Now there's a reasoned argument:-)

Heck no, ol pal.  I'd never label you any of those things.  I'd just like to know how you know the models are "BS" and who these "folks who don't understand what they're trying to explain" are...and where on gawd's green earth you got that data?  All I'm saying is that those ol pesky climate science types seem to have amassed a passel of evidence to bolster their case and what I seem to be hearing from the deniers is mostly just "neener, neener boo boo...is not...is not".  All I'm asking for...and I'm honestly willing to be persuaded...is what is the data that supports your side of the argument and where did you get it?  What's so dang hard about that?
 
 
Ooops.  I see you edited your post whilst I was typing.  Thanks for the addendum.  Fox news is your source.  Ask and ye shall receive:-)
 

Who is they?

Hmmm...the ones who point at the "worst floods in 300 years" as a proof of climate change are simply ignorant, they're not the ones to discuss with when trying to build an opinion. 
 
Yes, earth has gone (and will go) through warmer and colder cycles, and volcanos keep erupting as they've to this day. But don't you think the scientist know it, too???? 
 
If the leading scientists, and obviously the majority of all scientists, in the world tend to think global warming is caused by Homo Sapiens (to a significant extent), it takes some attitude by a average guy to say "no it ain't". It's important to understand that they have different opinions on the portions etc. This is not a on/off-question, not black'n'white. It includes lots of variyng versions and degrees.
 
Even if we cause only 50% of the warming, and the other half comes by nature, it would still be signifigant.
Or even if the change would only be one third of the worst predictions, no matter who's causing it, it would still change the life as we know it. If the change doesn't come...then it doesn't.
 
The biggest problem in the climate change debate is that handling a topic that carries so catastrophic options to  human life, is so difficult. The subject is simply too big and scary.  So, nothing, or little, will be done. 
And the discussion might include suggestions like forbidding everyday-use of private cars or limiting the use of meat ...no way! We'd rather die! ( :o)  I don't mind. It's not dying I'm afraid of. Homo Sapiens is not important. It's the wars, violence and suffering that's hard to think about..

yorolpal
 
The overwhelming majority of folks whose job it is to study this particular niche of SCIENCE say it's so. I, for one, am not equipped with the evidence to gainsay them. Again I ask you fellers..are you?

Ever consider the possibilty that if they said there was no such thing, they'd all be looking for a new job ?