Like the hurricane headed to Alabama (chalk that up to one more doozy that no other president would have uttered, much less try to defend with a Sharpie-altered map!)

Am I a climate scientist? Hell no. But I trust climate scientists. I'm not a doctor either, but I trust doctors. That's why I didn't have my accountant remove my gallbladder.