'Experts' usually do get things wrong in the end.
So you know better than the experts?
Do tell how your opinion is better than climate scientists.
Most times the 'experts' do not see the wood for the trees.
And remember; now that the climate-change juggernaut is underway, scientists have a vested interest in trying to prove that man-made climate change exists. They get a large proportion of their research funds from bodies which have an interest in maintaining this myth (eg governments, insulation manufactureres, turbine manufacturers etc).
Also remember that scientists are only human - they can accept data which accords with their pre-determined ideas, but reject that which doesn't.
So you've got no real evidence, just opinion.
It is a frequent criticism of the sector, that they are often looking for a certain result. However, it is built up of thousands of scientists. If even 10% or 5% of them were able to show otherwise, they would access to the data, and we would see an alternative view, but we don't.
The only objections to AGW is by those with little understanding of the science, and those with a vested interest in opposing it.
I have witnessed many debates on line on this, and nearly always, the sceptics come off as the ones manipulating the data to fit the agenda, and not the other way around.
We may find one that the science says the opposite, but right now, we have to deal with the evidence at hand, and this suggests that we are affecting the climate (of course we are not the only driver for climate change), and that the change is far faster than nature would normally cause.
We know this from not just records of our weather, and recent atmospheric monitoring, but a whole range of studies looking at core samples from around the world, and ecological studies.
As someone who live close to sea level, this is a subject that is important.
