[Question] What are the best resources for examining the evidence for anthropogenic climate change?

A while back I was re­search­ing the ev­i­dence for evolu­tion. It’s not that I didn’t ini­tially be­lieve in evolu­tion or un­der­stand nat­u­ral se­lec­tion, but it’s just that I didn’t re­ally un­der­stand the full breadth of the ev­i­dence and pre­dic­tions that the the­ory makes. Be­fore, I had a ten­dency to sim­ply as­sert that “the ev­i­dence is over­whelming” in dis­cus­sions with­out re­ally go­ing into de­tail.

When I be­gan re­search­ing ev­i­dence, I had a few choices. I could just read ba­sic sur­face ar­gu­ments that I found on the in­ter­net, such as this ar­ti­cle from Khan academy or the Wikipe­dia page. While these re­sources are valuable, they aren’t very com­pre­hen­sive, and don’t ap­pear like they’d con­vince a hard-nosed skep­tic. There are pop­u­lar books, such as Jerry A. Coyne’s Why Evolu­tion Is True and Richard Dawk­ins’ The Great­est Show on Earth. The last two sources left me feel­ing like I still wasn’t get­ting the full story, since they as­sumed a be­gin­ner back­ground in philos­o­phy and sci­ence, and weren’t as nu­anced as I wanted them to be (al­though I did not read both of them cover to cover).

Even­tu­ally I stum­bled across 29+ Ev­i­dences for Macroevolu­tion: The Scien­tific Case for Com­mon Des­cent by Dou­glas Theobald, which ex­ceeded my ex­pec­ta­tions, and satis­fied my de­sire to un­der­stand the ev­i­dence for com­mon de­scent. While this last work does not as­sume the reader is a pro­fes­sional biol­o­gist, it also doesn’t shy away from pre­sent­ing spe­cific tech­ni­cal ev­i­dences and the con­text they play in mod­ern biol­ogy.

I won­der whether there is a similar pub­li­ca­tion which can satisfy my de­sire to un­der­stand an­thro­pogen­tic cli­mate change. My prior is that cli­mate change is real, and pri­mar­ily caused by hu­man ac­tivity. I be­lieve this be­cause I gen­er­ally side with the sci­en­tific con­sen­sus, and most in­tel­li­gent peo­ple I know be­lieve it. How­ever, I am a lit­tle em­bar­rassed from the fact that I couldn’t re­ally con­vinc­ingly ar­gue with a skep­tic. I imag­ine a highly ed­u­cated cli­mate change skep­tic like Roy Spencer could ar­gue cir­cles around me, which is never a good sign.

In light of the pre­vi­ous dis­cus­sion, what are the best re­sources for un­der­stand­ing the full breadth of ev­i­dence for an­thro­pogenic cli­mate change?