FWIW, there is a HUGE problem in talking about AGW about language.

There is not simple, single theory about AGW. If we are talking “do humans produce CO2” that is a fact. If we are talking “is CO2 a greenhouse gas” that is a fact too.

Now if we are talking “what percentage of warming is human caused” then you get to discussions about sensitivity and other human activities that contribute to climate changes (local, regional and global). Things like land use changes (such as clearing forests to make way for agriculture) results in climate changes.

How to mitigate human climate impacts is also up for discussion. There are those advocating geo-engineering approaches, others trying to devise ways to pull carbon from the air and others advocating emissions caps. Those are just three approaches - there are more.

What has happened is that most members of the public have been drawn into a false binary opposition where they are told they have to choose between being a “warmer” or a “denier”. There are those like me who accept that humans are warming the planet and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that still get labeled “skeptic” because we take issue with the certainties given the state of the data, and how some parties have presented and enforced moral certainty where they lacked statistical certainty. And having pored over the CRU code, I feel a bit vindicated considering that they can’t reproduce their own previously reported results and have had to resort to coding in “fudge factors” .