I guess I'm going to have to try and get my head round the complexities of the various climate models and their known strengths and flaws.
I can see why the anti-anthropogenic brigade might distrust certain aspects of the research - the report dealing with reconciling the issue around the apparent lack of tropospheric warming (http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm) is honest about the fact that the satellite and radiosonde data have had to be corrected in various ways.
Those ways are described, and the reasoning appears to me to be justifiable but in another life I could see myself putting phrases like 'corrected in various ways' in sarcastically-applied inverted commas.
Here's the first paragraph of the abstract of the report's Exec Summary:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human- induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies.