When I was a physicist some of the brightest and cleverest people I knew were Climate Scientists.
It's an area of immense complexity.
I wouldn't consider myself really qualified to reach a decision on the data and it always amazes me how many people seem to think they are based on reading a few articles or watching a one-hour documentary.
Consequently I reach my decision based on the people on each side.
On the pro side are the Royal Society, NASA the American Governments Environmental Protection Agency and pretty much every major scientific intstitution in the world.
On the con side is a list of individuals that nobody's ever heard of outside of this debate.
As for the 4% argument - what percentage of CFC's in the atmosphere do you think brought about the ozone hole - a damn site less than 4% I'm sure!
Let's be clear this is a conspiracy theory.
The Charge is that the worlds great Scientific communities are conspiring to defraud national governments for funding.
This is simply ludicrous - Faking the moon landings is more credible it would require fewer conspirators.
You ask what happened after the Great Global Warming Swindle - program?
Well Carl Wunch Professor of Oceanography at MIT repudiated the program
and Tim Ball who was meant to be a climatologist turned out to be a geographer who left his faculty 10 years previously.
The Cosmic ray theory that was so heavily featured in the show has since turned out to be highly unlikely
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.st m
I'm sure this won't stop the skeptics but let me ask what would it take to convince you?